7 ms·

In all seriousness, what are the advantages of stone? It doesn't hold up in an earthquake, it doesn't insulate, and it can't be renovated after the fact. I've e

In all seriousness, what are the advantages of stone? It doesn't hold up in an earthquake, it doesn't insulate, and it can't be renovated after the fact. I've encountered this mentality before and am absolutely baffled by it.

mfoy_ 8y ago
Probably an emotional thing, "set in stone", a sense of permanency, etc.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  Yeah well, the pyramids still stand today 4000 years later. So the "emotional thing" might have some ground in reality.
maratd 8y ago
> In all seriousness, what are the advantages of stone? If done right, it is likely the most durable material to use for siding. Will last for hundreds of years. Same with bricks if well maintained. All other kinds of siding deteriorate quickly in comparison. I am keeping an eye on the new cement siding that's now on the market, that's very interesting.
analyzethis 8y ago
"Nordics" covers a pretty diverse area regarding climate and quality of local timber. Most houses in Denmark (southernmost part of "nordics") are built with bricks because wood has a tendency to rot in our climate. Also, we experience almost no earthquakes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- henrikschroder 8y ago
  Or because clay is cheaper than wood in Denmark.
  - analyzethis 8y ago
    Bricks are not just clay. Ask yourself: How does clay become bricks? Hint: it has a cost.
0db532a0 8y ago
It insulates sound very well, which is important to some people.
lenzm 8y ago
It doesn't burn.
- jodrellblank 8y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-10645700 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-10645700 Mindful of how flames [Great Fire of London] had destroyed a third of the largely wooden city, building with timber frames was banned in the years after Sir Christopher Wren's 1667 Building Act. [..] until 1999 Ah, probably a lot of that involved.
VBprogrammer 8y ago
The old way of heating homes in the UK was to provide little insulation but lots of thermal mass. A strong fire would heat up the mass in the chimney and around the home. The fire could be damped down over night and relight it the morning. There is also a mentality of homes being forever. My house was built originally in 1870 and that's not particularly old. In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt.
- dpark 8y ago
  > In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt. I don't really understand where this belief arises from. Most homes in the US are built on undeveloped land. It's not typical to tear down an existing house to build a new one. To the extent that it happens, it's generally because an area is essentially undergoing redevelopment. i.e. a rural area is being consumed by an urban city. In cases like that, the purpose is to increase density. It's pretty rare to tear down a single family home just to construct an equivalent but newer one on the property.
  - BenjiWiebe 8y ago
    In rural marion county Kansas, it's fairly common for a family to tear down their 80-100+ house and build a new one. I'm living in a 6yr old house that replaced our 100+ yr old house.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I'm just arguing anecdote against anecdote at this point, but I question the frequency of this, mostly because it's so absurdly expensive to tear down a house to rebuild (because you have to buy the house before you tear it down). In my experience, I see houses torn down to rebuild only to increase density (two homes replace one) or to replace with a fundamentally different type of house (3500 sq ft house replaces a 1200sq ft house, modern energy-efficient house replaces unmaintained home on the verge of falling down). The value gap between the new home(s) and old home has to be very large to justify a teardown. To the extent that teardowns are more common in the US than the UK, I imagine it's driven mostly by the ability to massively upgrade in the process. If you live in a 150-year-old stone house in the UK that's been updated over the years so that it's got modern electrical and plumbing and already maxes out your square footage (meterage?), what would you gain by tearing down except a lot more debt and some better insulation? With that said, I think this math generally doesn't work out for Americans, either, who generally trade up homes rather than rebuild.
dpark 8y ago
Familiarity. People like the construction they're familiar with. There are pros and cons to any material.
jodrellblank 8y ago
I know you are asking generally, but the parent comment mentions the UK; more or less, the UK doesn't have earthquakes. Yes it has some, but: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringgeology/hazards/earthquakes/uk.html https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringgeology/hazards/earthquakes... The British Geological Society lists "Significant Earthquakes since 1932" and there are twelve, but they're dated 1580, 1816, 1880, 1884, 1896, 1931, 1984, 1990, 2002, 2008, 1974, 1979. Three are offshore, three in the Scottish Highlands. But wood in the UK was in demand by the Royal Navy, to the point where they depended on imported oak from the Baltics, forest cover in the (small) UK was down to 5% around the turn of 1900. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-englands-forests https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-en... and a skim-read of the start of http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Melby-Patrick.pdf http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Melby-Patrick.pdf I wouldn't be surprised if the advantages of stone in the UK were/are availability until it became the default.

mfoy_ 8y ago

Probably an emotional thing, "set in stone", a sense of permanency, etc.

hutzlibu 8y ago
Yeah well, the pyramids still stand today 4000 years later. So the "emotional thing" might have some ground in reality.

maratd 8y ago

> In all seriousness, what are the advantages of stone? If done right, it is likely the most durable material to use for siding. Will last for hundreds of years. Same with bricks if well maintained. All other kinds of siding deteriorate quickly in comparison. I am keeping an eye on the new cement siding that's now on the market, that's very interesting.

analyzethis 8y ago

"Nordics" covers a pretty diverse area regarding climate and quality of local timber. Most houses in Denmark (southernmost part of "nordics") are built with bricks because wood has a tendency to rot in our climate. Also, we experience almost no earthquakes.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
henrikschroder 8y ago
Or because clay is cheaper than wood in Denmark.
- analyzethis 8y ago
  Bricks are not just clay. Ask yourself: How does clay become bricks? Hint: it has a cost.

0db532a0 8y ago

It insulates sound very well, which is important to some people.

lenzm 8y ago

It doesn't burn.

jodrellblank 8y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-10645700 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-10645700 Mindful of how flames [Great Fire of London] had destroyed a third of the largely wooden city, building with timber frames was banned in the years after Sir Christopher Wren's 1667 Building Act. [..] until 1999 Ah, probably a lot of that involved.

VBprogrammer 8y ago

The old way of heating homes in the UK was to provide little insulation but lots of thermal mass. A strong fire would heat up the mass in the chimney and around the home. The fire could be damped down over night and relight it the morning. There is also a mentality of homes being forever. My house was built originally in 1870 and that's not particularly old. In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt.

dpark 8y ago
> In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt. I don't really understand where this belief arises from. Most homes in the US are built on undeveloped land. It's not typical to tear down an existing house to build a new one. To the extent that it happens, it's generally because an area is essentially undergoing redevelopment. i.e. a rural area is being consumed by an urban city. In cases like that, the purpose is to increase density. It's pretty rare to tear down a single family home just to construct an equivalent but newer one on the property.
- BenjiWiebe 8y ago
  In rural marion county Kansas, it's fairly common for a family to tear down their 80-100+ house and build a new one. I'm living in a 6yr old house that replaced our 100+ yr old house.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I'm just arguing anecdote against anecdote at this point, but I question the frequency of this, mostly because it's so absurdly expensive to tear down a house to rebuild (because you have to buy the house before you tear it down). In my experience, I see houses torn down to rebuild only to increase density (two homes replace one) or to replace with a fundamentally different type of house (3500 sq ft house replaces a 1200sq ft house, modern energy-efficient house replaces unmaintained home on the verge of falling down). The value gap between the new home(s) and old home has to be very large to justify a teardown. To the extent that teardowns are more common in the US than the UK, I imagine it's driven mostly by the ability to massively upgrade in the process. If you live in a 150-year-old stone house in the UK that's been updated over the years so that it's got modern electrical and plumbing and already maxes out your square footage (meterage?), what would you gain by tearing down except a lot more debt and some better insulation? With that said, I think this math generally doesn't work out for Americans, either, who generally trade up homes rather than rebuild.

dpark 8y ago

Familiarity. People like the construction they're familiar with. There are pros and cons to any material.

jodrellblank 8y ago

I know you are asking generally, but the parent comment mentions the UK; more or less, the UK doesn't have earthquakes. Yes it has some, but: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringgeology/hazards/earthquakes/uk.html https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringgeology/hazards/earthquakes... The British Geological Society lists "Significant Earthquakes since 1932" and there are twelve, but they're dated 1580, 1816, 1880, 1884, 1896, 1931, 1984, 1990, 2002, 2008, 1974, 1979. Three are offshore, three in the Scottish Highlands. But wood in the UK was in demand by the Royal Navy, to the point where they depended on imported oak from the Baltics, forest cover in the (small) UK was down to 5% around the turn of 1900. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-englands-forests https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-en... and a skim-read of the start of http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Melby-Patrick.pdf http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Melby-Patrick.pdf I wouldn't be surprised if the advantages of stone in the UK were/are availability until it became the default.