4 ms·

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 o

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 :)
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Fiberglass insulation is used inside exterior walls and makes them better insulating than brick. Major heat/cold losses are through windows, the same kinds of problems you have in brick buildings. Put in a good enough window (and seal the edges tightly) and you will do amazingly well with heat/cold. And Notre Dame is made out of hewn stone blocks, not brick, which is a big difference. Brick isn't stone; it's just baked clay, which isn't as good. There are actual houses out there that are made out of hewn stone, and that's another thing entirely. My relatives live in a manor in Tuscany where the oldest part of the house is stone from the 14th century.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      There's plenty of brick built that are pushing 200. If engineering brick there's no reason they shouldn't last another 300+. Very little built since the 60s is likely to reach that age. If humanity is serious about sustainability we have to learn to build to last once again.
      - vonmoltke 7y ago
        Yet there are plenty of wood-framed, and even wood-foundationed, houses in older cities that are already at 100+, and a decent portion of those are pushing 150. The problem with more recent construction is not the material, but the building methods (specifically corner-cutting in mass-produced tract houses).

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 :)
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Fiberglass insulation is used inside exterior walls and makes them better insulating than brick. Major heat/cold losses are through windows, the same kinds of problems you have in brick buildings. Put in a good enough window (and seal the edges tightly) and you will do amazingly well with heat/cold. And Notre Dame is made out of hewn stone blocks, not brick, which is a big difference. Brick isn't stone; it's just baked clay, which isn't as good. There are actual houses out there that are made out of hewn stone, and that's another thing entirely. My relatives live in a manor in Tuscany where the oldest part of the house is stone from the 14th century.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    There's plenty of brick built that are pushing 200. If engineering brick there's no reason they shouldn't last another 300+. Very little built since the 60s is likely to reach that age. If humanity is serious about sustainability we have to learn to build to last once again.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      Yet there are plenty of wood-framed, and even wood-foundationed, houses in older cities that are already at 100+, and a decent portion of those are pushing 150. The problem with more recent construction is not the material, but the building methods (specifically corner-cutting in mass-produced tract houses).