Hello again Chris,
How fascinating to learn! Thanks for the info. I would love to hear more details about other people are doing mini-bale walls if you could share some or point me to more resources on the topic or the people who have done it.
You are absolutely right, of course, regarding the two drawbacks of bale partitions: difficulty plumbing and wiring, as well as floor space consumed. Since I had planned on these partitions from the drawing board on, I made sure that I was happy with the usable dimensions of the resulting rooms. I also ran all plumbing beneath my slab (monolithic
concrete slab-on-grade) so that none of it needs to pass through my walls, and ran all wiring through the attic. Nonetheless, both solutions still pose difficulties. Mapping out (PEX) plumbing runs so that they stick up from the foundation precisely beneath a future fixture installation leaves little room for error, and of course it will be extremely difficult to service the lines in the event of future problems. Running wires through an attic is easy enough, but my building official required each one to be fully encased in conduit, later to be covered by plaster, from where it emerges through the ceiling all the way to the fixtures at floor level. Working with the plastic conduit and recessing it into the surface of bale walls has NOT been fun.
Those drawbacks, of course, being in addition to the primary drawback I already mentioned: additional time and expense during construction.
Your proposed solution - using wood lath to create an "old style" plastered stud wall, which can be insulated for soundproofing - is a good one. I already have such lath, and have counted on using just that approach in one small area. I am with you all the way up until you wrote "studs with lath and plaster are every bit as fast as studs with drywall." Having now completed many a linear foot of bale wall with three coats of plaster, I just have a hard time supporting that statement. Plastering is difficult, and it takes a long time! I am sure that plastering over lath, which I have not yet done, will be easier on the scratch coat compared to plastering over bales, but it is still a long and costly process. As with everything in natural building, it is all about the man-hours! So, I am eager to hear you elaborate on this point. Do you perhaps know some plastering tricks that I do not? If so, please share : ) FYI, I mix my own plaster in a small rotating-drum cement mixer using river sand, chopped straw, and (for the exterior walls) soaked lime putty for a binder. Plaster for the interior wall surfaces is the same, except that I am using a 50:50 lime/clay binder featuring bagged white kaolin. I had originally planned a pure kaolin interior plaster, but after a few first-coat sections I just missed the solid feel of my lime plaster, so decided to spike my mix with half lime from now on.
Incidentally, the small section in which I plan the plaster-over-lath finish separates a bathroom from a walk-in closet (actually a roll-in closet, since I am in a wheelchair, but no matter). On the "reverse" side, since it forms only the back of a closet, I will just finish the partition with gypsum board. On the "front" side, one third of the wall will be finished with cement backer board and tiled floor to ceiling in order to form part of a
shower stall. Nothing too fancy, just plain discount white tile, but I will include the occasional unique homemade tile for accent. The remaining two thirds of that wall surface are to receive the plaster-over-lath. Recently, however, I have wondered if I might not finish this section of the wall with tiles as well, so that one wall of my bathroom would be completely tiled, wall to wall and floor to ceiling - like an accent wall - a portion of which extends into the
shower stall. Having not yet done any tiling myself, I don't know: do you think this will be considerably more difficult and/or time consuming than the plaster work it would replace?
Thank you again so much for your input!
P.S. Having read portions of your wonderful book, I can already hear you saying "monolithic concrete foundations are too
energy intensive; not a green choice!" You chose not even to discuss them in your book for just that reason. Well, for the record, I agree. In a perfect world I would have loved a tamped earth floor inside a grade beam foundation, or maybe a slate floor, and either would have worked with my passive
solar design. But the truth is that few of us in this world have the luxury of unlimited budgets, and few of us on this continent have the luxury of exemption from building code jurisdictions. Therefore we must pick and choose our battles. I was pleased to read this logic expressed in your book more than once; I find that green building authors tend to conveniently gloss over these inconvenient realities far too often. For myself, I am content in having designed a home (assuming I ever actually finish it) in South Carolina without need for air-conditioning, which I am not installing.
In this regard, there is another aspect of the green building literature that I would like to bring up. I would love to hear your take on this point, as I've not yet read your book closely enough to know your position on it. That point being that green building authors, in my opinion, spend too much time talking about embodied energy without acknowledging that the energy embodied in a building's materials is ultimately dwarfed by the energy consumed by operating that building. My understanding is that only 11% of a building's lifetime cost is represented by the construction materials. This statistic I got from The Green Architect's Lounge podcast, and I don't know where they claim to have gotten it. Now, I believe they are measuring in dollars, not joules; but in the big picture, dollar cost is often a decent approximation for energy consumption. I also believe that they are averaging together residential and commercial buildings. Still, it is an impressive statistic. As I said: I would love to hear your reaction to this observation...