<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I agree. I keep looking to have the envelope, structure, insulation, and finish as distinct items and it gets very difficult. I made a big argument for adhesive because it works for that detail and increasingly to make things work buildings are glued, screwed and impossible to get apart. I’m still trying to figure out whether to mechanically adhere an eifs project but have heard very good arguments from wjohn to equally consider the adhered system as that is what is being considered the workable approach. I’m sure that ground up foam, polymers and cement will have some market at some point – or we will be cursed for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ironically we just had a project that involved removing a small building (1960’s) so I looked at the cost of the big dumpster and thumbed excavator and then built a budget for hand demolition with each material isolated for recycling. It is easier to do than 10 years ago as there are homes for materials but still not easy. The end budget was still roughly about 20% more than the cut and slash and that cost is borne by the overall budget for the replacement building – which is how it should be. The kicker is that the building was a conventional old building nailed together with very distinct (however inefficient) layers. It made me realize I specify too many screws.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hard to know what to do but I do hope that humankind endures long enough to figure out how to recycle well and will forgive me for the glue and screw. The only really good news is that given the economy we will be building less and perhaps talking about it more.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Abrams<br><b>Sent:</b> June-06-11 8:10 AM<br><b>To:</b> greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Greenbuilding] fastening a subfloor over foam over a slab<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>John makes excellent points based on experience and well considered rationale. However, it occurs to me that there is one advantage of mechanically fastening the floor assembly, which is disassembly and reuse at some time in the future.<br><br>that is, if mankind endures beyond the tenure of the building.<br><br clear=all><b><span style='color:#006600'>Alan Abrams<br>Abrams Design Build LLC</span></b><span style='color:#006600'><br><i>A sustainable approach to beautiful space</i><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600'><br>6411 Orchard Avenue Suite 102<br>Takoma Park, MD 20912<br>office 301-270-NET- ZERO (301-270-6380) <br>fax 301-270-1466 <br>cell 202-437-8583<br><a href="mailto:alan@abramsdesignbuild.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:#3333FF'>alan@abramsdesignbuild.com</span></a></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#3333FF'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600'><a href="http://www.abramsdesignbuild.com/" target="_blank"><span style='color:#3333FF'>www.abramsdesignbuild.com</span></a></span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>