3 ms·

Family recently bought a house in the US, and it is pretty. But it is mainly wood by the looks of it. I do wonder how well that works (for y'know, not being fi

Family recently bought a house in the US, and it is pretty. But it is mainly wood by the looks of it. I do wonder how well that works (for y'know, not being fire hazard and not being terribly insulated, being able to whither bad weather conditions, ..). I have not visited their new place yet so I can't comment on what it is like to live there. But houses in Europe just look more sturdy. That is one thing that makes me think investing in housing in the US is a bad choice. The houses just don't seem like they are build to last. (Again I am judging it just by the looks and I could be completely wrong about it!)

gmueckl 7y ago
Well, during the Seattle "Snowpocalypse" (that is, the few actually cold days in the area last winter), the heater (actually, the AC doubling as heating unit) in my apartment had to work overtime to make up for the bad insulation. The worst offender was the balcony door that was just a normal wooden door with no proper rubber seal around it and even pretty big open gap between it and the floor. The single pane windows probably didn't help, either. If this is average for the construction in the US, then there is a lot of room for improvement. You can absolutely build lasting wooden houses with adequate fire protection and good insulation. But it seems that there's not a lot of incentive to do so on that continent.
- mr_luc 7y ago
  The Pacific Northwest is a poor example there, because as you indicate, the "cold" winter days in the densely populated areas are still pretty mild. The Great Lakes region of the US (like Minnesota, where I live), and some parts of the Northeast, are places that experience considerably more ... 'Scandinavian' extremes of cold, and the houses are built to handle it.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Well, even the regular winter days are cold enough to require heating. And the generally poor insulation of the building leads to considerable thermal losses even in normal winter conditions.
CydeWeys 7y ago
Wood is an excellent material for construction. And yes, construction code does require fire prevention, which is typically achieved using non-flammable drywall. You're at much more risk in a fire from the contents of your house burning (like wooden furniture) than the house itself. Wood is also stronger than masonry against earthquakes and some other threats. Also, the structure itself is a depreciating asset. It's the land that gains value over time. This is true in Europe as well.
- Insanity 7y ago
  You make some good points, as I said I was just making assumption. It's definitely the land that is valuable, but you want a long lasting house with a minimum of renovations due to 'wear by environment'. My thought (assumption) was that it'd be better in our normal brick houses. But fair enough, it's probably less bad than I thought :)
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    How long do you need a house to last? 10,000 years? Wood that is protected from the environment will last essentially indefinitely on human timelines. The roof trusses on Notre Dame were 800 years old and showing no sign of stopping (modulo the lack of modern fire protection anyway). Protect wood from being exposed to the elements with a roof and siding and it'll last as long as you need it to. The wood in American houses is on the inside; it's not exposed to the elements like on the shanties/shacks you're perhaps thinking about. Also, building a whole house out of brick takes a lot of labor. It's simpler (and cheaper) to frame the house with wood and then clad it with siding.
    - Insanity 7y ago
      Well, the Notre Dame was renovated a few times but I do get your point. I do want to say that the main structure of the building is bricks :) It's surely cheaper and easier to use wood. my understanding was indeed that the wood was more exposed "to the elements". Of my concerns, the only one that remains and seems to be validated by other people is the insulation. So it'd be wasteful for energy. Perhaps you'll spend more heating up the place than you save by not using bricks. Either way, thank you for clarifying some things :)
swebs 7y ago
Yes, most suburban houses are wood. In cities standalone houses tend to be brick, while newer apartment buildings tend to be glass, steel, and concrete. Insulation is fine since since there's fiberglass insulation between the frames. Houses are designed to have some airflow in order to remove humidity to avoid mold. Remember summers on the East Coast often hit 40 degrees C with 100% humidity. They can withstand most of America's extreme weather (blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes) with the exception of tornadoes, which have the tendency to pull the roof off.

gmueckl 7y ago

Well, during the Seattle "Snowpocalypse" (that is, the few actually cold days in the area last winter), the heater (actually, the AC doubling as heating unit) in my apartment had to work overtime to make up for the bad insulation. The worst offender was the balcony door that was just a normal wooden door with no proper rubber seal around it and even pretty big open gap between it and the floor. The single pane windows probably didn't help, either. If this is average for the construction in the US, then there is a lot of room for improvement. You can absolutely build lasting wooden houses with adequate fire protection and good insulation. But it seems that there's not a lot of incentive to do so on that continent.

mr_luc 7y ago
The Pacific Northwest is a poor example there, because as you indicate, the "cold" winter days in the densely populated areas are still pretty mild. The Great Lakes region of the US (like Minnesota, where I live), and some parts of the Northeast, are places that experience considerably more ... 'Scandinavian' extremes of cold, and the houses are built to handle it.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Well, even the regular winter days are cold enough to require heating. And the generally poor insulation of the building leads to considerable thermal losses even in normal winter conditions.

CydeWeys 7y ago

Wood is an excellent material for construction. And yes, construction code does require fire prevention, which is typically achieved using non-flammable drywall. You're at much more risk in a fire from the contents of your house burning (like wooden furniture) than the house itself. Wood is also stronger than masonry against earthquakes and some other threats. Also, the structure itself is a depreciating asset. It's the land that gains value over time. This is true in Europe as well.

Insanity 7y ago
You make some good points, as I said I was just making assumption. It's definitely the land that is valuable, but you want a long lasting house with a minimum of renovations due to 'wear by environment'. My thought (assumption) was that it'd be better in our normal brick houses. But fair enough, it's probably less bad than I thought :)
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  How long do you need a house to last? 10,000 years? Wood that is protected from the environment will last essentially indefinitely on human timelines. The roof trusses on Notre Dame were 800 years old and showing no sign of stopping (modulo the lack of modern fire protection anyway). Protect wood from being exposed to the elements with a roof and siding and it'll last as long as you need it to. The wood in American houses is on the inside; it's not exposed to the elements like on the shanties/shacks you're perhaps thinking about. Also, building a whole house out of brick takes a lot of labor. It's simpler (and cheaper) to frame the house with wood and then clad it with siding.
  - Insanity 7y ago
    Well, the Notre Dame was renovated a few times but I do get your point. I do want to say that the main structure of the building is bricks :) It's surely cheaper and easier to use wood. my understanding was indeed that the wood was more exposed "to the elements". Of my concerns, the only one that remains and seems to be validated by other people is the insulation. So it'd be wasteful for energy. Perhaps you'll spend more heating up the place than you save by not using bricks. Either way, thank you for clarifying some things :)

swebs 7y ago

Yes, most suburban houses are wood. In cities standalone houses tend to be brick, while newer apartment buildings tend to be glass, steel, and concrete. Insulation is fine since since there's fiberglass insulation between the frames. Houses are designed to have some airflow in order to remove humidity to avoid mold. Remember summers on the East Coast often hit 40 degrees C with 100% humidity. They can withstand most of America's extreme weather (blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes) with the exception of tornadoes, which have the tendency to pull the roof off.