U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2017, 10:50 AM
 
21,185 posts, read 30,343,833 times
Reputation: 19590

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayVanderbilt View Post
So it's only Florida that does this? It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. If everyone left the country and came back in 50 years, almost no buildings would still stand. Only some steel skyscrapers in the cities.
Homes/buildings built in the late 1700s, 1800s and up through the 1960s are solid and don't expect much change in that after just 50 more years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2017, 11:46 AM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,504 posts, read 17,720,777 times
Reputation: 30796
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayVanderbilt View Post
Anyone who has ever spent time outside the US knows that practically all developed countries uses way better materials when building their homes and other constructions. They use concrete, while in America they use wood.
Wood houses are very common in Norway and Sweden, the developed world by anyone's definition, and just as wood is a very economical building material in forested Scandinavia, so it is in the US.

However, most remaining continental European forests are highly managed to produce a high dollar product and building lumber is quite expensive. Given the advantages of concrete such as durability, ease of construction, and cost, its widespread use in European architecture makes sense.

I would argue that the poor state of American residential architecture has a lot more to do with the low bar of acceptable engineering standards than the actual properties of wood as a structural material. After all, there are plenty of timber framed buildings in Europe, still in use, that are built of timbers over 500 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 12:06 PM
 
412 posts, read 305,791 times
Reputation: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
Wood houses are very common in Norway and Sweden, the developed world by anyone's definition, and just as wood is a very economical building material in forested Scandinavia, so it is in the US.

However, most remaining continental European forests are highly managed to produce a high dollar product and building lumber is quite expensive. Given the advantages of concrete such as durability, ease of construction, and cost, its widespread use in European architecture makes sense.

I would argue that the poor state of American residential architecture has a lot more to do with the low bar of acceptable engineering standards than the actual properties of wood as a structural material. After all, there are plenty of timber framed buildings in Europe, still in use, that are built of timbers over 500 years ago.
Yes, wood single family houses are common. However apartment complexes and high rises are never made out of wood like they are here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 12:18 PM
 
21,185 posts, read 30,343,833 times
Reputation: 19590
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
Wood houses are very common in Norway and Sweden, the developed world by anyone's definition, and just as wood is a very economical building material in forested Scandinavia, so it is in the US.

However, most remaining continental European forests are highly managed to produce a high dollar product and building lumber is quite expensive. Given the advantages of concrete such as durability, ease of construction, and cost, its widespread use in European architecture makes sense.

I would argue that the poor state of American residential architecture has a lot more to do with the low bar of acceptable engineering standards than the actual properties of wood as a structural material. After all, there are plenty of timber framed buildings in Europe, still in use, that are built of timbers over 500 years ago.
The much more humid conditions across much of the US has more to do with the "poor state" of woodframe structures in many cases than a lack of workmanship. Norway and Sweden aren't especially known for wood rot and don't have termites either, which presents a massive advantage for wood structures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 01:12 PM
 
9,383 posts, read 9,532,267 times
Reputation: 5786
There are two reasons for this
1) Forests are more plentiful in North America so its much more economical to build wooden buildings.
2) With Colder winters in North America than Western Europe the lower heat conduction of wood compared to stone makes wood a "warmer" house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 01:24 PM
 
412 posts, read 305,791 times
Reputation: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
There are two reasons for this
1) Forests are more plentiful in North America so its much more economical to build wooden buildings.
2) With Colder winters in North America than Western Europe the lower heat conduction of wood compared to stone makes wood a "warmer" house.
That's false. Wooden houses has less insulation and gets colder in the winter than a stone or concrete house. A pure stone house will be warm in winter and cool in the summer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 04:50 PM
 
3,215 posts, read 1,543,956 times
Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayVanderbilt View Post
So it's only Florida that does this? It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. If everyone left the country and came back in 50 years, almost no buildings would still stand. Only some steel skyscrapers in the cities.
I think to use a timeframe of another 50-yrs most standing would be gone? Is pretty pessimistic. Some of our cities had WOOD-BRICK Construction with SOLID Oak construction. Oak can be as solid as concrete.

Anyone who held a block of solid Oak knows its weight, hardness and strength, that was used to build our older homes including major cities. Combined with Brick (not merely veneered)? You have a SOLID BUILDING. Today cinderblock construction is a solid choice too. Particleboard is not though.

It is no doubt cheaper today to use even concrete then solid Oak. Really a lot in our cities constructed in past eras that will be around in 100-yrs. Unless something catastrophic happens.

Just living in Chicago and knowing solid construction of housing there thru the 1960s. Being very solid of Oak and Brick being standard key materials. I see new infill there of cinderblock and concrete bearing the core strength is solid also. I'd say they will be standing in 100-years.

SOME CINDERBLOCK/BRICK and WOOD Infill examples alone.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9459...7i13312!8i6656

One UNDER-CONSTRUCTION

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9458...7i13312!8i6656

I always felt some cities do a better quality infill in their city then others. Chi-Town being one. But a higher quality construction ain't cheap. But surly give a structure a much better shot for the next hundred years to still be standing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 06:03 PM
 
9,383 posts, read 9,532,267 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayVanderbilt View Post
That's false. Wooden houses has less insulation and gets colder in the winter than a stone or concrete house. A pure stone house will be warm in winter and cool in the summer.
Nope, Wood has a heat conduction coefficient on .048, Brick is .15, Cement is .29. That means that with the same Temperature difference and width of wall, wood will conduct 1/3rd the heat of Brick and 1/6th the heat of cement. As a result it would take more energy to heat the same sized house made of concrete than wood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2017, 12:27 AM
 
412 posts, read 305,791 times
Reputation: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
Nope, Wood has a heat conduction coefficient on .048, Brick is .15, Cement is .29. That means that with the same Temperature difference and width of wall, wood will conduct 1/3rd the heat of Brick and 1/6th the heat of cement. As a result it would take more energy to heat the same sized house made of concrete than wood.
Ok, if you say so. I just know from growing up in a wood house it was always really cold in the winter and really hot in the summer as there was no insulation. Visiting others who had a stone house or a cement house it was a different thing. I thought this was why they built homes in stone in Spain, Mexico, the Middle East etc...because they kept cool during the heat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2017, 12:29 AM
 
412 posts, read 305,791 times
Reputation: 271
How about Santa Fe, they seem to have a lot of houses made of stone or masonry?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top