BG> possibly due to a higher demand for sub-floor air circulation
BG> space due to our excessively hot and humid climate.

RS> Thats just the old style approach used when you dont have
RS> real climate control. We have funky stuff called air conditioning
RS> now. Which actually makes that approach not that viable.

KR> being an old fart, you probably haven't come across
KR> the funky concept of passive climate control,

Poor old Keef, its been extensively used here for example,
before the modern approach was used instead. And I use it extensively
myself. BUT, in ADDITION to the modern stuff, not instead of.

KR> saves scads of electricity,

Thats the theory anyway. The practical reality is that in many
areas like here, no one much uses it alone anymore, for the very
simple reason that it never gets anything like acceptible end result.
So you go the other route instead. It was a viable route when the
modern stuff wasnt available, but it aint that satisfactory at all.

I actually made extensive use of it myself, but thats only
useful when its not the extremes of summer and you have to
use the other for the hottest weather, to get viable conditions.
Tho it certainly does quite dramatically reduce the say number
of days the modern approach has to be used.

KR> up north, sub floor ventilation is one
KR> of the things that contribute to that.

Its not really that that gives the benefit, its predominantly
the extra height. When the outside temp is pas what you find
acceptible, circulating that under the floor of the raised
house doesnt really help much. What does help is to have a
structure thats got a very low thermal inertia and mount it high,
then it does follow the ambient down overnight reasonably well.

But does sweet fuck all for the daytime peak. What you want for the
daytime peak is the reverse, high thermal inertia, minimal heat inflow
thru the walls and floor and roof so the inside temp lags the outside.

KR> down south the opposite is true.

It aint that simple. And doesnt explain why nothing
remotely like 50/50 of new houses in Bris are highset.
And bugger all in the better suburbs with new houses.

BG> Indeed, the further north you go, the less frequently you'll
BG> see lowset houses, presumably for that precise reason.

RS> In the past, sure. Pity we were talking about new houses tho.

BG> In Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra though, I'll agree, most are lowset.

RS> And most new houses in Brisbane are too Bill.

KR> well the el-cheapo shit boxes put up to attract southern migrants are.

Still bullshit, the bulk of new houses in Bris arent for migrants.

--- PQWK202