Building with Wood - Modern Wooden Towns

Building with Wood - Modern Wooden Towns Seminar on Construction in St. Petersburg Mikko Viljakainen, Arc., Lis. Tech.

Consumption of sawn softwood per capita 2004 0,30 North America 0,61 0,06 0,36 0,12 0,56 0,63 0,41 0,17 0,15 0,17 0,20 0,23 0,16 0,21 0,60 0,12 0,07 1,07 1,02 0,49 0,24 0,18 0,11 0,03 0,10 0,008 0,0006 0,02 0,05 Japan 0,36 0,20* 0,08 *Year 2002 11.4.2006 Tekijän nimi Source: FAO

Competitiveness Factors of Wood in Construction Affordable. Local material and available on sustainable basis. Long tradition of using it. The most common most experienced most cost-efficient Easy to handle and fix. Durable (LCA), Fire safe and Healthy material (indoor climate). climate). Environmentally friendly and Eco-efficient CO 2 sink Energy saving material. Only renewable building material! Wood Still Looks Good Alternative Designs of a 3 Story Office Bldg Resource Use Normalized Athena Results Energy Use Global Warming Potential Solid Waste Wood Design Steel Design Concrete Design The The AATHENA Project Project

Challenges to enhance the use of wood in construction Added value Competitiveness Remove of barriers Technical back ground and knowledge base Awareness d:\data\tekstit\esitykset\uudet esitykset\englannikieliset esitykset\challenges.ppt

KYLPYLÄ, BAD DURHEIM

Market share of timber in housing Market share of timber in housing by living area (m2) Puun osuus asuntorakentamisessa asuinpinta-alan mukaan (m2) 2000000 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 total area wood share kokonaismäärä puisia 600000 400000 200000 0 PIENTALOT RIVITALOT KERROSTALOT single-family houses row houses block of flats

Block of Flats as technical challenge Fire safety Sound insulation Stability Moisture and thermal efficiency Durability

How demand and supply meet in the construction market? HOW TO GET INVOLVED? WHAT IS NEEDED? IMPORTANTANT FACTORS IN DECISION-MAKING Market pull NEED AWARENESS, PERCEPTION Who specifies? Information, argumentation: - references, costs, environment, LCA etc. No negative qualities INTREST, MOTIVATION Who makes the choice? What are relevant arguments? Motivation, benefits: - response to individual needs. One or two positive properties Business environment KNOW-HOW PROCUREMENT Trade SUPPLY How to get what you want? Process, parties, required documents? What are alternative procurement procedures? Positioning in competition? Tradition, acceptability? Guidance, instructions: - design, procurement Documents: - call for bids, contract etc. Removal of obstacles: - performance based requirements As easy or easier than other materials Trust Equality PROFITABILITY Business opportunities? R&D support No risks COMPETENCE Added value? Routine procedures Well-defined responsibilities Technology push BUSINESS IDEA Alternative partners? Products, systems, knowledge Quality, reliability of supply

Awareness Make them see it! Have positive image!

Motivation Make the benefits visible. Give reasons to use it or - even better want it! Costs Fire safety Environmental reasons (CO2, Renewability, Energy ) Durability Indoor air quality Etc

Know how - www.puuinfo.fi All information available through internet for free. Downloadable cad and excel -tools. Publications in pdf - format. First publication always electronic.

HELP FOR DESIGNERS

Competitiveness can only be improved by competing Need for environment that supports competition of suppliers ie. a modular and compatible system independent from manufacturers. We call it Open system Freely available for all. In practise Compatible products and procedures Know-how and design tools freely available d:\data\tekstit\esitykset\st. petersburg.ppt

General principles of the structural system Load bearing wall system Light-frame construction Floor by floor -building method Different levels of prefabrication (on site, open panels, closed panels, combinations) Simple and compatible basic structures and joints (interfaces) Compatible, pre-cut standard products and components Better use of industrially produced standard products and components d:\data\tekstit\esitykset\st. petersburg.ppt

Competitiveness of multi-storey house Nykyinen ja toivottu asumismuoto 17-64 vuotiaat (Lähde: YM, asukasbarometri) Existing and desired form of living at age 17-64 (source: ministry of environment) 70 60 50 40 30 Nykyinen existing Toivottu desired 20 10 0 single-family PT blockkt of flats row RT houses

Dreams and reality

Modern Wooden Towns k:\pietari\pietari.ppt

Naantali

Helsinki, Käpylä area

Oulu, Puu-Linnanmaa

Modern wooden towns

Porvoo

Porvoo, West Bank of the Porvoo River

Tuusula, Huminakuja

Sodankylä, Old Racetrack area

Lehtovuori housing area, Helsinki

Jyväskylän maalaiskunta, Haapaniemi area

Jyväskylän maalaiskunnan Haapaniemi

Lahti Karisto

Lahti, Karisto area

Lahti Karisto

Helsinki Myllypuro

Large scale structures in Finland

Development of gross value in wood industry 1980-2003F 7 000 6 000 5 000 Mill. eur 4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Sawmilling and planing (TOL201) Manufacture of furniture (TOL361) 1988 1989 1990 Revised value with wholesaleprice index (2001=1,000)" 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Builder's carpentery and joinery (TOL203) Others (TOL202+TOL204+TOL205) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003E Source: Statistics Finland 11.8.2004/PPE

The future

Table 4-1. 4 Life Expectancies of World Reserves, Selected Mineral Commodities Life expectancy in years, at three growth rates in primary production* Growth rate 0 % 2 % 5 % Coal 216 84 49 Crude Oil 44 31 23 Natural Gas 64 41 29 Aluminium 202 81 48 Copper 28 22 18 Iron 132 65 41 [Wood] Sources: Tilton (2002); US Bureau of mines (1977); US Geological Survey (2000a); US Geological Survey (2000b); American Petroleum Institute (2000); BP Amoco (2000); International Energy Agency (2000).

The present wood programs 1. Woodworking Industrial Programme 2010 2. Wood Construction Programme 2010 3. Centre of Excellence for Wood Construction in the Baltic Sea area 4. European Wood Construction Programme

Thank You!