[Troll]

I'm sitting here watching the Katrina destruction and every time there's a disaster like this, I ask myself, "Why do Americans build their houses out of wood?" In some of the images, you see piles of wooden beams that once represented a house floating away and it's the same when you see tornadoes throwing the little wooden houses around like they were toys.

In most of the rest of the world we build our houses with bricks and concrete. These buildings seem to me to withstand flooding and high winds better. I understand that in places of high earthquake activity like California, wood is more forgiving and withstands earthquakes better. I also understand that in the good ol' days, wood was the material America (and I'm including Canada here) had a lot of and it was cheap, but this is the 21st century. Surely people want houses that resist insects and wind, fire and rot? I was in New Jersey last year and they're building 3 storey houses with little steel poles and wood filling. It looks like it'll fall over with a huff and a puff.

In most places I've ever lived, it's illegal to build a house out of wood. So, I'm hoping someone can explain why it's still seems to be the material of choice for North American houses?

[ghporter]

Build out of concrete in an area where a storm surge will hit, and all you get is collapsed concrete-that crushes anything and anyone inside. There is NO currently available and efficient building material that will withstand the kind of destructive power Katrina threw against the Gulf Coast, mostly through the storm surge. I HAVE lived there (ten years in and around Biloxi, Mississippi) and I HAVE weathered a hurricane there. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can be built that Nature can't knock down, and hurricanes are some of the most destructive things Nature can throw at us. But once you get past the coastal area where storm surges do the most damage, you'll find that wood-framed homes stand up quite well to wind and rain.

You say "In most places I've ever lived." Where exactly have those places been? Maybe there's something other than building strength at play in those limitations.

[ajprice]

I always thought it was because they got bored after hearing about the first 2 little piggies building their houses.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Build out of concrete in an area where a storm surge will hit, and all you get is collapsed concrete-that crushes anything and anyone inside.

I'm not sure I understand your point. What is the reason that you'd chose to build a wooden house? What you're saying is that bricks are not better than wood in resisting storms (something I don't buy), but that still doesn't explain why people chose wood. Presumably it doesn't resist fire or termites as well so why the preference? Is it because wooden houses are cheaper?

I've lived in Cape Town which is a pretty windy place known for storms. Lived in a few places in Europe that are regularly flooded. Lived in some other places too including the US. I've seen rooves ripped off brick houses but I've never seen a brick house collapse from wind or flooding. The only time I've ever seen the water knock over a brick house is in the tsunami. I realise that there is a point where it doesn't matter what you build out of, but it seems pretty clear to me that that point comes a lot earlier when you use wood than when you used steel reinforced concrete and bricks. I would imagine that if a wooden house can resist 200km/h winds, a brick house must surely be able to resist more.

I mean, they don't build lighthouses out of wood, do they? Besides, I don't believe that being inside a wooden house that collapses is preferable to being in a brick house that collapses. The roof on either house weighs the same and a wooden house falling on you is likely to kill you too.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Troll

I'm sitting here watching the Katrina destruction and every time there's a disaster like this, I ask myself, "Why do Americans build their houses out of wood?"

Would you believe that some of the oldest architecture in America is in the New Orleans area? Guess what those houses are made out of? Wood.

The New England states are the same way. VERY old houses. Built of wood.

Easier/cheaper to build. Easier to maintain. Long lasting. Highly modifiable.

Newer construction techniques use a wood and foam insulation sandwich which will eventually make it even cheaper and cost efficient to own. It's called Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs).



More info:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumeri...heets/bd1.html
http://www.sipsupply.com/learn_about_sips.html

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Build out of concrete in an area where a storm surge will hit, and all you get is collapsed concrete-that crushes anything and anyone inside.

Statistics:

http://www.tordach.org/gif/lossratio.gif
http://www.tordach.org/gif/fujita.gif

A brick house can resist a tornado of one grade stronger than a framehouse. A concrete house a tornade of two grades stronger.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Troll

I mean, they don't build lighthouses out of wood, do they?

Yes, they do.

[removed oversize image --tooki]

[analogika]

Ah. Low cost > life.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yes, they do.

You know what he meant.

[removed oversize image --tooki]

[LilWolfChokingOnCigs68]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Statistics:

http://www.tordach.org/gif/lossratio.gif
http://www.tordach.org/gif/fujita.gif

A brick house can resist a tornado of one grade stronger than a framehouse. A concrete house a tornade of two grades stronger.

OWN3D

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yes, they do.

That one looks to be far from the water though. We've all seen the posters of concrete lighthouses being hit by massive waves.

[Troll]

Here's an article on Hurricane resistance.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/residen...lder_0814.html

It says; " Masonry homes, if built correctly, suffer the least cumulative damage during windstorms of any type of conventional residential home. The author of the Three Little Pigs fable no doubt had enough experience to see that masonry stands the test of time.

The great pyramids are made from masonry. Mother Nature will destroy the pyramids and the little pig's brick home in time, but she'll really have to work hard to do so."

[ghporter]

You just don't build out of a relatively flimsy material where you KNOW it will be subjected to a lot of destructive force, and you don't have to worry. My house here in San Antonio is wood-framed (built with "engineered materials" that use far less new wood and are physically stronger) and there is NO problem with that. However, the idiots who build ON THE BEACH on Padre Island (or the Outer Banks of North Carolina, etc.) are asking for destruction, particularly when they build out of wood.

Contrast that to the fact that in most places affected by Katrina the damage has been from flooding-either from the storm surge or simple collection of water (or both). As we found out from last Christmastime's tsunami, NOTHING can resist a lot of water moving fast, and a storm surge is similar to a tsunami in its destructive power. If the water didn't push stuff over (wood, concrete-it doesn't matter much when the water starts pushing) then the damage is from water incursion, and again it doesn't matter what the structures were made of.

Cape Town may have some interesting weather and pretty high winds, but it is NOT subject to surging water the way the Gulf Coast of the U.S. is. Building codes don't always revolve around human safety, either; a lot of European construction codes are based on the fact that people denuded forests for centuries to build homes, and someone finally decided to stop the madness. I don't know about why South African law might ban wood construction, but I don't recall the southern tip of Africa being particularly forest-rich; maybe it's just not economical to build with a lot of wood.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Would you believe that some of the oldest architecture in America is in the New Orleans area? Guess what those houses are made out of? Wood.

That I understand but I see new homes being built out of wood in the US. I'd think a wooden home is more difficult to maintain, worse for the environment and it's certainly more expensive to cool and heat than a brick home. I wonder if anyone has studied whether a wooden home actually is cheaper.

I must say that I'm rather partial to log cabins.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I don't know about why South African law might ban wood construction, but I don't recall the southern tip of Africa being particularly forest-rich; maybe it's just not economical to build with a lot of wood.

Nah, it's mostly because wood has a nasty tendancy to burn. Same reason you can't build with wood in most places in Europe. Been that way since the Middle Ages in most European cities.

[Troll]

Oops, tried to post a pic of a brick building that had collapsed but BBC is not cooperating.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika

Ah. Low cost > life.

Huh? No. Why waste money?

Originally Posted by analogika

You know what he meant.

Yes, I did. He said "lighthouses out of wood". I found one and there are many more.

He never said "lighthouses out of wood on an island being hit repeatedly by waves from the ocean".

Originally Posted by Troll

That one looks to be far from the water though. We've all seen the posters of concrete lighthouses being hit by massive waves.

Ahhh... a qualification. OK, you now win.

Here's where I go the pic from:
http://www.zimfamilycockers.com/PechoCoastTrail.html

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Troll

I'd think a wooden home is more difficult to maintain, worse for the environment

Uhhh... no.

Originally Posted by Troll

and it's certainly more expensive to cool and heat than a brick home.

And... no.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Troll

That I understand but I see new homes being built out of wood in the US. I'd think a wooden home is more difficult to maintain, worse for the environment and it's certainly more expensive to cool and heat than a brick home. I wonder if anyone has studied whether a wooden home actually is cheaper.

I must say that I'm rather partial to log cabins.

I should point out that a lot of "wood construction" here is sheathed in something that doesn't take a lot of maintenance, such as brick or some other masonry-related material. My house is 3/4 sheathed in brick, with the rest in "Hardy-Plank," a cementatious siding material that does not need anywhere near the maintenance of wooden clabboard siding (or aluminum siding for that matter). I have yet to need to paint the parts of the house that might need painting after three years (and builders' notorious light painting habits).

I can see fire risks being a major problem in old European cities where everything was built cheek-by-jowl. AND completely of wood, from the foundation to the shingles. Most wood construction today is almost entirely framing, with nonflamable materials everywhere else.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Huh? No. Why waste money?

Because "wasting" money on decent construction saves lives. That was *kind of* the entire point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yes, I did. He said "lighthouses out of wood". I found one and there are many more.

He never said "lighthouses out of wood on an island being hit repeatedly by waves from the ocean".

My apologies; I misunderstood your comment for *deliberate* obtuseness.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Uhhh... no.



And... no.

Wait a minute. Wood comes from trees. Bricks and concrete come from sand. Surely it's less environmentally friendly to use chop down trees than to bake sand into bricks?

And a wooden house is far worse insulated than a masonry house. I've read in places that AC costs for a wooden house are 40% higher than for a masonry house. If you go to the hottest regions, they always use masonry. Visit any wine cellar in Provence and you'll see thick masonry walls and no AC inside. Granted, some of these new techniques might approach masonry for efficiency. I'm not much clued up on the new materials. Don't understand why you'd go to the effort of building insulation into your walls when you get that with masonry without insulation material in the walls.

As for maintenance, my grandparents' home which is built of brick and concrete is 60 years old and the masonry has never needed any maintenance. They don't have to treat the bricks against insects or humidity or seal them or anything else. It has a coat of paint every couple of years and that's it. I was in Amsterdam recently and there is only 1 wooden building still standing. Thousands of masonry buildings. And as that article I quoted points out, the pyramids are masonry.

[ghporter]

Read this story from the newspaper in Biloxi, Mississippi. Structures that withstood even Hurricane Camille were destroyed by Katrina. CONCRETE structures, such as the "8 flags" display mentioned in the article, which WAS simply a long concrete wall with poles supporting the 8 flags that have flown over the area through the years, were obliterated.

It REALLY doesn't matter what something is made of when rushing water runs into it-it will be destroyed. The mayor of Biloxi called Katrina "our tsunami." He had reason to.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by analogika

Because "wasting" money on decent construction saves lives. That was *kind of* the entire point of this thread.

Katrina may have been a poor example to use, if that was your intent. Although there was certainly a lot of destruction, most of the deaths were due to people being caught in the storm itself, not due to collapsing structures. If you're going to insist on living in an area frequented by awesomely destructive forces of nature -not the most positive of life choices if you ask me, but some people do insist- your best bet is not to try and weather the storm, but to use structures which allow for easy escape even when the structure fails, and which are easy to repair or rebuild if needed. Couple this with a good warning and evacuation system, and you'll save many more lives than you would trying to weather the storm. You won't save much else, but if the objective is to save lives at any cost then that's just part of the cost to save the maximum number of lives.

Mind you, I'm not much of a fan of woodframe construction. Then again, I'm also not a fan of living in areas where forces of nature stronger than the most powerful weapons in existence tend to strike on a regular and predictable basis. When I do build a house, as I eventually plan to do, I will probably go for something much stronger than wood. However, I also plan to build in an area not commonly visited by massively powerful storms or similar phenomena, where such construction makes sense.

[von Wrangell]

I live in an area with severe storms regularly. They aren't called hurricanes but winds above 50m/s isn't that unusual during autumn around here. We build almost every building out of steel and concrete. I would not want to live in anything else when these storms hit.

In january 1998 we were hit by a storm in with an average speed of 62m/s. That's a class 4 hurricane according to the definition. The result here is just a few roof tiles and a few roofs damaged. Maybe a few cars messed up as well. It has basically no effect on our lives. But that is because we have lived by the laws of nature since we first came here and have learned to respect both the nature and human lives. Something some countries seem to taking a bit more time to realise.

Building houses out of anything else in areas where you expect weather like this is just ignorance and not respecting either nature or human lives.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The mayor of Biloxi called Katrina "our tsunami." He had reason to.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Then again, I'm also not a fan of living in areas where forces of nature stronger than the most powerful weapons in existence tend to strike on a regular and predictable basis.

So Iceland is out of the question then?

1. Storms (hurricanes basically).
2. Earthquakes.
3. Volcanoes.
4. Glacier runs

I think that's it. Too much for you?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Read this story from the newspaper in Biloxi, Mississippi. Structures that withstood even Hurricane Camille were destroyed by Katrina. CONCRETE structures, such as the "8 flags" display mentioned in the article, which WAS simply a long concrete wall with poles supporting the 8 flags that have flown over the area through the years, were obliterated.

Sure, but that's a rather special set of circumstances. On the beach and it's a long wall built for decorative purposes. How long would that wall have stood for if it had been made of wood? Probably wouldn't have even resisted the wind if it had been made of wood. And how much maintenance would it have required to maintain its initial strength. I think we all agree that your chances of surviving in a masonry house are greater. It's the same as buying a car. I realise that my chances of surviving an accident are greater in a new Mercedes than they are in an old Datsun. I also realise that certain accidents are not survivable no matter what car I'm in. But given the choice, I'd buy the new Mercedes any day. This is what I don't understand, why people still build choose the Datsun for their homes.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Troll

Sure, but that's a rather special set of circumstances. On the beach and it's a long wall built for decorative purposes. How long would that wall have stood for if it had been made of wood? Probably wouldn't have even resisted the wind if it had been made of wood. And how much maintenance would it have required to maintain its initial strength. I think we all agree that your chances of surviving in a masonry house are greater. It's the same as buying a car. I realise that my chances of surviving an accident are greater in a new Mercedes than they are in an old Datsun. I also realise that certain accidents are not survivable no matter what car I'm in. But given the choice, I'd buy the new Mercedes any day. This is what I don't understand, why people still build choose the Datsun for their homes.

I guess I wasn't clear. That wall jutted out INTO THE WATER rather than across the beach. It was the visible demarcation line between the cities of Gulfport and Biloxi, marking a north-south line that extended into the water. In other words, the water should not have been pushing against it, but flowing along it. It's still gone.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So Iceland is out of the question then?

1. Storms (hurricanes basically).
2. Earthquakes.
3. Volcanoes.
4. Glacier runs

I think that's it. Too much for you?

Point taken, but then again, Iceland has another situation altogether: it's relatively small. I'm guessing that escaping any of the things you've mentioned would be very difficult if not impossible. The only option in that case is to build something that should weather most storms and hope for the best.

I wouldn't call that optimal, but I guess that if you really want to live there then it's the best option available.

[pooka]

What pictures are you talking about? Most of the ones I've been seeing online are either shots of downtown New Orleans, historic districts, public housing and the same old shot of the dome in N.O.

And during hurricane Frederick, back in 1979, it didn't matter much what material was used. The water and flying debris made short work of everything in it's path. That included my father's restaurant which was a brick and mortar building.

They did manage to find the car size refrigeration units a few miles away.

[pooka]

Anyway, with most of the new construction along the coast, it's the builder's choice.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I guess I wasn't clear. That wall jutted out INTO THE WATER rather than across the beach. It was the visible demarcation line between the cities of Gulfport and Biloxi, marking a north-south line that extended into the water. In other words, the water should not have been pushing against it, but flowing along it. It's still gone.

In a storm like that, currents are moving in all directions. It was a decorative wall. Not designed for strength. If they wanted something strong, they would have used these:
A dolos will resist virtually anything nature can throw at it. In South Africa they use to build breakwaters on the most violent coasts known to man. We can build concrete structures that are as strong as rock if we want to. The point is that a wooden wall would not have survived two ticks.

I agree with Millenium. I wouldn't have built any house in the place that wall was. And I'd get out of town rather than try to stick it out. But as I said before, I don't understand anyone who buys an old Datsun when he can get a new Mercedes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Point taken, but then again, Iceland has another situation altogether: it's relatively small. I'm guessing that escaping any of the things you've mentioned would be very difficult if not impossible. The only option in that case is to build something that should weather most storms and hope for the best.

I wouldn't call that optimal, but I guess that if you really want to live there then it's the best option available.

Actually we don't need to get away because we build our houses like this. It simply doesn't worry us that much (although I never like it when I see how "flexible" glass is). That, and trying to escape would be the most dangerous thing we could do for two reasons. The weather here is pretty unpredictable due to our location. And travelling on our wonderful roads (I'm lying, they are terrible) is amongst the most dangerous thing to do here on Iceland if the weather is a bit rough due to every road either having to go over mountains or beside them (where the wind really picks up).

If you are interested you could check this page every now and then to see how it changes.

"Road safety"

This autumn and winter it will probably be more interesting than now but this is something everyone here on Iceland takes a look at when about to go on a road trip during those seasons. At the moment it is showing 4 places where there are warning for high winds (not too uncommon that the wind just tilt the car over).

[Troll]

Originally Posted by pooka

What pictures are you talking about?

There are pics here in the newspaper and on CNN of residential blocks where there are piles of wooden beams wood panelling and cars all over the place. Pics of houses with trees that have gone right through them. I've seen some pics of destroyed masonry too but as I said, I imagine that wood would have lasted far shorter.

My flat in Paris is built of limestone blocks that are about 2m thick (and dug out of a quarry now buried under the neighbouring block). It feels secure and I'd feel safe with high winds. If I knew I had a 10 inch wood and fibreglass panel between me and 60 knots of wind, I would not feel secure.

[TETENAL]

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,...OA_3_3,00.html

[pooka]

Also, I don't have much sympathy for millionaires who build their beach homes along the coast. But it does burn my ass a little bit when people talk smack about how stupid people are for living in areas prone to natural disasters. Most of the larger cities along the coast grew for a reason. Quite a few of them are very large port areas used for shipping and refineries and the communities that grew to support those industries.

So, point, say "dumbasses" and then go post in the other thread bitching about high gas prices.

[tooki]

Well, i think the point here is really that in the U.S., insufficient thought is put into choosing appropriate construction for the area.

Best example I can come up with: trailers, er, i mean, "mobile homes". Where do you find them? In places where hurricanes and tornados come through. For example, Florida has zillions of trailers, despite having yearly hurricanes.

Realistically, I don't understand why we continue to use wood framing -- cement is of comparable cost (possibly cheaper), doesn't burn, is stronger than wood for most environments, and provides vastly better sound insulation. (Most U.S. houses these days are built with walls so thin they may as well not be there.)

tooki

[Troll]

Thanks Tetenal:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,...NA_3_3,00.html

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tooki

Well, i think the point here is really that in the U.S., insufficient thought is put into choosing appropriate construction for the area.

Best example I can come up with: trailers, er, i mean, "mobile homes". Where do you find them? In places where hurricanes and tornados come through. For example, Florida has zillions of trailers, despite having yearly hurricanes.

Realistically, I don't understand why we continue to use wood framing -- cement is of comparable cost (possibly cheaper), doesn't burn, is stronger than wood for most environments, and provides vastly better sound insulation. (Most U.S. houses these days are built with walls so thin they may as well not be there.)

tooki

Maybe because you can't take out concrete walls
(A guest professor from the states told me, when they were redoing his house, they just removed the walls.)

[tooki]

Hahaha yeah, I suppose so! Then again, if the house were designed by a good architect, you'd probably like it how it is!

tooki

[Troll]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Maybe because you can't take out concrete walls
(A guest professor from the states told me, when they were redoing his house, they just removed the walls.)

The exterior walls of my apartment are solid limestone but inside every wall is built with light frames and plaster blocks. You can remodel with your foot!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Troll

The exterior walls of my apartment are solid limestone but inside every wall is built with light frames and plaster blocks. You can remodel with your foot!

But is that hurricane-proof?
Before Tooki's comment that concrete costs about the same, I always assumed this was done to save money … 

[effgee]

Hrmpft ... lots of weird stuff in this thread. There is no such thing as: "Material A is always better than material B". Aynone who says so is either intentionally spreading misinformation or doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

• A truly (!) well-planned and -built wood-frame structure can provide the same level of comfort, energy-efficiency and protection as any average solid structure.
• A crappily-planned and -built solid structure is just as bad (in some regards even worse) than any average wood-frame structure
• There is virtually no difference in cost and/or effort if you build a wood-frame or a solid structure home if they both adhere to identical standards in terms of energy-efficiency, comfort, etc. Any intial savings on the side of the wood-frame building would be eaten up by very high investments towards insulation.
• A solid structure does not require higher maintenance than a wood-frame one. If anyone has information from an independent source that disproves this, I'd love to see it (seriously!)
• No matter how you look at it, it's going to be very difficult to continue to satisfy the need for construction-grade wood from "artificially cultured" sources alone. Plus, these "plantations" also have frequent problems with diseases, parasites etc.
• "Solid building material" such as concrete products, brick, etc. are of course not the magic bullet that will solve everybody's problem - all depends on what is appropriate to one's particular situation (geography, climate, etc.)
• If you live in and average solid structure home (= no special precautions taken) in an area with frequent earthquakes, you're gonna fscking die while your neighbor who lives in a wood-frame house has decent chances of survival.
• If you live in a steel-frame structure and your house catches fire, chances are you're fscked - steel has a very short time period between "heating up" and "breaking" (see 9/11). First your house is on fire and then, with little to no warning, the whole thing collapses with you underneath it, all the while you're still wondering what the hell just happened (this can be prevented to a certain degree by encasing your structurally relevant steel beams in concrete - but only to a degree). Wood, while burning away, can still carry quite the load, plus the curve from "heating up" > "burning" > "collapse" is a rather smooth one, giving you time to wake up and get the fsck out (unless the fumes already led to your death by suffocation which is the most common cause anyway).
  empty space
• Anyone wishing to go through the (rather pointless) "Our stuff rocks, yours sucks" exercise also needs to keep in mind the rather important cultural aspect (abbreviated here, of course)
  
  Traditionally, homes in Europe are a lot more expensive than their counterparts in the US (with the exception of Scandinavian areas where wood-frame structures have a rather strong foothold as well). A house in Europe is something "normal people" save for all their lives and then stay in that home until the day they die (leaving aside retirement homes etc.). Expensive because there's nowhere near the amount of "disposable land" the US offers its residents, the materials needed to cope with much higher energy costs are more expensive, etc., etc.
  
  Homes in the US are much more of a "commodity" than a "life long goal" - it's not unsual (from what little experience I have), that an average family owns two, three or more houses during their "lifespan", hence the need for lower cost construction. People move more often over large distances and are generally more mobile (a relatively recent trend here in Europe as well - but still in very early development)
• That's all I can think of off the top of my head - but there's many, many more ...

Sometimes, the amount of misunderstandings such an insignificant thing as the Atlantic Ocean can cause still amazes me.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

But is that hurricane-proof?

I'm pretty sure my foot is hurricane proof.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by effgee

There is virtually no difference in cost and/or effort if you build a wood-frame or a solid structure home...

Originally Posted by effgee

Homes in the US are much more of a "commodity" than a "life long goal" - it's not unsual (from what little experience I have), that an average family owns two, three or more houses during their "lifespan", hence the need for lower cost construction.

Now I'm confused. First you said they cost the same and then you said wood is cheaper.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by effgee

A truly (!) well-planned and -built wood-frame structure can provide the same level of comfort, energy-efficiency and protection as any average solid structure.

I'll concede that you can make a wood frame house as energy efficient and comfortable as a masonry house, but I just don't buy the allegation that you can build it as strong. If you built your house out of railway sleeper (which are the toughest wooden objects I can think of), I still think a masonry wall of the same thickness would be vastly stronger. Masonry constructions are steel reinforced too. If wood were as solid as stone, we'd see more wooden monuments around today.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Troll

Now I'm confused. First you said they cost the same and then you said wood is cheaper.

Wood is cheaper until you start factoring in stuff like energy-efficiency, etc.

If you build a wooden house that is actually comparable to a "real" building in terms of energy-efficiency, and thus running costs, the building itself is roughly the same price.

Of course, that simply isn't the case in the US, where energy costs are (as yet) low enough to encourage wasteful architecture, and where the cultural background of home-ownership is a very different one, probably more akin to the European idea of owning a car.

[Millennium]

von Wrangell, why are we arguing? We seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Actually we don't need to get away because we build our houses like this. It simply doesn't worry us that much (although I never like it when I see how "flexible" glass is).

Exactly. Getting away is not a practical solution for you, as you say further down, and so you try to weather the storms (and similar phenomena) instead. The best defense is not being where the storm is, but that doesn't mean there aren't other good defenses if (as in Iceland) getting away poses problems.

The point is that different techniques are appropriate for different places, and they depend on many different factors. What works for Louisiana doesn't work for Iceland, and vice versa.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by effgee

Homes in the US are much more of a "commodity" than a "life long goal" - it's not unsual (from what little experience I have), that an average family owns two, three or more houses during their "lifespan", hence the need for lower cost construction. People move more often over large distances and are generally more mobile (a relatively recent trend here in Europe as well - but still in very early development)

Why on earth would frequency of moving house affect the need for lower cost construction? Unless you're suggesting that every time everyone moves they move into a newly-built house.

[LilWolfChokingOnCigs68]

I didn't realize we had so many experts on construction in this place. It's simply amazing!