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.
In general construction materials are location and environment specific, as was already mentioned more than once. In areas where the right type of clay was available you had brick houses. In areas where thatch was available you had/have thatch roofs.
In areas where it doesn't rain you had mud bricks.
In general construction materials are location and environment specific, as was already mentioned more than once. In areas where the right type of clay was available you had brick houses. In areas where thatch was available you had/have thatch roofs.
In areas where it doesn't rain you had mud bricks.
Bingo. That's why the Spanish didn't make Log Cabins in the North American Southwest and the English didn't build with Adobe on the east coast.
Remember that OP has made a career of two post types:
1) "Why are Americans so stupid that they do [X] instead of [Y] like the far superior [Europeans, Asians, what have you] do?"
2) "The world economy is poised on the brink of total disaster/worldwide famine/total collapse of civilization/danger danger danger and I'm the only one who can see it!"
Remember that OP has made a career of two post types:
1) "Why are Americans so stupid that they do [X] instead of [Y] like the far superior [Europeans, Asians, what have you] do?"
2) "The world economy is poised on the brink of total disaster/worldwide famine/total collapse of civilization/danger danger danger and I'm the only one who can see it!"
Good pick-up! Perhaps the OP should move to Romania/Europe to get away from stupid Americans and live under a clay tile roof and prepare himself/herself for the total collapse of civilization
Also, when I lived in Germany, we had some unusual storms and wind (not unusual to me, being from Texas, but unusual for Germany). People were being clobbered by tiles falling off roofs and hitting them - some of them even died.
Pros and cons to everything.
That's how Ben-Hur ended up in prison. Clay tile hitting some official.
I love clay tile roofs and the uniform look of them in Spain and Portugal is very aesthetically pleasing. But yes they are heavy and unwieldy. The SoCal version looks almost as good and is lighter, easier to install. I think it'd be very scary if you had to walk on them for some reason...
We have all flat roofs and concrete. More living space with a terrace above.
When I was in Romania, I commonly saw houses and buildings with clay tile roofing. In the US, I almost never see clay tile roofing- it's almost entirely cheap and ugly asphalt roofing. The US is a much richer country than Romania- why do they have clay tile as a common roofing material and we don't? IMO, asphalt roofing should be used on doghouses/birdhouses, or in third world shanty towns- houses going for several hundreds of thousands of dollars should not have them.
If you 'almost never' see clay tiling in the United States, then you are judging American roofing practices based on just what you happen to see where you happen to be. This, obviously, results in a faulty picture. That would be like me claiming that all Romanians live in communist-era concrete flats such as these:
You find asphalt shingles 'ugly'. Perhaps you are unaware that this is a subjective assessment. Do you think others are obligated to make housing decisions based on your subjective aesthetic preferences?
By the logic that clay-is-more-expensive-and-longer-lasting-than-asphalt and so should be used, it follows that slate - which is more expensive still than clay, and even more long lasting - should be the choice over clay. But I suspect that you aren't really willing to apply the logic you've put forth here beyond this specific issue. Note that you'll find even fewer instances of clay tile roofs in Canada. However, I suspect there won't be any threads by you berating Canadians for this.
Is cost a factor in choosing asphalt over clay tiles? Certainly. Clay tiles typically cost 3.5x to 7.5x as much as asphalt shingles to apply to an equivalent surface. This is because the cost of clay tiling is greater, because application is more involved and thus the labor costs are greater, and also because many roofs need to be structurally reinforced to accommodate the greater weight of clay tiling. It is true that clay tiling lasts longer, by a span of approximately 2x to 4x. On an average per year basis, asphalt shingles are more cost effective.
Beyond that, there's the point of spending extra money for the benefit of someone 50 to 100 years down the road. How much money have you put away towards the education of your great-great grandchildren, who might be heading off to college in 60 years? Not a cent, I'd say. So why are you worrying about the roofing situation of some (probable) stranger in the late 21st/early 22nd century?
There are going to be some significant difference between Romanian and American living practices. One is residential mobility, which is far greater in the United States. A typical person might rent for a few years, then purchase a starter home, then move into a larger home in which to raise a family, then after twenty years or so downsize to a smaller home once the kids are grown and gone, and perhaps consolidate into an even smaller place a decade or two after that. There is no compelling reason to make a large investment in a dwelling that will not pay off until decades after one has sold it. This contrasts with Romanian practices. It would at least make some sense to invest in a place where one, or one's descendants, can reasonably be expected to live in the future.
Quote:
Residential mobility there is remarkably low, with 52.5% of Romanians living at the same address since the fall of communism. The highest share (64.5%) can be found in rural houses without inside-water, and the smallest and second smallest (37.4% and 42.7%) in rural and urban flats, respectively.
The reasons for this are fairly obvious. One is poverty. Per capita wealth in the United States is more than twice that as in Romania. Also, it's the size of the country. Say your profession is the law, or IT, or education, or social services, or whatever. If you're anywhere near the top of your profession, metro Bucharest is the place to work, being the only 1,000,000+ urban area in Romania. It is a small country. The United States has 53 metro areas with at least a million people. Further metros with at least half a million population? There's two in Romania, but another 57 in the United States. There is also far greater geographical and climatic variation in the United States. Thus, means and opportunity and cause for internal migration are greater in The United States - which is why it occurs here at a higher rate.
Also, let's dispense with the notion that Romanians somehow favor clay tiling out of an abiding desire to possess the best roofing available. Per Romanian census figures (see the link above) as recently as 2011 no less than 47% of Romanian dwellings were one or two rooms (rooms, not bedrooms). And the lack of connection to running water and a sewage system in Romania is too high [see below]. This is not a value judgment but a simple statement of fact. Romanian society still suffers from nearly half a century of communist mismanagement that has put it behind the social development curve. But the fact remains, Romanians aren't saying "Instead of running water and establishing a modern local sewage system, let's spend extra on a room just to make sure it'll still be on the roof in the year 2121." That is not happening.
There's also the case that the United States, as an immigrant nation, is still rapidly expanding. Romania's population is 6.6% more than it was as measured by the 1930 census; the American population has increased by a larger percentage just since 2010. As urban areas expand at such a pace, there is a relatively rapid change in land usage in a given area, from farmland to outer-ring suburban housing to inner-ring suburb. Similarly, urban cores change as the urban area rapidly grows. This results in a comparatively high turnover or housing. The natural lifetime of a housing unit is such areas is much shorter than in a built--out nation with a flat-lining population. It would be fiscal malpractice in most such cases to spend with an eye on the next century.
Heck, I don't even like the look of most clay tiles. I mean, sure, if someone wants to use them, be my guest, but I will stick with what matches my style best.
An Irish friend of mine is (was, he is retired) a builder of homes in Ireland. He visited the US several times and was always amazed at the way Americans built homes especially stick built wood homes. He said brick is one thing but the stick built was poor construction. He also said our roofing materials (basically asphalt shingles) was cheap and needed replacing to often. But there were things he liked about American homes. Good water pressure, good sewage, good electrical, good HVAC, bigger rooms, plenty of bathrooms, garage with direct entry to the house.
He always said great homes to live in but cheap construction.
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.
:quality(80)/business-review.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Blocvechi2.jpg)
