I live on a fault line along the pacific ring of fire, and so building with wood was an absolute necessity for us so long, as they were structurally more lenient to the constant earthquakes. Even now I believe our old government building is the largest wooden building in the Southern hemisphere (and it’s only 4 stories tall). These days as construction techniques have changed, we’ve obviously built things with concrete, steel, brick, etc., but the wooden tradition remains strong, with a huge majority of modern houses here still being built like this.
That aside, wood was also just a much cheaper material to build with, so it was the most economical material to use for a long time for much of the “new world”.
Right. Buildings were mostly wood and mud in Europe until the 18th Century. By then, cities became so dense that big fires were extremely deadly. Little by little people started building in stone, then bricks and now reinforced concrete.
It didn’t really have anything to do with fires. Pretty much every hardwood forest was cut down in Europe and any remaining were protected so they could be used to build ships.
America was colonized late enough that it never really became an issue.
Yeah exactly they basically stripped their continent bare of lumber during that period and it’s all at the bottom of the ocean now. The materials used are just as much determined by economic conditions as practicality.
In California we use wood because it flexes during earthquakes. There may be damage during a big one but at least the house is less likely to collapse on you.
See how there are as few direct connections between inside and outside as possible. The whole thing is very light too, so it has very little thermal mass. This is combined with a white surface outside and that transfers very little heat. My 200m² house requires maybe 1.5kW of heating at -10°C outside in the winter. I have no AC, in summer we just leave the windows open until 6am and then shut the blinds automatically when the air heats up.
Pretty neat, I’ve never seen masonry like this before.
I’ll point out that the webbing is likely strong, but considering the lack of ductility, this seems likely to fail during an earthquake. What’re these called, I’d like to look into them more.
i was so sure it was, i looked it up after seeing your comment and… you are right. even double brick which ive always been told was great, apparently isnt all that good. TIL
I don’t know about that. I’ve lived in a typical “flimsy” American wooden house in an area that had a lot of crazy weather with extreme winds and even a couple of tropical storms. That house had absolutely no issue with those. These houses are a lot stronger than they look. They flex but don’t break.
My house is 80 years old, I’ve personally seen 3 feet of snow on its roof, it weathered hurricane Fran with no damage, hurricane Matthew caused a leak around the chimney that stained my living room ceiling a little.
I’m ready to take anything this area is willing to throw at me except tornadoes. A direct strike by tornado will pull it down.
I live in the Pacific Northwest where it rains quite a bit. Wood houses are fine in the rain as long as the moisture barrier and roof have been installed correctly.
I’m pretty sure those wooden houses in Canada are built differently from wooden houses in California. The ones I’ve seen are thin wooden struts covered with some drywall.
Edit: and just saying “flimsy” by comparison to the usual reinforced concrete structures back home. I now own a home in California and it’s definitely solid.
So funnily enough, 2x4 exterior walls meet code for 3 stories, but where I am, it doesn’t meet the insulation requirements of minimum r-20, so it’s normally built with 2x6.
I know it is possible to build solid houses out of wood. The ones I’m talking about would 100% not withstand blizzards or tornadoes.
Like most in my native country, I grew up in a building made entirely of solid reinforced concrete slabs, including most interior walls. I could not hear my upstairs or downstairs neighbors and when I saw people punching holes in the walls in American movies I thought it’s just an exaggeration, not something that can actually happen. Wooden houses were culturally associated with poor rural people who couldn’t afford living in a nice solid apartment. That culture persists today, and even in isolated villages new homes are built with concrete structures and brick walls.
When I bought a piece of land and was looking at options for new houses, I found a company making very solid wooden homes (still a lot more solid than the average Bay Area home) for reasonable prices and both my and my wife’s families were outraged at the idea of building a house out of wood.
Just some random background to why I’d use the word “flimsy” for wooden struts sandwiched between drywall sheets.
If we did that in the US west coast, they would crack and fall apart from tectonic plate shift. You need to build things to be flexible for earthquakes and general shift.
I live in a 100 year old farm house in California and every spring and fall we have to move the strike plate (thing the door latch nubbin goes into) on the front door up or down about 3/4 inch due to seasonal house shifting. The door stops closing and we know it’s spring time!
That’s a really poor argument to pass down to people.
Solutions exist to make buildings earthquake resilient and the USA created a good part of it.
Vibration dampeners, structure stress relievers, special mortars and concretes, specific structural geometry, etc.
There is no reason why the US should keep its attachment to wood construction. Tornado alley would vastly improve if house were to shift from match sticks and hope to brick and mortar with reinforced concrete foundations.
Tornado alley is a completely different part of the US than the West Coast, which is specifically what I was talking about. It’s like 2000 miles away. Tornado alley doesn’t have earthquakes, so this discussion doesn’t even apply to that. Bust now that were talking about it, in tornado alley, houses at least do have a brick exterior around the wood.
I picked Tornado Alley because it’s low hanging fruit; I’ll get to that again.
USA has a fixation for wood construction, completely unreasonable and unjustifiable. There are several countries and regions in the world with sysmic activity that do not opt to build in wood.
Japan sits atop a zone of tectonic plate subduction. Hearthquakes are not unknown to them and they build with modern materials. Tokyo, with its extreme population density, is built to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes. Are the USA dumber than Japan?
Regarding Hurricane Alley, wrapping a woodframe with brick doesn’t make the structure sturdier, just makes it heavier and more prone to break under stress, as the brick work won’t have structural role.
A properly built modern brick or block structure has a super structure reinforced with rebar and concrete, which then receives the brick/block work to finish the building, with some walls being part of the superstructure of the building. This forms a monolithic construction that tends to be very stuborn and stays in place unless something blows it to pieces. Older buildings used other techniques, usually tied to the brickwork itself to create load bearing structures.
That’s because Europe has had many more centuries worth of deforestation. The greatest resource the Americas had to offer to Europe was essentially unlimited lumber.
Once you’ve destroyed an ecosystem, it takes a lot of effort to bring back. Often you can’t just expect to plant the same type of trees as before and expect it to take.
There are ways to introduce things gradually, but it’s not an on/off switch.
Plus there are entire keystone species of trees that blights drove to actual or morphological extinction. I don’t know about European species, but the mountains of appalachia used to be covered in massive American Chestnut trees that were so big around at the trunk they were on par with west coast species. After the blight, you can still find groves of chestnut trees, but its like they’re a different species - they live 7-9 years and die basically around the time they first mast. They never live long enough to really leave the sapling phase.
What part of Florida? I know there’s different wind speed ratings depending on how far north you’re building. In South Florida I only ever saw cinder block or full concrete exteriors.
I’m actually living in California now. Very different structures to the buildings. Houses are much smaller overall too. But the landscape is so much nicer to look at and explore. I never realized how boring and flat Florida was until I left.
I understand a lot of homes in Europe are not well insulated, and weren’t built with it in mind. Climate change is causing problems with this design deficit.
It’s not like it’s a “wood house” though just the framing is softwood lumber. The foundation is reinforced poured concrete, there’s steel support braces, the ties and hardware are likely zinc coated steel, roof is asphalt shingles or steel, wind bracing is lumber or steel rods depending on code, could even have exterior brick or vinyl siding.
Wouldn’t the inside of your house still have wood framing structure like this though? Looks like this neighbourhood uses vinyl siding, but you could easily have a brick/stone/stucco exterior.
Isn’t it way harder to run plumbing/electric through cinder blocks, let alone hanging drywall? Or do you build a cinderblock box first and then frame the inside with wood?
This place looks like it doesn’t have a basement, which is a must in Canada, and all our basements are generally concrete pour or cinderblocks, but we still have framing on the inside walls, and usually everything above the basement is wood + facade
Typically, yes. In the US at least, cinder block houses are common particularly in Florida and coastal regions. The inside would still likely have a moisture barrier and insulation on modern homes, so you will typically have wood framing for interior walls to allow for wiring, plumbing, and insulation that is then drywalled over.
Wouldn’t the inside of your house still have wood framing structure like this though?
Extremely rare. Most houses built until the 1959s are made of stone and mortar, with walls at least 2 feet wide. In Northern Europe, i.e. UK, Belgium, Netherlands, parts of France and Germany, you would fund brick and mortar walls. Interior walls were built with thin hollow bricks assembled with mortar. These houses are a pain to renovate and most people just put everything agaisntbthe existing walls and then glue their drywalls on top of it with adhesive mortar.
Since then, it is mostly cinder blocks or hollow brichs that are then filled with concrete. Modern building regulations impose steel reinforcement in regions prone to earthquakes. Interior walls are built with a framing of steel railings that are very light and flexible when handled but very sturdy when assembled. The drywall is screwed on each side of these rails which gives room for electrical and plumbung.
Isn’t it way harder to run plumbing/electric through cinder blocks, let alone hanging drywall? Or do you build a cinderblock box first and then frame the inside with wood?
At least in South America (where most buildings are made of brick and mortar) there’s no drywall. The internal finish is a smooth layer on top of the bricks and that’s it. That makes it easier to hang heavy things on the wall but also makes it impossible to run wires of any kind. It also makes repairs more difficult.
Our schools in North America are mostly built like this. I think the bricks are hollow, so they can run power, but most things reside inside the drop ceiling.
I’m genuinely curious. I am in the southern US, Alabama specifically with the heat and humidity that entails. There are cinder block homes here, but they’re mostly looked down upon and almost always have mold and mildew problems. How is that handled with brick and mortar or concrete construction?
Double walls, with thermal insulation, external vapor barrier and built in ventilation ducts. Special additives for the mortars prevent moisture from seeping into the walls. Double or even triple pane windows and good quality, properly applied exterior paint reinforces the insulation.
I’ll risk the ones you’re used to see are single wall, probably bare block and perhaps poorly cobbled together, as if they were sheds or something alike.
I don’t see why brick and mortar houses should be extra susceptible to those problems if build well. But of course Europe didn’t use to see the same extremes of heat and humidity as the US does, perhaps it will become a problem in the future.
You got it right I suspect. Most of these that I’ve seen are a single course of blocks with no discernible vapor barrier or anything. And maybe a thin layer of paint.
Meanwhile most of your energy sources are not renewable and per capita the average emissions of the American is double or even triple of the average European.
Why the aggressive tone? Each technique has its advantages. I guess brick and mortar houses would burn less in California, which has the same climate as Italy and Spain
Whether or not the house burns to the ground is irrelevant when the damage caused by the heat alone would condemn a brick/stone house in the US. At least wood frame houses can be easily tore down and rebuilt.
Places generally build with whatever sensical building material they have most widely available. If there are a ton of forests, they probably build with wood. If there’s a ton of stone, they probably build with stone.
Always amses me to see you guys build your wood houses. This looks so much like a construction game for children, I want to play too!
I live on a fault line along the pacific ring of fire, and so building with wood was an absolute necessity for us so long, as they were structurally more lenient to the constant earthquakes. Even now I believe our old government building is the largest wooden building in the Southern hemisphere (and it’s only 4 stories tall). These days as construction techniques have changed, we’ve obviously built things with concrete, steel, brick, etc., but the wooden tradition remains strong, with a huge majority of modern houses here still being built like this.
That aside, wood was also just a much cheaper material to build with, so it was the most economical material to use for a long time for much of the “new world”.
Right. Buildings were mostly wood and mud in Europe until the 18th Century. By then, cities became so dense that big fires were extremely deadly. Little by little people started building in stone, then bricks and now reinforced concrete.
It didn’t really have anything to do with fires. Pretty much every hardwood forest was cut down in Europe and any remaining were protected so they could be used to build ships.
America was colonized late enough that it never really became an issue.
Yeah exactly they basically stripped their continent bare of lumber during that period and it’s all at the bottom of the ocean now. The materials used are just as much determined by economic conditions as practicality.
What do you normally build houses with?
Here in Europe, we use mostly cinder blocks or bricks. I guess wood is more common in Northern Europe and Switzerland
In California we use wood because it flexes during earthquakes. There may be damage during a big one but at least the house is less likely to collapse on you.
In earthquakes in NZ the wooden houses flex for sure. What kills you is the brick chimney falling through the roof.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
isnt brick an excellent insulator?
deleted by creator
That’s why you use insulating bricks like these:
See how there are as few direct connections between inside and outside as possible. The whole thing is very light too, so it has very little thermal mass. This is combined with a white surface outside and that transfers very little heat. My 200m² house requires maybe 1.5kW of heating at -10°C outside in the winter. I have no AC, in summer we just leave the windows open until 6am and then shut the blinds automatically when the air heats up.
Pretty neat, I’ve never seen masonry like this before.
I’ll point out that the webbing is likely strong, but considering the lack of ductility, this seems likely to fail during an earthquake. What’re these called, I’d like to look into them more.
i was so sure it was, i looked it up after seeing your comment and… you are right. even double brick which ive always been told was great, apparently isnt all that good. TIL
In Europe we use reinforced concrete for the same purpose. Don’t know if it works but it’s the way it’s done.
Wait, are earthquakes common in Europe?!
Italy ils pretty shaky, Portugal too. Southern France is waiting for its own Big One.
For reference, nowhere in Western Europe is even close to the much of the west coast of the Americas in terms of seismic activity.
And also because there’s no snow or serious rain. Took me years to get used to the flimsy houses here, they wouldn’t last a year back in my country.
I don’t know about that. I’ve lived in a typical “flimsy” American wooden house in an area that had a lot of crazy weather with extreme winds and even a couple of tropical storms. That house had absolutely no issue with those. These houses are a lot stronger than they look. They flex but don’t break.
My house is 80 years old, I’ve personally seen 3 feet of snow on its roof, it weathered hurricane Fran with no damage, hurricane Matthew caused a leak around the chimney that stained my living room ceiling a little.
I’m ready to take anything this area is willing to throw at me except tornadoes. A direct strike by tornado will pull it down.
I live in the Pacific Northwest where it rains quite a bit. Wood houses are fine in the rain as long as the moisture barrier and roof have been installed correctly.
Canada also builds houses out of wood. There’s pretty serious snow here and the houses work great.
I also live in one of the the windiest cities in Canada . The asphalt shingles have blown off houses frequently, but the houses themselves are solid.
I’m pretty sure those wooden houses in Canada are built differently from wooden houses in California. The ones I’ve seen are thin wooden struts covered with some drywall.
Edit: and just saying “flimsy” by comparison to the usual reinforced concrete structures back home. I now own a home in California and it’s definitely solid.
So funnily enough, 2x4 exterior walls meet code for 3 stories, but where I am, it doesn’t meet the insulation requirements of minimum r-20, so it’s normally built with 2x6.
deleted by creator
I know it is possible to build solid houses out of wood. The ones I’m talking about would 100% not withstand blizzards or tornadoes.
Like most in my native country, I grew up in a building made entirely of solid reinforced concrete slabs, including most interior walls. I could not hear my upstairs or downstairs neighbors and when I saw people punching holes in the walls in American movies I thought it’s just an exaggeration, not something that can actually happen. Wooden houses were culturally associated with poor rural people who couldn’t afford living in a nice solid apartment. That culture persists today, and even in isolated villages new homes are built with concrete structures and brick walls.
When I bought a piece of land and was looking at options for new houses, I found a company making very solid wooden homes (still a lot more solid than the average Bay Area home) for reasonable prices and both my and my wife’s families were outraged at the idea of building a house out of wood.
Just some random background to why I’d use the word “flimsy” for wooden struts sandwiched between drywall sheets.
If we did that in the US west coast, they would crack and fall apart from tectonic plate shift. You need to build things to be flexible for earthquakes and general shift.
I live in a 100 year old farm house in California and every spring and fall we have to move the strike plate (thing the door latch nubbin goes into) on the front door up or down about 3/4 inch due to seasonal house shifting. The door stops closing and we know it’s spring time!
Steel reinforcement is what keeps them up. At least it’s supposed to.
The structure would still be damaged, although it may be “standing”.
It doesn’t work, it’s been tested plenty by people far smarter than either of us.
It would stick crack and crumble around the steel. It wouldn’t work here, which is why it against building codes here.
That’s a really poor argument to pass down to people.
Solutions exist to make buildings earthquake resilient and the USA created a good part of it.
Vibration dampeners, structure stress relievers, special mortars and concretes, specific structural geometry, etc.
There is no reason why the US should keep its attachment to wood construction. Tornado alley would vastly improve if house were to shift from match sticks and hope to brick and mortar with reinforced concrete foundations.
Tornado alley is a completely different part of the US than the West Coast, which is specifically what I was talking about. It’s like 2000 miles away. Tornado alley doesn’t have earthquakes, so this discussion doesn’t even apply to that. Bust now that were talking about it, in tornado alley, houses at least do have a brick exterior around the wood.
I picked Tornado Alley because it’s low hanging fruit; I’ll get to that again.
USA has a fixation for wood construction, completely unreasonable and unjustifiable. There are several countries and regions in the world with sysmic activity that do not opt to build in wood.
Japan sits atop a zone of tectonic plate subduction. Hearthquakes are not unknown to them and they build with modern materials. Tokyo, with its extreme population density, is built to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes. Are the USA dumber than Japan?
Regarding Hurricane Alley, wrapping a woodframe with brick doesn’t make the structure sturdier, just makes it heavier and more prone to break under stress, as the brick work won’t have structural role.
A properly built modern brick or block structure has a super structure reinforced with rebar and concrete, which then receives the brick/block work to finish the building, with some walls being part of the superstructure of the building. This forms a monolithic construction that tends to be very stuborn and stays in place unless something blows it to pieces. Older buildings used other techniques, usually tied to the brickwork itself to create load bearing structures.
That’s because Europe has had many more centuries worth of deforestation. The greatest resource the Americas had to offer to Europe was essentially unlimited lumber.
And we wasted a lot of our forests on superfluous things like war ships - see the Castillan plateau which is now a dry and barren land.
Why aren’t they replanting?
Once you’ve destroyed an ecosystem, it takes a lot of effort to bring back. Often you can’t just expect to plant the same type of trees as before and expect it to take.
There are ways to introduce things gradually, but it’s not an on/off switch.
Plus there are entire keystone species of trees that blights drove to actual or morphological extinction. I don’t know about European species, but the mountains of appalachia used to be covered in massive American Chestnut trees that were so big around at the trunk they were on par with west coast species. After the blight, you can still find groves of chestnut trees, but its like they’re a different species - they live 7-9 years and die basically around the time they first mast. They never live long enough to really leave the sapling phase.
Maybe they are. It’s a long way though
In Florida houses are also built from cinder blocks because wood is too weak against hurricanes.
Edit: interiors can be built from wood, but all exterior walls are made with cinder blocks.
So that people can remain secure like the third little pig!
Exteriors are wood too, hurricane straps. Basically metal connectors connect everything from ground across the roof to the ground again.
What part of Florida? I know there’s different wind speed ratings depending on how far north you’re building. In South Florida I only ever saw cinder block or full concrete exteriors.
It should be compliant everywhere, maybe a particular municipality has specific restrictions though.
Same in the Caribbean. Houses and buildings made of concrete to survive hurricanes. Windows may blow out but the walls stay firm.
Interesting. Here in California, building brick structures is prohibited because of the risk during earthquakes.
I’m actually living in California now. Very different structures to the buildings. Houses are much smaller overall too. But the landscape is so much nicer to look at and explore. I never realized how boring and flat Florida was until I left.
We have plenty of brick houses here too, but they all are still built around wooden frames for the most part
deleted by creator
Wood is becoming popular for new constructions in France too.
With the new regulations you need to limit the amount of CO2 emitted for building and maintaining the house.
It’s much easier to respect this regulation by using wood rather than concrete so we see more and more wooden constructions now.
something like this for example
With clay bricks! That’s a fa’cy one
That’s most likely Porotherm bricks, which are cheaper. And the even cheaper version is with AAC bricks like this
In Europe? Bricks and mortar
Or this
That appears to be a military bunker of some sort
It does, doesn’t it? That’s before surfacing is done.
I’m pretty sure you’re supposed to be in a full suit with a respirator, mask and whatnot to spray this shit.
I was thinking more like a commercial building than a residential.
I understand a lot of homes in Europe are not well insulated, and weren’t built with it in mind. Climate change is causing problems with this design deficit.
That is mainly specifically a UK problem. Most homes in Europe are pretty decently to excellently insulated.
Energy use per capita does not support that theory. USA still way ahead of any European country.
It’s not like it’s a “wood house” though just the framing is softwood lumber. The foundation is reinforced poured concrete, there’s steel support braces, the ties and hardware are likely zinc coated steel, roof is asphalt shingles or steel, wind bracing is lumber or steel rods depending on code, could even have exterior brick or vinyl siding.
Wouldn’t the inside of your house still have wood framing structure like this though? Looks like this neighbourhood uses vinyl siding, but you could easily have a brick/stone/stucco exterior.
Isn’t it way harder to run plumbing/electric through cinder blocks, let alone hanging drywall? Or do you build a cinderblock box first and then frame the inside with wood?
This place looks like it doesn’t have a basement, which is a must in Canada, and all our basements are generally concrete pour or cinderblocks, but we still have framing on the inside walls, and usually everything above the basement is wood + facade
Portugal here, no wood, just iron, steel and concrete. And bricks, of course.
Where I am in South Carolina very few people have basements as they would be prone to flooding
Interestingly enough, I was contemplating the amount of sand used in cinder blocks vs tabby.
Typically, yes. In the US at least, cinder block houses are common particularly in Florida and coastal regions. The inside would still likely have a moisture barrier and insulation on modern homes, so you will typically have wood framing for interior walls to allow for wiring, plumbing, and insulation that is then drywalled over.
Wouldn’t the inside of your house still have wood framing structure like this though?Extremely rare. Most houses built until the 1959s are made of stone and mortar, with walls at least 2 feet wide. In Northern Europe, i.e. UK, Belgium, Netherlands, parts of France and Germany, you would fund brick and mortar walls. Interior walls were built with thin hollow bricks assembled with mortar. These houses are a pain to renovate and most people just put everything agaisntbthe existing walls and then glue their drywalls on top of it with adhesive mortar. Since then, it is mostly cinder blocks or hollow brichs that are then filled with concrete. Modern building regulations impose steel reinforcement in regions prone to earthquakes. Interior walls are built with a framing of steel railings that are very light and flexible when handled but very sturdy when assembled. The drywall is screwed on each side of these rails which gives room for electrical and plumbung.At least in South America (where most buildings are made of brick and mortar) there’s no drywall. The internal finish is a smooth layer on top of the bricks and that’s it. That makes it easier to hang heavy things on the wall but also makes it impossible to run wires of any kind. It also makes repairs more difficult.
Our schools in North America are mostly built like this. I think the bricks are hollow, so they can run power, but most things reside inside the drop ceiling.
I’m genuinely curious. I am in the southern US, Alabama specifically with the heat and humidity that entails. There are cinder block homes here, but they’re mostly looked down upon and almost always have mold and mildew problems. How is that handled with brick and mortar or concrete construction?
Double walls, with thermal insulation, external vapor barrier and built in ventilation ducts. Special additives for the mortars prevent moisture from seeping into the walls. Double or even triple pane windows and good quality, properly applied exterior paint reinforces the insulation.
Most of the ones I’ve seen don’t have most of, or any of this. I’d suspect that’s the problem.
I’ll risk the ones you’re used to see are single wall, probably bare block and perhaps poorly cobbled together, as if they were sheds or something alike.
Far off the mark?
Not too far off of it.
I don’t see why brick and mortar houses should be extra susceptible to those problems if build well. But of course Europe didn’t use to see the same extremes of heat and humidity as the US does, perhaps it will become a problem in the future.
You got it right I suspect. Most of these that I’ve seen are a single course of blocks with no discernible vapor barrier or anything. And maybe a thin layer of paint.
Brick manufacturing devastates the environment. We build our houses from sustainable resources.because we’re not cavemen.
We build our houses from trees because we have lots of trees.
Meanwhile most of your energy sources are not renewable and per capita the average emissions of the American is double or even triple of the average European.
Why the aggressive tone? Each technique has its advantages. I guess brick and mortar houses would burn less in California, which has the same climate as Italy and Spain
Whether or not the house burns to the ground is irrelevant when the damage caused by the heat alone would condemn a brick/stone house in the US. At least wood frame houses can be easily tore down and rebuilt.
~
At least wood frame houses can be easily tore down and rebuilt~.Fair point
That is not the reasoning at all.
Places generally build with whatever sensical building material they have most widely available. If there are a ton of forests, they probably build with wood. If there’s a ton of stone, they probably build with stone.
You’re wrong, and honestly kind of a dick.