3 ms·
If you're talking about the Bay Area - then there's good reason why buildings are wood framed and light weight. Wood frame construction is generally more earthq
by bitanarch 11y ago
If you're talking about the Bay Area - then there's good reason why buildings are wood framed and light weight. Wood frame construction is generally more earthquake resistant.
http://timber.ce.wsu.edu/Resources/papers/4-3-2.pdf http://timber.ce.wsu.edu/Resources/papers/4-3-2.pdf
However, if you're not in an earthquake-prone area... then I agree I'd prefer to have a more solid construction.
- rsync 11y agoTrue, but a wood frame doesn't have to imply stick-built, green and wet 2x4 construction. Even in modern times where big timbers are scarce, you can still get straight, true, kiln-dried douglas fir in large (8x8, 8x12) sizes relatively cheaply.
- spronkey 11y agoI think one of the issues with the better woods in particular is sustainability of growth. Basically every house built today in NZ will be using Pinus Radiata, which is a less dense wood that grows very very quickly, and is very sustainable. In the past, e.g. 1960 and earlier, houses used Rimu, and potentially Kauri - both of which are very hard, very dense woods that will test even the best drill bits - but they're not sustainable.
- k_sze 11y agoThere are two approaches to sustainability: 1. Use quality material that is slow to come by, but build stuff that lasts for decades, or even centuries. 2. Use "sustainably" produced material, but build utter shit that doesn't last and that you expect to throw away in a few years. For stuff like houses, I prefer the first approach.
- mreiland 11y agosustainable implies you can continue doing it indefinitely, but the first approach is more likely to fail that test due to increasing demand.
- spronkey 11y agoThe time scale "decades" is reserved for the materials we use today. To use better woods, for example, you need timescale of many centuries.