4 ms·
>When my parents visited us earlier this year the very first thing my mother asked about on the way in from the airport was why so many of the houses looked lik
by mtviewdave 16y ago
>When my parents visited us earlier this year the very first thing my mother asked about on the way in from the airport was why so many of the houses looked like they were built out of cheap wood. Every place I've ever lived in Europe feels like a bomb shelter by comparison;
Houses in California are going to look less "solid" than houses elsewhere because houses elsewhere are often built out of brick or stone, materials that are vastly more likely to fail in an earthquake. Wood-frame, wood- or stucco-sided homes are common in California because they are much more likely to withstand earthquakes.
- anigbrowl 16y agoWell, I did point this out - and having rebuilt a few houses in the city when I was younger, I admit the wood frame approach is economical and affordable too. On the other hand, concrete and steel are equally viable but seem relatively unpopular for residential buildings.
- billswift 16y agoThe problem with concrete and structural steel is that they don't scale downward well. For a single family home, or even a small commercial building, they are much more expensive than masonry or wood frame construction.
- anigbrowl 16y agoSure. That's why I was saying 'minimum 6 floors'. Single family homes in San Francisco are mostly a terrible use of the limited available space. Since we're bounded on 3 sides by water, I feel we should be building up to a much greater extent.