[HN Gopher] Balloon framing is worse-is-better (2021)
___________________________________________________________________
Balloon framing is worse-is-better (2021)
Author : chiffre01
Score : 103 points
Date : 2022-12-13 19:51 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (constructionphysics.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (constructionphysics.substack.com)
| dbrueck wrote:
| I recently built a largish shed in my back yard and although it's
| obviously far simpler than an actual house, it has many of the
| same core elements (including balloon framing), and it really
| struck me that someone like me could go from idea to a reasonably
| well done shed with only a little past experience plus some
| Googling. The traditional mortise-and-tenons approach would have
| far exceeded my time budget and probably been too far beyond my
| skill level.
|
| The most eye opening bit of learning for me was also mentioned in
| the article:
|
| _" The skin of the building, which previously only served as a
| barrier to keep the elements out, now also braces the wood stud
| walls, increasing their load bearing capacity."_
|
| Prior to sheathing, the framing is downright rickety!
| analog31 wrote:
| Oddly enough airplanes are like this too, as I understand it --
| the skin is integral to the structure.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| With newer carbon fiber airplanes, there isn't much structure
| other than the skin.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| Not odd at all -- when weight is critical, you want to make
| the most out of every gram of material, ideally getting
| overall structure, aero skin, and pressure vessel in one.
|
| Rockets with balloon tanks (such as the original Atlas) even
| rely on pressure from the propellant tank contents to
| strengthen the structure.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Yes most if not all modern aircraft are monocoque.
| kens wrote:
| Also automobiles; in the 1960s cars mostly moved from body-
| on-frame to unibody construction, where the skin is an
| integral part. The Lincoln Town Car was one of the rare body-
| on-frame cars, which is why it was often used for stretch
| limousines; it is much easier to extend the body.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Interestingly electric cars are going back to body on
| frame. Canoo is a good example of this.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Well, if you had a giant, heavy slab at the lowest
| possible point - silly not to use it as a frame. Some EVs
| are somewhere in-between - not strictly body on frame,
| but also no unibody.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| For barns and barndominiums there's a the third technique which
| is a pole barn with set poles and trusses. For the poles today
| some people use tripled up 2x6s or doubled with 3/4" plywood in
| between. It's easier than mortise and tenon, but setting the
| trusses is where things can get tricky if it's tall.
| rsync wrote:
| Nonononnonono.
|
| That is, _yes_ on pole structures which can be great.
|
| But remember, a pole building is, ipso facto, a temporary
| structure. The poles are always rotting.
|
| Even the 8x8 heartwood columns 30x coated in creosote ...
| after 30 years of service they had to be chopped and under-
| joined to prefab concrete columns.
|
| And so with that in mind, the idea that you would replace a
| 6x6 column (with 6x4 = 24 inches of surface exposure to
| ground and fungi) with a 6x6 exterior exposure _and another
| 24 inches of_ interior* exposure (between each 2x6) is crazy.
|
| I know people are doing it. I know the wood is treated. It is
| in the ground and wet and if you dig it up in ten years
| you'll have 3 little 1x5 wedges surrounded by rich, fungus
| filled dirt.
|
| I don't know if a pole structure is the right choice for (you
| or your project) but do yourself a favor and _use actual
| poles_.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Most barns / barndomminiums don't bury the wood - they pour
| concrete footings like any other normal structure and then
| use steel stand-off brackets proud of ground level to
| ensure there's no wood in contact with the earth. Then
| yeah, tripled up LVLs are common as well;
|
| https://permacolumn.com/products/sturdi-wall-brackets.html
| hunter2_ wrote:
| > Prior to sheathing, the framing is downright rickety!
|
| Some IKEA furniture, such as their cheap bookshelves, are an
| amazing example of this. Basically it's a rectangle that wants
| to lean into being a parallelogram, and it readily does, until
| you tack up the backing piece which is like 1mm cardboard with
| dozens of nails. Cardboard that would bend, twist, rip, etc. in
| many directions, but works perfectly at keeping that
| parallelogram rectangular! Same idea with sheathing/framing.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| > Learning to cut mortise and tenons took years of training as
| a carpenter
|
| For the same reason you mentioned, namely Googling and YouTube
| videos, I don't believe this is the case either. When the
| pandemic first struck, I took an interest in carpentry. I found
| a guy named Paul Sellers who guided me through constructing not
| only my first project in a set of durable trestles that I still
| use most days today, but also my first workbench, which I built
| the frame using, of course, M&T joinery. Each joint while not
| exactly the most beautiful work is still functional and holds
| true. It takes some time, patience, the willingness to be
| steady and not rush -- traits I think we all possess or can
| learn to posses.
|
| I have also since undertook some more modern carpentry jobs
| using construction lumber and built garage shelving, a
| playground for my kids, a back deck, and replaced some rotting
| facia boards on my home.
|
| The takeaway for me was, while I was pleased with being able to
| produce useful things for my family to enjoy, the act of using
| a powered circular saw, wrestling with an air hose to run a
| dangerous nail gun, and fussing about with construction
| adhesive and caulk was definitely no where near as enjoyable
| (or therapeutic) as the process of chiseling out those
| mortices, or sawing wood by hand. And I am proud of all the
| projects I have done, but the thing I am the most proud in a
| weird way was the work I was able to be more intimate with.
|
| So better here may mean more efficient and economical, which I
| 100% agree with. But it also comes at a loss in my view.
|
| I dream of building a house one day, of modest size. When that
| time comes, I am almost certain I will attempt to do it the
| traditional way.
|
| (fyi If anyone is interested in learning balloon framing, I
| cannot recommend Larry Haun's house framing series enough)
| mikeg8 wrote:
| Nice comment. You hit the wood dowel on the head ;) regarding
| the chisel work being more intimate.
|
| I think it comes down to commodity vs craft - and if the goal
| is to simply produce a house or to produce a house where the
| process and craftsmanship was good for your soul.
| simonsarris wrote:
| Funny, I just built a largish (12x16 two story) shed in my back
| yard, but decided to just learn timber framing because how hard
| could it really be?
|
| The final cost was $5,206.72 (all local pine including boards,
| no plywood or glue, cedar shingles), and I partly took off
| about 2 months of work (working on this during the day) to
| frame it.
|
| There are some photos here, though far more on twitter:
| https://simonsarris.substack.com/p/the-goose-palace
|
| If you can stick frame a shed its certainly not beyond you to
| timber frame one. You'll need to read a book or two and buy a
| few hundred $ of chisels. But no part of it is fundamentally
| difficult. Before this project I've used my circular saw more
| for cutting down brush than building.
|
| Some budget item detail if you want to build something like it:
| https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1592159452995944449
|
| And more construction pictures:
| https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1584169368203956225
| 98codes wrote:
| Sorry to hear about your flock, hope that you're able to get
| a new group going soon!
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| rsync wrote:
| "You'll need to read a book or two and buy a few hundred $ of
| chisels."
|
| There is a third way ... timber framing with steel column
| caps and timber connectors, etc. ... steel plates from
| Simpson that you connect with lag or through bolts.
| simonsarris wrote:
| Yeah, though this would greatly increase the expense over
| the chisels, I'd think. For my build you need one 1.5" and
| one 2" chisel (I have Sorby, ~$125 each), though a 2.5"
| slick is nice to have. And then some sharpening stones.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| But see the recent discussion of the failure of a bridge in
| Norway which used wood beams connected by steel elements --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33907276
| nkrisc wrote:
| But it's also a shed, not a bridge.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The simple solution is to not repeatedly drive a dump
| truck over your shed.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| "It's a shed, not a bridge" is a great engineering
| slogan.
| hampelm wrote:
| I'm very curious where you are getting shingles at that
| price! I was putting together a budget for an outdoor sauna
| this year, and out here (Michigan) I was getting quotes
| around $200 per bundle (32 sq ft coverage).
|
| PS thanks for your posts! The goose palace and the house
| build are both super inspiring.
| avgDev wrote:
| I'm getting ready for a shed build in the spring! Love hearing
| other nerds doing this stuff.
|
| I just finished a horizontal cedar fence. Building physical
| stuff is much more fun than programming, a bit more wear and
| tear on the body though.
| dbrueck wrote:
| It is _really_ gratifying to look outside every day and see
| the finished project, that 's for sure. Overall I really
| enjoyed it, but I found that my ability to estimate the time
| for each step was way off - everything took far longer than I
| planned. Probably lack of experience.
|
| > bit more wear and tear on the body though
|
| So true - it took me a loooooong time to recover from the day
| I poured the cement pad under the shed.
|
| Good luck on your shed in the spring!
| djaychela wrote:
| I'm currently extending my house in the UK (where this
| construction is less common for full houses) and the upstairs
| dormer is built in much the same way. While I wouldn't have
| described it as rickety before sheathing, it's definitely much
| more solid once the walls have each side covered in well
| nailed-on OSB - it gains a lot of stability that's otherwise
| lacking to a degree as there's no diagonal bracing (other than
| some temporary elements which are removed as you add strength).
|
| I'm not a builder (I'm a musician for the most part), but what
| I've built is to a pro standard and millimetre-accurate. That
| wouldn't have been the case had it been post-and-beam!
| swayvil wrote:
| I skinned my freestyle shed with metal roofing stuff. Heck yes
| it adds to the strength.
| rr888 wrote:
| > sprinkler systems have reduced the risk fire poses
|
| Not so fast. My 5+1 has loads of sprinklers and its a nightmare.
| Every few years the sprinklers start leaking, or someone drills a
| hole or breaks a spinkler pipe. It causes catastrophic damage.
| Its one of the main reasons my next place will be concrete.
| jeffbee wrote:
| This is why insurance costs more for sprinkler buildings.
| jdhn wrote:
| There's been some very interesting advances made with ICF
| (insulated concrete forms). If you live in a natural disaster
| prone area and are building from scratch, I'd check them out.
| rch wrote:
| Take a look at Insulating Concrete Forms (ICFs). They can
| incorporate diverted waste styrofoam, bulk mycelium, or maybe
| even biocomposite lattices.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| Yes but you'll probably survive a house fire.
| legitster wrote:
| This... isn't quite right. Balloon framing as traditionally
| defined is all but non-existent anymore. The author is smooshing
| concepts together.
|
| Balloon framing was purely a method of convenience back when
| consumers were able to get their hands on 30-40 foot framing
| timber. As such, it was only popular during a limited window when
| sawmills were popping up across the West and virgin old-growth
| forests were being clear cut.
|
| The author is using "balloon framing" to describe the entire
| concept of modern framing. But if you start throwing around
| "balloon framing" to describe modern houses you will at best get
| weird looks from contractors and at worse draw the eye of fire
| inspectors.
| londons_explore wrote:
| It's notable how building construction is very regional.
|
| For example, balloon framing is very rare in most of Europe -
| where people generally prefer brick, stone, blocks or even cast
| concrete. Something that won't rot away or creak in the wind.
| poutine wrote:
| Stick and frame is an excellent construction technique. Built
| to modern code it'll not creak in the wind nor rot away.
| Further it can be framed by one person if needed with nothing
| more than a pick up truck and a local hardware store. It'll not
| fall over in an earthquake. Renovations are easy. Insulating is
| easy. It's a carbon sink. And best yet, it's much cheaper to
| build.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Wealthy Europeans 'generally' build for the next generation.
| Also they have winter to deal with.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Ballon framing filled with insulation and covered with
| insulating sheathing is _far_ more energy-efficient than old
| walls made of brick, stone, or concrete in the winter. That
| 's why in the freezing northeast of the USA, it's all balloon
| framing -- while in sunny Florida they can build with cinder
| blocks instead.
| prottog wrote:
| > Also they have winter to deal with.
|
| Europe doesn't really have winter compared to North America,
| unless you're making a quip about their energy crisis ;-).
| Compare someplace continental and ridiculously far north like
| Rovaniemi, Finland to, say, Fargo, ND; the latter has colder
| winters, despite being 20 degrees of latitude further south.
| And yet everyone in Fargo builds with stick frames.
|
| A well-built and well-maintained wood house can last multiple
| generations and keep warm in the meantime. Though, granted
| it's probably more expensive to maintain than equivalent
| masonry.
| ilyt wrote:
| > Europe doesn't really have winter compared to North
| America, unless you're making a quip about their energy
| crisis ;-)
|
| Neither does most of America. You nitpicked one place in NA
| then forgot sweden finland and norway exists...
| makeitdouble wrote:
| True, also to note brick construction traditionally can be
| dirt cheap if you adjust for materials and processes that are
| readily available locally. Nowadays there's the option to go
| with hollow concrete blocks which makes building way faster
| and cheaper as well.
| protastus wrote:
| Indeed. I used to look down on the balloon framing + drywall
| construction used in the US. Until I bought a house in an
| earthquake zone and learned that my preferred building
| techniques involving brick and mortar would be completely
| unsafe. Then I thought about cold climate energy efficiency,
| and my way was pretty much terrible and once again inadequate.
|
| Understanding the requirements made me develop a lot of respect
| for balloon framing.
| prottog wrote:
| I think it's not that people in Europe prefer sturdier stuff, I
| think it's that all the wood has already been cut down, so
| timber construction is not priced cheaply enough to offset its
| disadvantages vs. masonry.
|
| > Something that won't rot away or creak in the wind.
|
| Even in parts of the US that have a much harsher environment
| than any part of Europe -- extremely hot and humid weather
| conducive to wood rot, termite infestations, hurricanes and
| tornadoes -- people still build with wood because it's a lot
| cheaper. Sometimes I think it's strange, but it also makes
| sense, I suppose.
| jamesmunns wrote:
| A similar technique for building bridges is known as
| "falsework"[0], where you build a "bad"/simple/basic framework,
| that is used for supporting the final, ideal bridge or other
| mechanical work.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsework
|
| Fred Hebert has an excellent post on cohost[1] about this.
|
| [1]: https://cohost.org/mononcqc/post/467669-a-bridge-over-a-rive
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| And prefab has had it's own evolution. For example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNv13fY_3jY
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I find the terminology here odd. I've always been told that it's
|
| * timber frame construction
|
| vs
|
| * stud frame construction
|
| and that stud framing is divided into ballon framing (now rarely
| used, because of fire hazards, as noted by the article) and
| platform framing.
|
| I've never come across "balloon framing" as the generic term for
| "build a house with lots of small wooden vertical pieces, plus
| sheathing".
| jessaustin wrote:
| It's a matter of perspective. TFA is a history, and has a
| historical perspective. That is, it uses the original meaning
| of "balloon frame". You've been talking to carpenters, who
| don't care much about the history but do need a name for the
| weird stuff they occasionally have to remodel.
|
| "Balloon-type" balloon framing is still practiced even for new
| houses, because it allows a lot of exterior work to be done on
| the ground instead of three stories up:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_jmNLNnqSM
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| In my experience, "balloon framing" meant that a two story
| house was framed with two story studs. That is, 14-16 foot
| studs, sometimes sistered if the local wood wasn't long enough.
| londons_explore wrote:
| It isn't easy to build a thermally efficient building with
| balloon framing. That's because you have solid wood between the
| inner and outer skin in hundreds of places. And wood has a
| thermal conductivity of 0.2 W/mK, which is pretty bad compared to
| say PIR foam insulation at 0.02 W/mK.
|
| Anywhere with high energy prices, hot/cold climates, or
| environmentally conscious buyers, thats a no-go!
| hasbot wrote:
| With modern products, it is easy. Check out the ZIP System
| which glues foam insulation to OSB.
| csours wrote:
| Interesting solution:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtviZ2GHWCI
|
| If you don't want to click it's T-Studs - 2x3s with diagonals
| dowels with a 1.5 inch air gap
| crazygringo wrote:
| Huh? Yes it is -- that's what insulation sheathing is for, a
| layer in between the wood and the exterior. They're the
| gigantic pink foam panels you see covering buildings under
| construction.
|
| Balloon framing is extremely thermally efficient, which is why
| it's used in places like the northeast US which have freezing
| winters!
| mikeg8 wrote:
| Eh, kind of. Builders in the northeast didn't choose balloon
| framing because it's thermally efficient - they just didn't
| have alternatives in the same cost range. Many homes in that
| region were build with masonry claddings as well to increase
| thermal mass and R value of the wall.
|
| The foam sheet insulation you speak of is relatively new to
| the industry, at least for middle class homes. Having a
| continuous layer of insulation outside the framing definitely
| makes stick framing more energy efficient than it would be
| with traditional fiberglass batt insulation in a wall cavity.
| mikeg8 wrote:
| As a builder, I really don't get the point of this piece arguing
| that stick framing is "worse". The author makes very weak
| arguments for the "worse" category to make a connection to tech
| engineering/ software development.
|
| > Balloon frame has a few disadvantages. One major one is that
| the exterior wall studs all the way to the roof, which provides
| an unbroken path for fire to travel.
|
| Fire blocking is a very simple and well-known practice that
| avoids this pitfall completely. the failure to mention fire
| blocking makes me question the authors overall construction
| competence.
|
| It feels as if they are arguing that stick framing is worse than
| timber frame construction because it's "more difficult to
| engineer many more smaller connection points". which may have
| been the case in the early days of stick framing, but like in
| software development, builders have developed codes, standards,
| conventions etc. that make modern framing very much a
| straightforward process. As well as all the fasteners and metal
| hardware has been exhaustively engineered.
|
| > And beyond that, as a structural system, it lacks any sort of
| aesthetic elegance or simplicity. It's made up of lots of flimsy-
| looking members.
|
| Yea, thats the point! Structural elements do not _need_ to have
| any aesthetic appeal as they are hidden by finishes and cladding.
| Its a feature, not a bug. As long as it is structurally sound,
| that is all that matters.
|
| > It's undesirable from an architectural perspective as well.
| Balloon framing has largely been used for simple residential
| structures (or worse, mobile homes) that have historically had
| little architectural involvement. The size and strength of
| dimensional lumber makes it difficult to use it to create large
| or architecturally impressive spaces... The architecturally
| influential residential buildings are more often built from more
| flexible materials such as concrete or steel.
|
| I disagree with this as I've seen some incredibly beautiful
| "architectural" homes that used wood framing but that's
| subjective and not my primary objection. Where i have more of an
| issue that now the author is comparing wood stud framing to
| concrete and steel which is an apples to oranges comparison. It's
| an inconsistency it what the main subject is being compared to
| that makes the overall thesis of this fall very flat for me.
|
| The "worse is better" paradigm may make sense for many software
| applications, but the connection here to residential construction
| and framing practices is such a strecth.
| ilyt wrote:
| This sounds more like optimizing for different features than
| "worse". Being easy to build with easy to access materials is
| advantage all on its own.
| swayvil wrote:
| I built a shed in my back yard a couple years ago. I got yelled
| at by the people on a certain carpentry forum for straying from
| the balloonframe orthodoxy. Nonetheless, my shed is solid as a
| brick and widely admired for its looks AND engineering.
|
| (PIX : https://imgur.com/a/4Yr21PR )
|
| Much of what is called proper modern shed engineering (IE the
| building code) is actually just how to meet the minimum legal
| requirements for the least amount of cash. So keep that in mind.
|
| My next shed is going to be a bag of air sprayed with foam.
| gbronner wrote:
| The author fails to connect the dots:
|
| 1) Nails were expensive. Timber framing does not require any
| nails -- it uses dowels which can be made cheaply with a
| drawknife.
|
| 2) Unlike @simonsarris' wood, most wood available to post and
| beam constructors was not particularly straight. Post and beam is
| very tolerant of faults in lumber.
|
| 3) With post and beam, you don't need to square all four sides of
| a beam. You can get away with squaring off one(the external one)
| plus the spots where any corner braces go. If you are hewing with
| a broad axe and an adze, this is a huge time saver.
|
| 4) In rural post and beam construction, the beams do not all need
| to be the same size. You can use whatever tree you have lying
| around, as long as it is big enough. This is an advantage, as you
| can use a local tree and save the extremely laborious trip to the
| sawmill
|
| So to summarize, you can have a bunch of low-skill farmers
| harvesting and preparing trees for beams. Then you need a high-
| skill carpenter to put the mortises in and assemble the whole
| thing.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Shouldn't the author have also mentioned cheap drywall? To me
| that led to worse yet much faster and cheaper construction.
| It's also so easy to work with that even I learned how to do
| most things (slowly but well). My expensive bay-area wall feels
| like a carton box and I think it's because i grew up in a
| masoned house. (I know masoned buildings are not viable in CA
| due to earthquakes, but man does my house feel like it could
| just get blown away by a mild gust here)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In what ways does drywall make a house worse?
| csours wrote:
| They have talked about drywall in a previous post.
| maherbeg wrote:
| They actually wrote a whole article on dry-wall and
| theorizing on what the next iteration of it could look like
| https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/comparing-
| process...
| crazygringo wrote:
| Huh?
|
| There are on entire sections on each of these -- 1) how nails
| fell in price due to steam power manufacturing, and 2-4) how
| standardized lumber from across the country was available
| cheaply when local wood was scarce, due to steam power sawmills
| and railroads.
|
| The whole point is that you don't need local wood, or high-
| skill anybody at all.
|
| I have no idea how you think the author doesn't "connect the
| dots".
| aeturnum wrote:
| > _I have no idea how you think the author doesn 't "connect
| the dots". _
|
| You are pointing to a different set of dots than gbronner.
|
| They are talking about the advantages of post-and-beam
| construction - extremely tolerant of heterogeneous and uneven
| lumber, can avoid using nails, etc. This article gives the
| impression that post-and-beam construction needed tons of
| expensive materials and skilled laborers - but they are
| saying it's not the case, it just was less amenable to
| economies of scale. You can't ship in hearty lads to hew logs
| the way you can ship in boards and nails.
| nine_k wrote:
| I don't see how is this comparable to "worse is better".
|
| It's just "simpler is better for simpler things", which is hardly
| controversial. Use two dimensions of wood, simple connectors like
| nails, simple hand tools, less precision work. Heck, you end up
| using _less wood_ even if you heavily overprovision and thus
| tolerate local faults, compared to large-beam construction. It 's
| an aerospace-grade win.
|
| What "worse is better" means in the software world is that an
| easy-to-do solution overtakes all, from simplest things where it
| belongs to the very top. This way PHP, which was a poorly-made
| thing even according to its creator, not just took over the space
| of simple dynamic websites, but also ended up powering world's
| largest services, such as Wikipedia and Facebook. (Now PHP looks
| hip; back when Wikipedia and FB experienced their meteoric
| growth, it sucked as hard as the legends have it, at everything
| about programming craft, but was a piece of cake to run and
| host.) For the author's analogy to hold, the Empire State
| Building would have to be built with balloon frame technology,
| and somehow stand.
| ajuc wrote:
| I wonder why people don't use this in Europe. It's mostly
| airbrick or brick detached houses and concrete apartment blocks.
| kome wrote:
| because we like real buildings :)
|
| now seriously: i have seen _some_ wood structure in northern
| Europe. but in general, using bricks creates sturdier, better
| isolated houses. that can resists for centuries, literally.
| they don 't mold. they don't burn. so why not? it's just better
| from my point of view.
| number6 wrote:
| And they don't evolve. They are hard to replace and are
| expensive. Most Houses need to last 30 or 50 years. European
| Houses last twice as long. Instead of modern houses there are
| so many old bad isolated houses with chimneys for firewood
| instead of heat pumps and solar roofs.
| kome wrote:
| I think I disagree, from experience, old houses can be
| retrofitted quite successfully to the modern age, while
| wooden houses just seem to age much faster.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Plenty of hundred and more year old wooden houses where I
| live in Norway. It can be hard to tell though until you
| see someone take off the external planks to renew them
| and you seethe solid baulks of timber underneath.
|
| My wooden house was built in 1953 with a concrete
| watertight cellar serving as the foundation. The wood
| doesn't start until more than half a metre above ground.
| I see no reason why it shouldn't last another fifty years
| or more.
| abathologist wrote:
| > Most Houses need to last 30 or 50 years
|
| Why? It seems absurd to me to only have a dwelling last for
| half a lifetime. This view seems to assume a disposable,
| consumerist logic, which seems at odds in my view both from
| reasonable use of energy and time and with a sustainable
| civilization.
| xxpor wrote:
| Most of Europe outside of the Alps don't really have to worry
| about earthquakes either.
| nebopolis wrote:
| Wood has advantages. For one, insulation is easier. A lot of
| the current best practices for insulating a brick building
| are basically to build a different kind of building, insulate
| it, and then add a cosmetic brick facade. But in a
| Mediterranean climate insulation is less of a concern and
| some thermal mass to even out the evening vs daytime
| temperature is enough. Sturdy is a matter of what you're
| trying to achieve - for example wood is superior in
| earthquake zones. But the real deciding factor is the cost of
| materials and labor - in much of Europe wood is more
| expensive and craftspeople are more familiar with other
| techniques. The converse is true for much of the USA. Wood is
| also just as long lived - hundreds of years if well
| maintained and kept dry (at least in regions where termites
| aren't endemic). The biggest problem with short lived
| American residential construction isn't the wood but instead
| the use of engineered materials and fixtures with finite
| lifespans. For example laminate flooring and older plastic
| water piping which is expected to last only a few decades
| before needing to be gutted and rebuilt.
| rr888 wrote:
| Could it be that European houses are much smaller? America
| usually favors size over quality.
| ilyt wrote:
| Probably but big houses here are also built with brick
| betaby wrote:
| They are not comparable at all in quality, sturdiness and fire
| resistance. Since you are paying for a home most of your
| working life anyway one would better have a real thing.
| nawitus wrote:
| There are countries in Europe where wood buildings are common
| (and even most popular option for e.g. single-family homes).
| They can be considered the slightly cheaper option though.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| One reason I've heard is the much higher cost (and lower
| availability) of appropriate lumber. The forests were mostly
| cut down hundreds of years ago, while in north America, that
| process is still underway (though thankfully slowing a bit).
| eugenekolo wrote:
| I'm not sure forests being cut down is the problem these
| days. Wood is one of the most renewable and sustainable
| materials out there. Old growth has been cut down, or become
| out of most people's price range at this point in NA, but
| farmed fast growing pine is cheap and sustainable. Perhaps NA
| has more land to support such farms though.
| wiredfool wrote:
| It's not in Europe. Wood is expensive here. A 2x4 stick
| here (Ireland) is ~ 12 eur at the local home center.
|
| And yes, we have tree plantations, but they're mostly sitka
| spruce, and there aren't _that_ many of them compared to
| potential demand for wood.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > that process is still underway
|
| No it's not, the total amount of forest in the USA is
| increasing.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| The US cut down its forests too! Since the early 20th
| century, it started to replant more trees than it cut, and
| now has an ever increasing area of forests, much more than in
| 1930s for example.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Total area is up .. from the 1930s. However, some of the
| most wooded areas (e.g. the Pacific NW) are currently at
| about 20% of what they were when europeans arrived.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:00 UTC)