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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about Santa Fe, they seem to have a lot of houses made of stone or masonry?
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.
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.
