579,

I agree with you regarding builders' preference for lightweight construction. Many even refuse to work with treated timber, which given the problems of rot and termites, some of which have not yet arrived in Australia but could, is creating problems for the future.

Many builders only look as far as the statutory warranty period and some only until their ute leaves the site. We had a builder make a right mess of a cypress timber frame by not using covered storage and using sharp nails instead of the recommended blunts. Split timber everywhere and unauthorised pine substitutions. No effective remedy under the contract law for building of course, notwithstanding the implied 'protection' given home-owners by government regulators (who are toothless diplomats, not allowed to be proactive, which is the problem!).

There is a future for laminated timber and similar cladding/structural ply.

Belly, Turpintine was a popular timber used for bridge poles, it's also extremely hard, but quite rare these days.

Nowadays, Ironbark is up there with the hardest, but must be naturally grown and not around the coastal areas as it's too fast growing.

579, Pine also stores carbon and, once treated can also last for many decades.

It's greatest enemy is wood rot, so must be kept our of the weather.

As for waste, perhaps I could be buried.

Bamboo is another great building material, very strong, termite resistant and most likely the most renewable source of timber, although it's actually a grass.

In fact, Bamboo exhaubs 6 times the Co2 of native forest timbers, not sure about carbon storage though.

OTB, laminated timber is extremely strong and a viable alternative to many steel beams, however, the biggest problem is it can't be welded and drilling reduces it's strength.

We have used bamboo throughout our our home and it is extremely hard wearing.

Rechtub yes quite true.
As I have said here my work life only settled down to long term employment in the last 32 years of along working life.
Not unusual for a country born kid, and even less so for the eldest in a big family.
I worked in timber even before leaving school.
Was quite content to work there forever.
But a wiser father and mother sent me to Sydney.
And after running in and out of Butcher shops to collect bones and fat,the city mills for a time was my working place.
That timber along with others was white ant proof.
I can only speak about those long ago years in relation to soft woods, I cut them, stacked them, and sent them all over this country, massive amounts to Gove in the NT to build workers houses .
Oregon was starting to be replaced with another imported pine,cheaper.
We then and now produce the best flooring from an Australian Native pine.
But lets look at 579, now I admire and respect the bloke, but see standard issue block any progress words and thoughts in use.
The thought that using timber is making our forests subject to being nothing less than a mess is wrong.
Any plan that includes planting twice that taken away has to by pure maths, lead to better forests.
In NSW we are killing our forests clear felling them, introducing non Native weeds and vines and killing our country side.
No true replanting other than pine is taking place, we halt action in fear of impacts that do not exist, no one with out doubt wants to kill forests productive use combined with mandatory replanting is a way forward.
In fact it is true conservation.

Dear rehctub,

My initial reaction to "why we should be building with
timber" as you read in my first post - was that timber is
already being used extensively in house-building. I love
timber homes). It was
high-rise buildings that I had a problem with. Simply
because I not all timber is suitable for construction. Timber
rots, timber cracks, it warps, it shrinks, it's attacked by
parasites. It's affected by moisture. And the grand-daddy of
them all - it burns (imagine a multi-story timber building
on fire). Plus it takes a very long time to grow and produce.
It needs large areas for cultivation, harvesting. Razing
forests creates problems and devastates the landscape and
the environment. And the list goes on.

However, who knows what the future holds and if we can get
around these problems, it is worth looking at the potential
of timber. It does have so much potential - especially
to simplify construction by eliminating pouring delays and
enabling pre-fabrication. If we're serious about reducing
carbon emissions in the building industry - the future
may well hold timber high-rises.

As one expert pointed out:

"If we can remove the structural issues, the questions of
fire-resistance, the availability of the product, the code
restrictions and the lack of experienced labour, we
should have no reason to deny timber's place in high-rise
buildings..."

The following link is also worth a read. I think it sums
up the situation very well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/science/appeal-of-timber-high-rises-widens.html?_r=0

Belly,
I have owned a couple of timber (Jarrah) homes over the years. Jarrah is as hard as hell and none to nice to work with. Makes for beautiful furniture.
My current timber home is pine, composite and cedar planked but is built in completely different method to the Jarrah homes. Traditional style with full length verandas but it is engineered and designed to make the most of pine and it is strong, far stronger than my Jarrah homes.
Hardwoods are good but not necessary utilising modern design and techniques.
A pine log takes 30 years to mature and it makes more sense to utilise these timbers rather than destroying our slow growing native forests. Use the native timber for sure, use it wisely but make sure it is used where it fits best.
SD