tod
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Bren88 wrote:
A small c.4mm gap is left between the boards and they are fixed to the rafters. That site you posted, VMZinc.com, are another market leader. The following is taken from their website and is on basic structure under a zinc roof.
Clean and dry 100 to 150 mm wide, 18 or 24 mm thick softwood boarding, according to the rafter centres.
Any wood treatment products (fungicides, insecticides) must be dry and completely neutral in relation to VM ZINC®.
The roof boards are fixed perpendicular to the direction of the pitch leaving a 3 to 5 mm gap between them.
They are securely fixed to the structure.
Maximum difference in height of 1 mm between roof boards.
The deflection measured under a rigid 600 mm long straight edge cannot exceed 2 mm in all directions.
The roof board nails are countersunk in order to avoid any contact with the VM ZINC®.i thought the build up had to be boarding/deck on top of 50mm battens (for vent gap) on breather membrane on rafters.
if the board is directly on top of the rafters then there is no ventilated space open at the eaves and the breather membrane cant drain into the gutter…?
was anyone at the UDI event last night in the civic offices ? a pity there wasn’t more discussion (heckling?) from the crowd at the marketplace thing though has potential to be an interesting and entertaining way to discuss urbanism and where it should go…
@kefu wrote:
I would think there’ll definitely be an adjustment and a new application.
A lot of effort was put into getting this parcel of land together and it is NABCO, so they’re not in a great position to just sell it off to a developer.
I would think the original was a test to see how far they could go and I wouldn’t be too surprised if they have a Plan B and Plan C up their sleeves.I’m surprised how little discussion there has been on this, surely the case is that it is NOT Nabco who are actually making the application (the site is estimated at 55 million) and it is a developer who is behind them driving up the storeys and the density, in which case they’ve pretty much already sold out to the developer, and also i think the site and the local residents deserved more than “a test” as you say , the architects have only increased the hostility towards the scheme by initially proposing what they did, here’s hoping a Plan B and Plan C actually do exist….
i think the scheme definitely shows alot of potential for the two sites but not quite sure what planning gain is involved as the pitches have always been there, and its more the failing of dublin city council to maintain them which is an issue, also could it be said that the developer is only dealing with these pitches as they form part of the argument to place the tall tower there in the first place? and of course if this is “probably the best non-docklands site to do it” then why didn’t it turn up in the tall building study a few years back?
