> it would be negligibly more expensive and technically demanding to have high ceilings (it's free to build up)
Not true; standardized high-volume lumber dimensions make it much cheaper to build walls that are slighly less than 8 feet high. Hardware stores even sell pre-cut studs at 92 5/8" instead of 96".
The building code is another obstacle. It requires kiln-dried stamped+certified stud lumber for walls, and getting those in anything over 8 feet is a custom order (the 2x4x10s you see at your local hardware store are not certified for this). Above 11 foot ceilings the building code requires you to get an engineer to design the house and wet-stamp the plans.
I think you have to add forestry to to the costs. Lumber tree cultivars grow at fairly predictable rates and varying the dimensions of the finished lumber would mean either much reduced yield or delayed harvesting - more costs per board foot, either way. And then the trucks that transport the logs would have to be modified, and/or loads decreased, sawmill kilns and timber yard storage racks modified...
Ramifications ripple everywhere in an efficient ("optimised") system.
Even apart from path dependence, increasing the volume of a room by 25% must increase the materials cost and heating cost by some amount, if only 10%. More surface to paint, more difficulty reaching light bulbs, taller ladders to your gutters, and so on. Not free.
I find this kind of logic sufficiently compelling that I have never rented more than a single room, so I guess I was never going to agree with OP in the first place.
From what I’ve read of architecture, a variety of ceiling heights tends to help. To make a room with high ceilings more cozy, there are often alcoves with lower ceilings, for things like beds and tables. Sometimes drop ceilings will be added for part of the space to create a separation.
People in a large open restaurant with high ceilings will tend to avoid sitting in the middle.
Using churches for examples of how residential space should look isn’t very convincing. Most people wouldn’t want to live in a church.
I don't think there is an argument humans want otherwise, we want ceilings as high as possible. Multiple stories.
It is only a matter of cost. To clean, temperature, regulations, building materials, the fact it is bespoke.
An argument of height vs floor space if you acknowledged the trade off however would be interesting. Are we choosing footage when really we would prefer height.
It should be possible to hit the ceiling with a normal fly swatter. It should be possible to stand on a normal chair to change a lightbulb.
As long as those requirements are met, taller is better. Height minimizes the risk of impact with light fixtures.
That comes out to be 9 to 10.5 feet.
Note that staircases are special. People do not merely stand on each step. People leap up and down the stairs, so extra height is needed to reduce the risk of impact and a serious injury. The ceiling right at the bottom of the stairs, on the landing, is commonly far too short.
Weird not to mention acoustics. Temples, churches and venues (opera halls, in particular) needed high ceilings to carry sound before electronic amplification.
I have lived in a home with high ceilings. I find them gaudy and poor design features, unless you live alone. If you have high ceilings, particularly in open floor plans, everyone is going to hear everything all the time. Doubly true if the stair case opens up to a wide space instead of being closed off.
8 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 35.2 ms ] threadNot true; standardized high-volume lumber dimensions make it much cheaper to build walls that are slighly less than 8 feet high. Hardware stores even sell pre-cut studs at 92 5/8" instead of 96".
The building code is another obstacle. It requires kiln-dried stamped+certified stud lumber for walls, and getting those in anything over 8 feet is a custom order (the 2x4x10s you see at your local hardware store are not certified for this). Above 11 foot ceilings the building code requires you to get an engineer to design the house and wet-stamp the plans.
Ramifications ripple everywhere in an efficient ("optimised") system.
I find this kind of logic sufficiently compelling that I have never rented more than a single room, so I guess I was never going to agree with OP in the first place.
People in a large open restaurant with high ceilings will tend to avoid sitting in the middle.
Using churches for examples of how residential space should look isn’t very convincing. Most people wouldn’t want to live in a church.
It is only a matter of cost. To clean, temperature, regulations, building materials, the fact it is bespoke.
An argument of height vs floor space if you acknowledged the trade off however would be interesting. Are we choosing footage when really we would prefer height.
It should be possible to hit the ceiling with a normal fly swatter. It should be possible to stand on a normal chair to change a lightbulb.
As long as those requirements are met, taller is better. Height minimizes the risk of impact with light fixtures.
That comes out to be 9 to 10.5 feet.
Note that staircases are special. People do not merely stand on each step. People leap up and down the stairs, so extra height is needed to reduce the risk of impact and a serious injury. The ceiling right at the bottom of the stairs, on the landing, is commonly far too short.
I have lived in a home with high ceilings. I find them gaudy and poor design features, unless you live alone. If you have high ceilings, particularly in open floor plans, everyone is going to hear everything all the time. Doubly true if the stair case opens up to a wide space instead of being closed off.