No, it’s not a must. I always had the feeling that many companies use the stone because it is easier to work with and also cheaper? I tried to delve deeper into the subject and somehow came to the conclusion that every stone has advantages and disadvantages, and by now I just go by what the company does best.
No, it’s not a must. I always had the feeling that many companies use the stone because it is easier to work with and also cheaper? I tried to delve deeper into the subject and somehow came to the conclusion that every stone has advantages and disadvantages, and by now I just go by what the company does best.
I would also take whatever the shell builder does best. For me, a shell builder who only uses aerated concrete would be a deal-breaker.
I find the disadvantages of aerated concrete regarding moisture absorption very serious.
Our shell currently is very soaked. Water stands 3 cm high on the first floor. March was extremely humid; at times it was pouring down like buckets.
Fortunately, the stone dries relatively quickly. With aerated concrete, drying is much more difficult, even if you cover the walls. What happened in March was intense. The water basically came sideways, like in Forrest Gump.
I think the biggest advantages with aerated concrete are on the builders’ side. As a client, you only have disadvantages, unless you want kfw40, but even there there are other solutions.
I can only recommend: go to the construction site where different stones are used and take a look. Touch the stones, lift them, and see how wet they are.