All Decked Out And Still Can't Decide

The Great Decking Material Debate Goes On

By Stefan Fediuk, B.E.S., M Land. Arch. and Chief Editorial Director of Northscaping.com

Reprinted courtesy of www.northscaping.com

I have been following a lengthy and colorful thread on artificial decking in the Northscaping Garden Cafe discussion forum for some time now. It would appear that there is a great deal of dispute on the merits of alternatives to using wood for decking materials. Oddly enough, I am one of those people who likes the smell, feel, look and overall maintainability of a traditional wood deck. Recently, I built one for my own home, and pondered the notion of using something different. But alas, the call of wood won over my heart.

Traditionalists will always say that a wood deck is better. It offers the ability for one to stain it or paint it a certain color, or to even strip it and allow it to age naturally. The traditional materials in North America have always been cedar or pressure-treated spruce. However, the rising cost of both of these materials, along with a weathering that usually requires more annual treatment as the material ages, has driven many people to look at other options.

Also, there is the environmentally conscious aspect that many of these trees are lost and never replaced, thus it in effect becomes a non-renewable resource. Although no one is going to throw animal blood on your deck, as some would do with people who wear furs, instead there is a moral group out there who would rather see synthetic materials used for decking.

The truth is, these synthetic materials can actually be more detrimental to the environment, depending on how they are produced, if you consider air pollution from the refinement and processing of the materials, and sewage from the aqueous solution that will require disposal. And what of the jobs that are lost from the people who no longer need to be a) cutting down and shipping the lumber and b) replanting the forests?

So traditional I went - sort of!

As I was pondering the idea of the various recycled materials out on the market, I looked at the structure required and the labor necessary to install them. With synthetic materials, it would have necessitated approximately 50% more understructure, as the joists are required to be spaced at no more than 12 inches apart. With cedar or P.T. lumber, 16 inches is standard. Also, as most of these composite type deck boards are made of varying ratios of plastic and wood fiber, it became obvious that under extreme temperature conditions, these deck boards would have a tendency to warp to some degree. Further, as the color of the decking is impregnated into the compositites, should I become tired of the look I would be forced to replace the decking completely, as painting or staining would no longer be an option.

Therefore, my only option was back to wood. But what kind of wood?

I have always liked the look and feel and the natural preservative qualities of cedar, but it was too expensive an option, and if left untreated would splinter a little too readily. The other traditional wood option is P.T. lumber. But here lies another dilemma. The former CCA treated lumber was recently taken off the market due to the presence of arsenic, which is used as a preservative.

Meanwhile, the newer ACQ treated lumber has a problem of its own - it corrodes metal! At first, it was assumed that stainless steel was the optimal solution for fastening this material, but recent evidence shows that only ceramic nails and screws will not corrode. Though the lumber is somewhat cheaper than cedar, these expensive fasteners will do you in.

I was at an impasse... until a colleague of mine introduced me to a product called pedra, or specifically angelim pedra. This is wood; it is actually a kind of plantation-grown mahogany.

He brought me in a sample, and I was thoroughly amazed that it virtually had all the bells and whistles of cedar; color, natural preservative benefits, and a slight fragrance. One other factor that sold me was the fact that this is a hardwood, and the supporting structure could accommodate joists as far apart as 24 inches apart. This factor alone meant a 33% savings on the framing material. As for the fasteners, they are the same as for cedar or the former CCA treated timber, with one minor exception - the screw holes need to be pre-drilled first, as the hard wood makes it impossible to counter-sink without doing so first. This wood has very little by way of knots in it, and of the 50 boards I purchased, only one had a slight wane to it. That made the whole process of building my deck relatively painless.

It has now been three years since this deck has been installed. It has gone through two excessively moist summers, plus this year’s record breaking heat wave, one extremely cold winter where temperature dipped below -40ºC for a week, and one rather wet but mild winter. Aside from dirtiness from atmospheric pollution, and the fact that I haven’t added any preservative to it, the deck is performing better than what I would have imagined. Even with the 24 inch wide spacing, the deck boards are showing no signs of checking or warping.

Recently, a friend asked about my deck, and has since installed his own using the same pedra product. We are both very pleased with the results. True, the deck boards we more expensive than cedar, but when I totaled the bills it was only $100.00 more in total, and I have what I believe will be a longer lasting deck.

So if you are looking at building a new deck and you begin to consider the options out there, or if you are looking to resurface an old one, look around and consider all the options. Don’t forget to account for the more obscure costs as well. And be sure to take a look at our discussion forums on the subject. The experts speaking are not sales reps, but rather everyday people with their own stories of how they feel about the product they used.