4 ms·
> Mandatory no wood/cement-only houses in zones of higher risk. This isn't the only reason, but concrete buildings have a massive carbon footprint, much more s
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> Mandatory no wood/cement-only houses in zones of higher risk.
This isn't the only reason, but concrete buildings have a massive carbon footprint, much more so than wooden ones. For densely-populated areas, it's fine, but for single-family homes, it's incredibly environmentally wasteful.
- PhantomGremlin 9y agoDon't forget earthquakes. They're common in California where the wildfires are now. I'd bet that (crazy made up number) 100x more people die in earthquakes in concrete structures than they do in the typical stick-frame single family homes that are common in the USA. Stick-frame houses simply don't "collapse". But maybe a lot of the collapses I see on TV are because of either non-existent building codes or because nobody followed the code. Poor quality rebar and poor quality concrete? But about carbon footprint for concrete, maybe it's not as bad as you say. If a concrete or brick structure lasts 100 or 200 years, might it not be better than a stick-frame structure torn down in 50 years?