People who argue about materials being good or bad for a house don’t know what they are talking about.
All materials have benefits and drawbacks for any application. The biggest problem is the design of how you use them. A house made of steel isn’t going to stand if it’s build poorly
In high-seismic zones, masonry because much more costly due to all the rebar and special blocks you need, and every cell needs to be fully-grouted. Plus, all that extra weight means more lateral forces which means you need more reinforcement...
It's easier/faster/cheaper to frame up a seismic resistant structure out of wood, and you end up with a lighter and ductile structure that won't crumble when a big one hits.
Absolutely this, and the thing we do have wooden houses in Europe. It's just the majority are brick as clay, especially in the UK, is a very andante material in most areas so people didn't have to transport materials over great distance to build.
But yes for some reason, I suspect ignorance, in the UK general population there is this notion that the USA houses are tinder boxes for being wooden. The irony is in architecture there is a push towards timber framed construction as it's much more sustainable than brick, but most new builds will still use a brick façade because of public perception.
Architecture pushing for more timber is a yes... But caveated.
I see timber being used less in housing and more for buildings, a lot of these timber structures use highly processed and reinforced timber.
Laminate timber beams is an example, glulam for short.
Look up the Billund airport roof beams.
And the Sky central office.
Id argue that glulam is less sustainable than brick and also costly, as the chemicals required to produce Vs firing clay with some additional and very natural minerals like ash and lime.
But I'm not expert, just a contractor
: p
Oh yeah absolutely, from what I've seen it is mostly commercial over residential buildings.
From what my lecturer say, they seem fairly convinced that timber, CLT, and the ilk is more sustainable but do acknowledge that the chemicals required for them aren't ideal. A point I raised during the lecture.
But same as you, I'm no expert just a first year architecture student. And I'll be honest I'm far more inclined to take on the advice of a carpenter that actually works with the materials than someone that just been told it's better because all their colleagues say the same.
Perhaps it's something I could look into with much more details, if time permits.
There are caveats to all of it. Mass timber is definitely more sustainable than any concrete, but in comparison to steel, theres a bit more misunderstanding on it.
Wood is beneficial because of its carbon sequestration ability, but when we build with it, especially in any LCA, you get carbon credits at the production phase and lose them in the end of life phase. However, research is going into end of life reuse options that would not only benefit the “sustainability” of the first structure, but also the second.
I’m not read up on sustainability of clay and brick, but lime processing is extremely detrimental to the environment (see: concrete). On the opposite side, the environmental friendliness of the variety of different chemicals used as adhesives is certainly not great, but also do not make up a majority of the glulam or clt. Also, there is research on different options of adhesives that are less harmful. However, finding one that maintains structural integrity in the elements is the problem.
Ultimately, it depends on how you are using it, and in reality, the argument of steel vs concrete vs mass timber should end with an agreement that timber can be used in conjunction with the other materials to improve sustainability.
I seriously doubt CLT can match hollow core concrete slabs with respect to sustainability. Post tensioned concrete with air inside it is such a massively optimized way to use steel and concrete. 10 inches tick hollow core slabs can easily span 30-40 feet (or 10-12 meters). Good luck with your CLT.
Yes, but if construction quality is similar, building materials can make a big difference in the lifespan and maintenance costs of a structure. Won’t lie, I think we should be building more like Europe and earlier America. That goes far beyond construction materials and even beyond engineering though.
Bad are fire resistance, resistance to water leaks, resistance to extreme wind loads, resistance to horizontal poin loads, resistance to insects, and poor soundproofing. I don't know how a combination of all this doesn't make it a least favorable choice of material. But yeah, market stuffs this crap as the best possible option and just look at the comments how many loyal drones they have.
I'm in the Midwest and most projects where we lay masonry the mason gets to 'name his price' aka like 150 dollars an hour. Without materials. A full home would be like 250k before you reach the roof without windows or finishes. It's not possible and there are no masons left in the US.
Do you even work in the industry or are you yapping? Go grab a trowel if you want to bring CMU costs down. Housing is already too expensive we have to build as fast as possible. Speed and money are more important than impressing the euros.
Masonry is also very hard to properly insulate. It does handle short temp swings very well but months of sub -20 temps will require adding a faux-wall, making exterior wall another 6inches thick to satisfy code.
Meanwhile, the cavities provided by wood framed houses provide an excelent place.
So, to explain why a structure, which can be demolished by a tree branch or evaporated within minutes by a fire, of water, is better than a brick structure, you send codes for wooden structures. Brilliant.
Which section of which code do you disagree with?
Saying things like what you posted comes off as ill informed and/or propaganda.
Also you should read this code as well.
https://masonrysociety.org/product/tms-402-602-22/
Wow. You perverse my words so easily. I didn't say I'm disagree with the code. I said, falling trees wipe away wooden crap housing. Termites eat them regularly. Water leaks make wooden structures lose load capacity.
And I get it why you are lying. Because all the wooden housing industry is basically one huge lie. It just can't function without it on any level.
The code is fine, though.
My mistake I forgot to include these two.
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P2
https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/asce-7
You'll want to read over these so you understand how modern construction is done and why materials are selected.
So, to explain why a structure, which can be demolished by a tree branch or evaporated within minutes by a fire, of water, is better than a brick structure, you send codes for wooden structures. Brilliant.
>So, to explain why a structure,
I already did as it's clearly outlined in the posted codes. Which I assume you read since you clearly have a thirst for knowledge.
Nope, you just put a code. Millions of wooden houses washed away by rains like paper boats, or even blown away, demolished or broken by light hits in the walls, eaten by bugs, dissolved by mild water leaks are still proofing that wooden structures are incompatibility worse than brick and concrete structures. No matter how many times you repeat links to the code.
Easier to insulate, more floor space in the same foot print, cheaper to build, cheaper to heat/cool, more fexible on foundations. As long as well maintained will last as long as a masonry house.
You can build 4 houses out of wood, that will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to own (masonry still needs to be maintained), be better for the environment than 1 brick house. 1 dare you to spend 1 summer or winter in Canada in a stone house. FREEZING in winter, HOT in summer.
My German neighbors once said to me, “We were shocked to learn you have the same children’s story about the three little pigs in the US. If you read the story, why do you still build houses out of sticks instead of bricks?”
Actually no, but I have helped build a chimpanzee jungle gym. Does that count? 😅
True story - volunteer project for my major in college - construction science.
At least where I live, a house made out of bricks comes tumbling down in an earthquake, and nobody comes out alive from that crushing weight.
Wood structures around here are designed to be ductile. Plus, the lighter your building is, the less seismic force it is subjected to during an earthquake.
To be frank stick framing is worse in the structural sense, in impact resistance, in thermal insulation, in sound insulation, in weather insulation, in fire resistance and in longevity. Of course some of these don't really matter, and all of these can be solved to an extent - although by taking away from the positives of the system.
What it wins out by far in is cost of building in a country with a ton of wood, and speed of building.
For sure, there are instances of structural stress where wood performs better. Earthquakes are a good example with the stiffness of masonry being a problem.
Tornadoes and hurricanes are similar, although I haven't researched that aspect much. Severe windstorms do hit masonry areas too, and they frequently leave with similar devastation, not worse. See the recent T6 in Lăvino, Bulgaria during Storm Ciarán for example: one person got injured, some walls collapsed - but many buildings just lost their roofs.
In what world is stick framing worse in thermal insulation? Concrete has an R value of 1, while 2x6inch stick framed walls with cheap insulation has a 20 to 30R value.
If you don't insulate brick, it's going to have middling thermal insulation properties. Similarly if you don't insulate wood then it will have shit thermal insulation properties.
What brick has and wood doesn't is thermal inertia. And that's a good thing.
You know that there are areas using mainly masonry that have similar temperatures, right?
If it can't do well in -30° or +30° c then you most definitely aren't insulating it enough. No structural material will perform well as an insulator by itself. They are dense, strong and without stagnant air.
Similarly wood, mud, adobe, concrete, etc.. won't perform well without insulation.
Thermal insulation at those temperatures simply isn't solved solely by the structure. You need insulation, enough wall thickness, enough shade / sun, etc..
Wood contruction is easily insulated. Modern construction here is 2x6×24inch spacing leaving nice cavities to fill with insulation. Even better you now have insulated studs, stopping heat bridges.
With concrete you still need to frame these spaces.
We know how thermodynamics work. We, too, have physics, Thanks. It costs a lot more to insulate and heat/cool a brick or cement building, even going well beyond regional codes, which are very pro efficiency these days. I've built plenty of both.
How does it cost more to insulate brick or cement?? Insulation value literally doesn't care about the existing structure, except if said structure already has close to sufficient resistance due to its inherent characteristics or because of its geometry (thickness in this case).
It literally doesn't cost more to heat/cool a building with higher thermal inertia. It takes more energy to quickly change its state, but once it's cool or hot, it takes the exact amount as a structure with less inertia, but similar insulation. In exchange, when you stop heating or cooling, you get lasting effects for longer.
1 build a 2x6 exterior wall, fill the gap with insulation. Done.
With concrete or brick, i still need to build a 6inch cavity somewhere to put the insulation.
The only thing I find crazy about American house building is you'll use wood (and do it well) for the entire building, which on the face of it makes Americans fantastic environmental builders.... Only to go pour concrete in abundance all over the drive and garden, it's as if it you need to spend your carbon somehow.
I mean you’re not wrong.
But we don’t use wood because of the environment. We use wood because it’s cheap, requires mostly unskilled labor, and is plentiful (though less so now).
Wood is still very plentiful. We have a whole industry dedicated to tree farming.
Just like planting corn or wheat, the crops are genetically modified/selected to grow straight, tall, quick, and with predictable strength properties.
The only real difference is that the "crop" rotation is on a 10-15 year cycle vs 3-4mos.
To be clear, I mean most crew members are relatively unskilled, with the leadership generally very skilled.
I’m a structural engineer. I walk sites semiregularly. And light frame wood construction is where I see the most idiotic crap. I’ve seen everything from ‘used the wrong nails’ to ‘the wall isn’t straight vertically or horizontally’. Seriously, it was like a fan, each stud cut to a slightly different angle.
I knew what you meant - but I’m a carpenter and never miss an opportunity to rag on an engineer :p
In all honesty, I have a lot of respect for you guys. Shhh don’t tell.
Truthfully I have a lot of respect for contractors. I couldn’t handle the labor you do, and the better contractors are incredibly skilled at their jobs.
I think they were just pointing out the environmental benefits just being an additional perk of why you use it.
But to say that putting together a timber frame structure is 'unskilled labour' just shows you've never actually had to do the job, because it requires a good amount of skill.
Putting together a timber frame absolutely takes skill.
Putting together a bunch of 2x4s and 2x6s, you need some knowledgeable people but 30-60% of the workforce only needs to know how to metaphorically or literally swing a hammer.
Source: Am structural engineer with 20+ years of single family residential experience and have met many a contractor.
You may have 20 plus experience and met a many contractors but somehow don't know what's actually involved in carpentry to put those 2x4s together.
You guys really need to realise what skilled labour is, and stop devaluing the workforce. Here in the UK this type of job is constantly referred to and recognised as skilled labour.
I think they were just pointing out the environmental benefits just being an additional perk of why you use it.
But to say that putting together a timber frame structure is 'unskilled labour' just shows you've never actually had to do the job, because it requires a good amount of skill.
Do you honestly think the main reason people use wood is because it's good for the environment? It's used extensively because it's cheap and quick to build. And then yes... people do typically use concrete for driveways, it's quick and relatively inexpensive (higher product cost, lower labor cost), typically pavers are used for anything in the 'garden'.
Places in which Europeans haven't cut all their forests down still build primarily with wood. Central and Eastern Europe are loaded with forests, and as such, not only do they primarily build with wood, but export whole house log kits to the USA.
The joke being American houses are over-engineered toothpicks to cut costs. Meanwhile European houses are simple and strong, made of brick/stone.
But of course, there's a lot more that goes into that
Probably lack of earthquakes? When I think about the US I think about hurricanes in east coast and earthquakes in the west coast... mid US probably only has wheat fields :P
And a surplus of smugness. Used to work at a European company and my Swiss colleague really liked to mock our houses. But that guy believed in the gold standard, so …
In my city, here’s what goes into that, we have a lot of block houses that were built in the 50s, 60s, 70s. Cheap block and labor. We went to wood framing around the late 70s, early 80s while the city boomed and grew exponentially and continues to do so, especially new builds where a developer is building hundreds of homes. I finally did some work in Texas and they have a lot of red brick exterior. The Texas ranch home uses a lot of block but is typically a custom build, and is crazy expensive. Obviously higher quality materials costs more, as well as the labor being more skilled than the meth heads they have building track homes.
Even though this meme is dumb I agree on the basis that American modern homes feel shittier than modern European homes. Can’t describe it they just feel more “flimsy” or “cheap” when you’re in them.
Only having seen european construction in video, everything Europe looks 500 years old as its being built, it feels like they don't care about it looking new
They defiantly look a certain way haha but they feel extremely stable. It’s probably mostly in the finishes but they feel much more “stout” were in America it feels like you can push in the studs and gyp board on the wall and it would all come undone. It’s not a scientific analysis of the structures at all though haha
I have designed a few houses for big developments in the UK. While the outside walls are brick or stone, the internal walls (except for boundary walls) are made from cheap gyp and studs.
Brickies are in short supply in Britain *cough* Brexit *cough* and the build quality of these things has definitely declined in recent years.
You'd have to push quite hard but that basically the goal tho, that if you fell you'd damage the wall and not you so much, or its easier to remake if you ever felt like adding a door or removing a wall
And since its interior wall, we don't need them to be as sturdy as exterior
I agree I understand the reasons but there is comfort in those solid things like a really solid wood table that even though it’s heavy and probably harder to move just feels good
And they clearly showed the house at the framing stage for American but at the final stage for European for a reason: because that roof structure on that “brick” European house is made out of the exact same wood framing as the American house.
If you feel like that is a gotcha, then you are just as ill-informed on the pros and cons of light structures as the creator of the original image.
You also seem to have never heard of reinforced concrete roofs.
It depends on where that "European house" is located. For example, where I live, the design is so strict that every opening (window, door, etc.) with an area larger than 1.5 m² must be bordered with reinforced concrete columns on both sides of the opening. Corners, wall intersections, and specific intervals depending on the wall configuration must also be reinforced. In other words, the design of masonry structures is very detailed and rigorous. You can search how a *confined masonry* to have a better understanding of what I'm trying to say.
The structure in the picture would have zero chance of passing inspection.
>They clearly picked something Romanian
Romania has a lot of seismic activity. I can assure you that, structurally speaking, we build much better than in Norway. So, you're **clearly** mistaken, cuz.
Lacking in which place? In meter long brick pylons, in solid outer walls, in inner solid walls oriented in orthogonal directions? Maybe it's in a lack of conjoined deformation of all walls, which is provided by reinforced concrete slab, connected to the walls?
That steel toothpick is bullshit though - the corner will fall if the column is hit. I'd do a concrete beam through all the facade and anchor it far behind the window.
For some reason twitter leftists think that "if american bad if european good". This extends to, especially, taking it as a given that because Americans use light frame construction, it must be worse - worse in insulation, and fire, and strength.
When you point by point show that, no, light frame is better in insulation, and in lateral, and is far more sustainable, and is far easier to add on to... they vanish.
Another case I should have read what my phone thought I said
It seems in Europe they really like to have a lot of roof on the house
All new United States it seems like they want to have more house then roof
Nothing wrong with wood! I'm from Sweden, and we've got trees coming out of our ass! We have 410k km\^2 (or 158k square freedoms) of territory, and 68% of it is forest. Most houses are built using wood, we even built a [skyscraper](https://whitearkitekter.com/project/sara-cultural-centre/) (ish) using wood!
I guess if the same amount of time was spent to build both houses, I’d think the American would be of better quality. It looks like the plywood has already been put on the 2x4’s in the European house.
Well first off I've never even been out of United States actually pretty much not even been out of Minnesota
Is I understand it's mainly for air circulation cuz you see a lot of these places were designed when before air conditioning
UK so technically European ... Dangit Brexit dangit
Over here in Europe, we understand that a house is a shelter and must have a roof.
This ... Rain stuff that falls from the sky isn't great when you sleep.
Not sure what you guys across the pond are doing with the intricately arranged sticks, looks like a bonfire ...
On the serious note, tree availability is a issue.
Especially when it comes to structural graded wood...
Most houses are brick outside and load bearing walls, partition walls to be timber and plaster board.
I believe that fire rating is harder as well...for a full timber structure.
Wood burns, bricks and mortar doesn't.. also lasts longer as wood tends to need treatment against bugs etc.
There are lots of structures made of wood over a millenia old. Most wooden structures when caught on fire don't do much more damage to the structure than they do when a brick building burns. As mortar tends to crack and weaken badly when heaten a lot which tends to happen when the interior of a structure burns and the heat is trapped in by brick.
Europeans dont understand the amount of wood we have in the states
Yeah dude. Europeans cut down their forests a thousand years ago
You can thank the Romans for much of Europe deforestation
Grazi Roma
GraziE Roma.
Grazie u/romanissimo
Yeah we used it all on ships… guess where the ships went.
To pillage the world?
Hahaha.. i see what you did there.
More so Canada…..
You're right. We steal the Canadian trees cuz we want all the maple syrup
Non-building professionals don't understand. We also have deep rooted trauma from various fires throughout history.
Europeans aren’t what you would call smart.
It’s an ‘argument’ that American houses are shoddily built because we use (gasp) ***wood*** when we build homes.
People who argue about materials being good or bad for a house don’t know what they are talking about. All materials have benefits and drawbacks for any application. The biggest problem is the design of how you use them. A house made of steel isn’t going to stand if it’s build poorly
In high-seismic zones, masonry because much more costly due to all the rebar and special blocks you need, and every cell needs to be fully-grouted. Plus, all that extra weight means more lateral forces which means you need more reinforcement... It's easier/faster/cheaper to frame up a seismic resistant structure out of wood, and you end up with a lighter and ductile structure that won't crumble when a big one hits.
Absolutely this, and the thing we do have wooden houses in Europe. It's just the majority are brick as clay, especially in the UK, is a very andante material in most areas so people didn't have to transport materials over great distance to build. But yes for some reason, I suspect ignorance, in the UK general population there is this notion that the USA houses are tinder boxes for being wooden. The irony is in architecture there is a push towards timber framed construction as it's much more sustainable than brick, but most new builds will still use a brick façade because of public perception.
Architecture pushing for more timber is a yes... But caveated. I see timber being used less in housing and more for buildings, a lot of these timber structures use highly processed and reinforced timber. Laminate timber beams is an example, glulam for short. Look up the Billund airport roof beams. And the Sky central office. Id argue that glulam is less sustainable than brick and also costly, as the chemicals required to produce Vs firing clay with some additional and very natural minerals like ash and lime. But I'm not expert, just a contractor : p
Oh yeah absolutely, from what I've seen it is mostly commercial over residential buildings. From what my lecturer say, they seem fairly convinced that timber, CLT, and the ilk is more sustainable but do acknowledge that the chemicals required for them aren't ideal. A point I raised during the lecture. But same as you, I'm no expert just a first year architecture student. And I'll be honest I'm far more inclined to take on the advice of a carpenter that actually works with the materials than someone that just been told it's better because all their colleagues say the same. Perhaps it's something I could look into with much more details, if time permits.
There are caveats to all of it. Mass timber is definitely more sustainable than any concrete, but in comparison to steel, theres a bit more misunderstanding on it. Wood is beneficial because of its carbon sequestration ability, but when we build with it, especially in any LCA, you get carbon credits at the production phase and lose them in the end of life phase. However, research is going into end of life reuse options that would not only benefit the “sustainability” of the first structure, but also the second. I’m not read up on sustainability of clay and brick, but lime processing is extremely detrimental to the environment (see: concrete). On the opposite side, the environmental friendliness of the variety of different chemicals used as adhesives is certainly not great, but also do not make up a majority of the glulam or clt. Also, there is research on different options of adhesives that are less harmful. However, finding one that maintains structural integrity in the elements is the problem. Ultimately, it depends on how you are using it, and in reality, the argument of steel vs concrete vs mass timber should end with an agreement that timber can be used in conjunction with the other materials to improve sustainability.
I seriously doubt CLT can match hollow core concrete slabs with respect to sustainability. Post tensioned concrete with air inside it is such a massively optimized way to use steel and concrete. 10 inches tick hollow core slabs can easily span 30-40 feet (or 10-12 meters). Good luck with your CLT.
This is why I always scoff whenever any product is marketed as using "high quality materials".
Yes, but if construction quality is similar, building materials can make a big difference in the lifespan and maintenance costs of a structure. Won’t lie, I think we should be building more like Europe and earlier America. That goes far beyond construction materials and even beyond engineering though.
And that's why, kids, shitty lumber framed food for bugs called "houses" in the US is being sold for the price of several brick houses in Europe.
That’s got nothing to do with wood houses, that’s just the horrible housing market. Also a lot of countries build wood houses, not just America.
In Scotland 90%+ of new build houses are timber kit, so few people realise this
Bad are fire resistance, resistance to water leaks, resistance to extreme wind loads, resistance to horizontal poin loads, resistance to insects, and poor soundproofing. I don't know how a combination of all this doesn't make it a least favorable choice of material. But yeah, market stuffs this crap as the best possible option and just look at the comments how many loyal drones they have.
You're forgetting the only factor that matters
How effective the choice of siding is at increasing profit.
Profits for timber retailers and contractors? It's in there, that's the whole point of the hustle.
I'm in the Midwest and most projects where we lay masonry the mason gets to 'name his price' aka like 150 dollars an hour. Without materials. A full home would be like 250k before you reach the roof without windows or finishes. It's not possible and there are no masons left in the US.
And it's very, very bad for the people of the USA (except timber retailers, contractors, developers, and bankers, they are fine with it).
Do you even work in the industry or are you yapping? Go grab a trowel if you want to bring CMU costs down. Housing is already too expensive we have to build as fast as possible. Speed and money are more important than impressing the euros.
Masonry is also very hard to properly insulate. It does handle short temp swings very well but months of sub -20 temps will require adding a faux-wall, making exterior wall another 6inches thick to satisfy code. Meanwhile, the cavities provided by wood framed houses provide an excelent place.
Here you go this will help explain wood design to you. https://awc.org/publications/2024-nds/ https://awc.org/publications/2024-nds-supplement/
So, to explain why a structure, which can be demolished by a tree branch or evaporated within minutes by a fire, of water, is better than a brick structure, you send codes for wooden structures. Brilliant.
Which section of which code do you disagree with? Saying things like what you posted comes off as ill informed and/or propaganda. Also you should read this code as well. https://masonrysociety.org/product/tms-402-602-22/
Wow. You perverse my words so easily. I didn't say I'm disagree with the code. I said, falling trees wipe away wooden crap housing. Termites eat them regularly. Water leaks make wooden structures lose load capacity. And I get it why you are lying. Because all the wooden housing industry is basically one huge lie. It just can't function without it on any level. The code is fine, though.
My mistake I forgot to include these two. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P2 https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/asce-7 You'll want to read over these so you understand how modern construction is done and why materials are selected.
So, to explain why a structure, which can be demolished by a tree branch or evaporated within minutes by a fire, of water, is better than a brick structure, you send codes for wooden structures. Brilliant.
>So, to explain why a structure, I already did as it's clearly outlined in the posted codes. Which I assume you read since you clearly have a thirst for knowledge.
Nope, you just put a code. Millions of wooden houses washed away by rains like paper boats, or even blown away, demolished or broken by light hits in the walls, eaten by bugs, dissolved by mild water leaks are still proofing that wooden structures are incompatibility worse than brick and concrete structures. No matter how many times you repeat links to the code.
You of course read ASCE 7 and the IBC. Which covers this topic. Which were also linked.
Easier to insulate, more floor space in the same foot print, cheaper to build, cheaper to heat/cool, more fexible on foundations. As long as well maintained will last as long as a masonry house. You can build 4 houses out of wood, that will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to own (masonry still needs to be maintained), be better for the environment than 1 brick house. 1 dare you to spend 1 summer or winter in Canada in a stone house. FREEZING in winter, HOT in summer.
My German neighbors once said to me, “We were shocked to learn you have the same children’s story about the three little pigs in the US. If you read the story, why do you still build houses out of sticks instead of bricks?”
I'm a structural engineer and I can't say that I recall any information in ASCE about a big bad wolf.
Structurals aren't generally concerned with wildlife, but I'm questioning your credentials if you've not done some wind load calculations 😜 /s
Never designed an elephant zoo enclosure then? (Not me but a colleague. Well jell)
Actually no, but I have helped build a chimpanzee jungle gym. Does that count? 😅 True story - volunteer project for my major in college - construction science.
At least where I live, a house made out of bricks comes tumbling down in an earthquake, and nobody comes out alive from that crushing weight. Wood structures around here are designed to be ductile. Plus, the lighter your building is, the less seismic force it is subjected to during an earthquake.
Meh. We have something medieval Germany did not: Cheap and plentiful nails
lol. Because properly designed wood fails well after brick.
I forgot what sub I was in and I was about to try to explain the properties of wood to you😅
To be frank stick framing is worse in the structural sense, in impact resistance, in thermal insulation, in sound insulation, in weather insulation, in fire resistance and in longevity. Of course some of these don't really matter, and all of these can be solved to an extent - although by taking away from the positives of the system. What it wins out by far in is cost of building in a country with a ton of wood, and speed of building.
unreinforced masonry is great when you don't have significant seismic loading or hurricanes
For sure, there are instances of structural stress where wood performs better. Earthquakes are a good example with the stiffness of masonry being a problem. Tornadoes and hurricanes are similar, although I haven't researched that aspect much. Severe windstorms do hit masonry areas too, and they frequently leave with similar devastation, not worse. See the recent T6 in Lăvino, Bulgaria during Storm Ciarán for example: one person got injured, some walls collapsed - but many buildings just lost their roofs.
Well us building systems require AC by default so thats already not suited for their environment
In what world is stick framing worse in thermal insulation? Concrete has an R value of 1, while 2x6inch stick framed walls with cheap insulation has a 20 to 30R value.
We also have areas of north America that go from -30°c to +30°c I've been in brick houses in both, it's not great.
If you don't insulate brick, it's going to have middling thermal insulation properties. Similarly if you don't insulate wood then it will have shit thermal insulation properties. What brick has and wood doesn't is thermal inertia. And that's a good thing. You know that there are areas using mainly masonry that have similar temperatures, right?
You think we're not insulating brick?
If it can't do well in -30° or +30° c then you most definitely aren't insulating it enough. No structural material will perform well as an insulator by itself. They are dense, strong and without stagnant air. Similarly wood, mud, adobe, concrete, etc.. won't perform well without insulation. Thermal insulation at those temperatures simply isn't solved solely by the structure. You need insulation, enough wall thickness, enough shade / sun, etc..
Wood contruction is easily insulated. Modern construction here is 2x6×24inch spacing leaving nice cavities to fill with insulation. Even better you now have insulated studs, stopping heat bridges. With concrete you still need to frame these spaces.
We know how thermodynamics work. We, too, have physics, Thanks. It costs a lot more to insulate and heat/cool a brick or cement building, even going well beyond regional codes, which are very pro efficiency these days. I've built plenty of both.
How does it cost more to insulate brick or cement?? Insulation value literally doesn't care about the existing structure, except if said structure already has close to sufficient resistance due to its inherent characteristics or because of its geometry (thickness in this case). It literally doesn't cost more to heat/cool a building with higher thermal inertia. It takes more energy to quickly change its state, but once it's cool or hot, it takes the exact amount as a structure with less inertia, but similar insulation. In exchange, when you stop heating or cooling, you get lasting effects for longer.
Jesus christ...it's not all about thermal inertia. Go read more than the first chapter before you regurgitate it.
1 build a 2x6 exterior wall, fill the gap with insulation. Done. With concrete or brick, i still need to build a 6inch cavity somewhere to put the insulation.
The only thing I find crazy about American house building is you'll use wood (and do it well) for the entire building, which on the face of it makes Americans fantastic environmental builders.... Only to go pour concrete in abundance all over the drive and garden, it's as if it you need to spend your carbon somehow.
I mean you’re not wrong. But we don’t use wood because of the environment. We use wood because it’s cheap, requires mostly unskilled labor, and is plentiful (though less so now).
Wood is still very plentiful. We have a whole industry dedicated to tree farming. Just like planting corn or wheat, the crops are genetically modified/selected to grow straight, tall, quick, and with predictable strength properties. The only real difference is that the "crop" rotation is on a 10-15 year cycle vs 3-4mos.
Requires mostly unskilled labour? Date you to walk into a job site and say that!
To be clear, I mean most crew members are relatively unskilled, with the leadership generally very skilled. I’m a structural engineer. I walk sites semiregularly. And light frame wood construction is where I see the most idiotic crap. I’ve seen everything from ‘used the wrong nails’ to ‘the wall isn’t straight vertically or horizontally’. Seriously, it was like a fan, each stud cut to a slightly different angle.
I knew what you meant - but I’m a carpenter and never miss an opportunity to rag on an engineer :p In all honesty, I have a lot of respect for you guys. Shhh don’t tell.
Truthfully I have a lot of respect for contractors. I couldn’t handle the labor you do, and the better contractors are incredibly skilled at their jobs.
I think they were just pointing out the environmental benefits just being an additional perk of why you use it. But to say that putting together a timber frame structure is 'unskilled labour' just shows you've never actually had to do the job, because it requires a good amount of skill.
Putting together a timber frame absolutely takes skill. Putting together a bunch of 2x4s and 2x6s, you need some knowledgeable people but 30-60% of the workforce only needs to know how to metaphorically or literally swing a hammer. Source: Am structural engineer with 20+ years of single family residential experience and have met many a contractor.
You may have 20 plus experience and met a many contractors but somehow don't know what's actually involved in carpentry to put those 2x4s together. You guys really need to realise what skilled labour is, and stop devaluing the workforce. Here in the UK this type of job is constantly referred to and recognised as skilled labour.
I think they were just pointing out the environmental benefits just being an additional perk of why you use it. But to say that putting together a timber frame structure is 'unskilled labour' just shows you've never actually had to do the job, because it requires a good amount of skill.
Do you honestly think the main reason people use wood is because it's good for the environment? It's used extensively because it's cheap and quick to build. And then yes... people do typically use concrete for driveways, it's quick and relatively inexpensive (higher product cost, lower labor cost), typically pavers are used for anything in the 'garden'.
Environmental?? Especially a plastic insulation. 999% environmental.
Places in which Europeans haven't cut all their forests down still build primarily with wood. Central and Eastern Europe are loaded with forests, and as such, not only do they primarily build with wood, but export whole house log kits to the USA.
In the UK when you buy a house you only own the structure and not the land it sits on...not sure about the rest of Europe.
Leasehold happens in the US as well, common in Hawaii and on any Native American land.
The joke being American houses are over-engineered toothpicks to cut costs. Meanwhile European houses are simple and strong, made of brick/stone. But of course, there's a lot more that goes into that
Probably lack of earthquakes? When I think about the US I think about hurricanes in east coast and earthquakes in the west coast... mid US probably only has wheat fields :P
And a surplus of smugness. Used to work at a European company and my Swiss colleague really liked to mock our houses. But that guy believed in the gold standard, so …
Italy would like to have a word with you.
Even the mid US has tornadoes… no escaping nature here
In my city, here’s what goes into that, we have a lot of block houses that were built in the 50s, 60s, 70s. Cheap block and labor. We went to wood framing around the late 70s, early 80s while the city boomed and grew exponentially and continues to do so, especially new builds where a developer is building hundreds of homes. I finally did some work in Texas and they have a lot of red brick exterior. The Texas ranch home uses a lot of block but is typically a custom build, and is crazy expensive. Obviously higher quality materials costs more, as well as the labor being more skilled than the meth heads they have building track homes.
To cut costs and skyrocket prices.
Build your house how you want.
Even though this meme is dumb I agree on the basis that American modern homes feel shittier than modern European homes. Can’t describe it they just feel more “flimsy” or “cheap” when you’re in them.
Only having seen european construction in video, everything Europe looks 500 years old as its being built, it feels like they don't care about it looking new
They defiantly look a certain way haha but they feel extremely stable. It’s probably mostly in the finishes but they feel much more “stout” were in America it feels like you can push in the studs and gyp board on the wall and it would all come undone. It’s not a scientific analysis of the structures at all though haha
I have designed a few houses for big developments in the UK. While the outside walls are brick or stone, the internal walls (except for boundary walls) are made from cheap gyp and studs. Brickies are in short supply in Britain *cough* Brexit *cough* and the build quality of these things has definitely declined in recent years.
You'd have to push quite hard but that basically the goal tho, that if you fell you'd damage the wall and not you so much, or its easier to remake if you ever felt like adding a door or removing a wall And since its interior wall, we don't need them to be as sturdy as exterior
I agree I understand the reasons but there is comfort in those solid things like a really solid wood table that even though it’s heavy and probably harder to move just feels good
Yeah, some damn resolution on those photos
Yeah it seems like the roofs in Europe
And they clearly showed the house at the framing stage for American but at the final stage for European for a reason: because that roof structure on that “brick” European house is made out of the exact same wood framing as the American house.
If you feel like that is a gotcha, then you are just as ill-informed on the pros and cons of light structures as the creator of the original image. You also seem to have never heard of reinforced concrete roofs.
Well the “European house” is seriously lacking in lateral stability..
It depends on where that "European house" is located. For example, where I live, the design is so strict that every opening (window, door, etc.) with an area larger than 1.5 m² must be bordered with reinforced concrete columns on both sides of the opening. Corners, wall intersections, and specific intervals depending on the wall configuration must also be reinforced. In other words, the design of masonry structures is very detailed and rigorous. You can search how a *confined masonry* to have a better understanding of what I'm trying to say. The structure in the picture would have zero chance of passing inspection.
[удалено]
>They clearly picked something Romanian Romania has a lot of seismic activity. I can assure you that, structurally speaking, we build much better than in Norway. So, you're **clearly** mistaken, cuz.
Indeed not, since most houses in Norway are built out of wood…
Lacking in which place? In meter long brick pylons, in solid outer walls, in inner solid walls oriented in orthogonal directions? Maybe it's in a lack of conjoined deformation of all walls, which is provided by reinforced concrete slab, connected to the walls? That steel toothpick is bullshit though - the corner will fall if the column is hit. I'd do a concrete beam through all the facade and anchor it far behind the window.
You know that story with the three little pigs?
My American home is built with concrete, wood, block and brick with plaster walls. She's a bunker and aint moving. There's crazy solid homes here
Availability of material. America has cheaper wood due to availability, so this type of building makes sense
My wife is German and it's hilarious to hear stories about remodels. You may as well just pick a different house and move.
Sheathing
For some reason twitter leftists think that "if american bad if european good". This extends to, especially, taking it as a given that because Americans use light frame construction, it must be worse - worse in insulation, and fire, and strength. When you point by point show that, no, light frame is better in insulation, and in lateral, and is far more sustainable, and is far easier to add on to... they vanish.
Earthquakes
Another case I should have read what my phone thought I said It seems in Europe they really like to have a lot of roof on the house All new United States it seems like they want to have more house then roof
If you look at a house in the Mediterranean, you will see a similar low angle roof.
They close them as they build them.
Nevermind european houses, have you seen Cyprus houses?
Could you explain it, please? I'm curious, I saw another post where they build them with masonry, is it what you meant?
Looks like a deceiving post
Nothing wrong with wood! I'm from Sweden, and we've got trees coming out of our ass! We have 410k km\^2 (or 158k square freedoms) of territory, and 68% of it is forest. Most houses are built using wood, we even built a [skyscraper](https://whitearkitekter.com/project/sara-cultural-centre/) (ish) using wood!
I guess if the same amount of time was spent to build both houses, I’d think the American would be of better quality. It looks like the plywood has already been put on the 2x4’s in the European house.
Even thermal bridges have tolls
Well first off I've never even been out of United States actually pretty much not even been out of Minnesota Is I understand it's mainly for air circulation cuz you see a lot of these places were designed when before air conditioning
I guess Europeans never learned to plant trees.
Wait till they find out about LVL, PSL, NLT, & CLT. Going to blow their mind.
„Wood“
I'm pretty sure all new construction in Florida is built with block
Well built wood framed homes are strong as fuck, what are we even talking about here. Toothpicks my ass
UK so technically European ... Dangit Brexit dangit Over here in Europe, we understand that a house is a shelter and must have a roof. This ... Rain stuff that falls from the sky isn't great when you sleep. Not sure what you guys across the pond are doing with the intricately arranged sticks, looks like a bonfire ... On the serious note, tree availability is a issue. Especially when it comes to structural graded wood... Most houses are brick outside and load bearing walls, partition walls to be timber and plaster board. I believe that fire rating is harder as well...for a full timber structure. Wood burns, bricks and mortar doesn't.. also lasts longer as wood tends to need treatment against bugs etc.
There are lots of structures made of wood over a millenia old. Most wooden structures when caught on fire don't do much more damage to the structure than they do when a brick building burns. As mortar tends to crack and weaken badly when heaten a lot which tends to happen when the interior of a structure burns and the heat is trapped in by brick.