3 ms·

Can you comment of the lifetime (length of service, distinct periods) of a significant wood building are, and how it compares to others, like concrete or brick

by bch 11y ago

Can you comment of the lifetime (length of service, distinct periods) of a significant wood building are, and how it compares to others, like concrete or brick ? What special treatment or considerations it requires ?

3pt14159 11y ago
We don't really build load bearing structures with brick anymore, it's too weak. Any brick you see is mostly done for moisture control or aesthetics (although in Canada you can reduce the wind load by 10% to your actual structure if you have brick as the outer wall). Wood buildings are significantly cheaper to maintain. Significantly cheaper to build (at least in Canada). The down side of wood is that it doesn't handle wetness well and it gets damaged more easily. For larger projects concrete starts getting financially competitive also partially due to the fact that it's more friendly to just leave exposed while you're building. You can't really do that with wood. Even the OP's original building was being built in sections. Also, wood isn't as strong as steel + concrete. So if property prices are really high concrete and steel are going to win just so you can build higher and lose less space to structural members.
- bch 11y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. > The down side of wood is that it doesn't handle wetness well So, vapour barriers are a Very Big Deal then, right ? Or do we have better solutions to the wood/water problem ? I was going to ask "will this bear out over 50, 100(+) years", but I realized I'm putting my desire of how long a building should last... so, question: How long should a (say, 4-10 story apt) last ? Can we get 100 years out of modern one that are being put up ? What do people in the industry punt-around as a figure for the life of a building ? I have a great love of wood -- it seems to work in compression, and in tension, has interesting failure modes, seems easy to work with and is versatile... but I do like the perceived permanence of concrete. Makes for interesting judgment of buildings...
  - 3pt14159 11y ago
    The question isn't whether something will last for 100 or 1000 years. The question is "is it cheaper / safer to get something to last for 1000 years with wood or concrete?" And for most buildings wood is far, far easier to maintain. And yeah, moisture is a really big deal. Most of building science is around moisture and heat. Humans and building materials don't like getting too wet.
    - bch 11y ago
      > for most buildings wood is far, far easier to maintain. Interesting. I always thought of it as (relatively) delicate.

by bch 11y ago

3pt14159 11y ago

We don't really build load bearing structures with brick anymore, it's too weak. Any brick you see is mostly done for moisture control or aesthetics (although in Canada you can reduce the wind load by 10% to your actual structure if you have brick as the outer wall). Wood buildings are significantly cheaper to maintain. Significantly cheaper to build (at least in Canada). The down side of wood is that it doesn't handle wetness well and it gets damaged more easily. For larger projects concrete starts getting financially competitive also partially due to the fact that it's more friendly to just leave exposed while you're building. You can't really do that with wood. Even the OP's original building was being built in sections. Also, wood isn't as strong as steel + concrete. So if property prices are really high concrete and steel are going to win just so you can build higher and lose less space to structural members.

bch 11y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. > The down side of wood is that it doesn't handle wetness well So, vapour barriers are a Very Big Deal then, right ? Or do we have better solutions to the wood/water problem ? I was going to ask "will this bear out over 50, 100(+) years", but I realized I'm putting my desire of how long a building should last... so, question: How long should a (say, 4-10 story apt) last ? Can we get 100 years out of modern one that are being put up ? What do people in the industry punt-around as a figure for the life of a building ? I have a great love of wood -- it seems to work in compression, and in tension, has interesting failure modes, seems easy to work with and is versatile... but I do like the perceived permanence of concrete. Makes for interesting judgment of buildings...
- 3pt14159 11y ago
  The question isn't whether something will last for 100 or 1000 years. The question is "is it cheaper / safer to get something to last for 1000 years with wood or concrete?" And for most buildings wood is far, far easier to maintain. And yeah, moisture is a really big deal. Most of building science is around moisture and heat. Humans and building materials don't like getting too wet.
  - bch 11y ago
    > for most buildings wood is far, far easier to maintain. Interesting. I always thought of it as (relatively) delicate.