4 ms·

Brick and stone are still more expensive than lumber and require more technical know how to do it right.

by MisterBastahrd 6y ago

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
But they stay in place for 300 years. They withstand hurricane winds, floods and crowbars.
- lazide 6y ago
  Your average American moves every 5 years [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mymovingreviews.com/move/how-often-and-why-americans-move/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mymovingreviews.com/move/ho...] with most Americans moving 11 times over their lives [https://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/guidance/calculating-migration-expectancy.html https://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/guidance/...]. The people who built the house aren’t going to care if the house lasts 40 years or 300. They will care if it costs 5x more to build/live in/buy/rent.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    The idea is that if something js 5z as durable but is 2x the price, its more economical. Secondly - there are areas like SF and London where house prices are like 5x the national average because of land. Surely they can afford better materials?
    - spenczar5 6y ago
      It's more economical only if the original buyer is there to reap the benefits of the durability. Because American houses change hands so fast, durability is the next guy's problem. This is exacerbated by the fact that a huge number of homes are built by developers who want to sell the thing as soon as it's built, and then move on. In a long-term, societal sense, you're right that it's kind of irrational. It's really unfortunate.
      - lazide 6y ago
        I wouldn’t take the economical argument too seriously on this front. One factor that is a big issue in Europe is energy efficiency, and recent/updated electrical. With so much of the stock being ancient, and societal trends towards keeping older structures (and large investments in very durable structures being more of a norm), they have huge issues with a large stock of very inefficient and difficult to upgrade or fix structures. It is entirely possible to make energy efficient and modern buildings in Europe of course - it just doesn’t happen as much (because there is so much existing stock), and it is REALLY expensive compared to the US. Even Munich which got bombed to smithereens and rebuilt not that long ago (so less a problem than most), it’s not common to have well insulated walls or what American’s would consider modern electrical. Lots of retrofit work, surface mounted outlets and conduit, etc. What most Americans would consider a normal remodel (adding a bathroom, changing the layout of some rooms though modifications to non-exterior walls, whatever) are essentially impossible or crazy expensive in many of these buildings too because of the concrete masonry construction. Wood frame construction is cheap and easy to reconfigure, drywall and wood frame is easy to rip off and upgrade what is underneath, then replace, and all of these are easy to stuff with insulation. They’re also remarkably strong, durable, and flexible. They do have flammability and pest issues, but those have good solutions in modern structures. They all do use a lot of wood; which is a bit of an issue now.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      You will not find very many brick or stone buildings in SF...
    - lmm 6y ago
      The whole reason those areas are so expensive is extremely restrictive planning rules.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      I wouldn’t consider bricks better than wood. Especially in an earthquake prone area. Now, steel - that would be better. But if thinking about the future I think wood framing is superior. In many places in Europe the old brick or stone homes have a lot of issues by modern standards and they are expensive to renovate. They tend to have floor plans that made sense 200+ years ago but not today. Like small rooms to better conserve fireplace heat. But again, it’s very difficult to renovate these homes to have a sensible, modern floor plan. Old wood frame homes are fairly easy to renovate either to modernize or to renovate.
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      The only thing unusually expensive about houses in SF and London is the ground it's sitting on. Even a house that's going to fall over in a year would be worth 75% as much as one that would last 1000 years.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure "average" is doing a lot of work there. I'm willing to bet that number is skewed a lot by younger people moving from apartment to apartment. I certainly moved a lot in my 20s, especially if you count school. But I've been in the same house for over 20 years and I'm sure that's not at all unusual. (Although I don't disagree with your point that most people won't pay a big premium just to have a house that could be standing in a few hundred years.)
    - lazide 6y ago
      It usually does! One thing to consider - during those years you were moving, you also reinforced the market position of not caring too much about long term durability for a large number of properties/landlords/sellers, and your current place you’ve only influenced in the other direction for one property/landlord/seller, correct? A dollar sitting under the mattress for 20 years affects GDP/the economy a lot less than the dollar that gets spent all the time. It isn’t as simple of course as ‘who cares, I’ll be out of here in a few years’ - though a surprisingly percent of the time I’ve literally heard people say that and use it as justification for writing off obvious maintenance issues or buying a place that clearly has problems.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Not earthquakes though, and these are a significant issue, at least in the west.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Wood frame does just as well. In some cases better. I've been in wood framed buildings in Europe that are more than 300 years old. Brick is harder to the touch, but that doesn't translate into anything useful for mechanical strength.
  - corty 6y ago
    > I've been in wood framed buildings in Europe that are more than 300 years old. That is a selection effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
    - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
      No it isn't
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  The wood being used in this construction is not for the exterior of the home, but for the frame and internal walls. Most homes in the US are built with wood frames but brick and / or concrete exteriors.

Brick and stone are still more expensive than lumber and require more technical know how to do it right.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

But they stay in place for 300 years. They withstand hurricane winds, floods and crowbars.

lazide 6y ago
Your average American moves every 5 years [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mymovingreviews.com/move/how-often-and-why-americans-move/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mymovingreviews.com/move/ho...] with most Americans moving 11 times over their lives [https://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/guidance/calculating-migration-expectancy.html https://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/guidance/...]. The people who built the house aren’t going to care if the house lasts 40 years or 300. They will care if it costs 5x more to build/live in/buy/rent.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  The idea is that if something js 5z as durable but is 2x the price, its more economical. Secondly - there are areas like SF and London where house prices are like 5x the national average because of land. Surely they can afford better materials?
  - spenczar5 6y ago
    It's more economical only if the original buyer is there to reap the benefits of the durability. Because American houses change hands so fast, durability is the next guy's problem. This is exacerbated by the fact that a huge number of homes are built by developers who want to sell the thing as soon as it's built, and then move on. In a long-term, societal sense, you're right that it's kind of irrational. It's really unfortunate.
    - lazide 6y ago
      I wouldn’t take the economical argument too seriously on this front. One factor that is a big issue in Europe is energy efficiency, and recent/updated electrical. With so much of the stock being ancient, and societal trends towards keeping older structures (and large investments in very durable structures being more of a norm), they have huge issues with a large stock of very inefficient and difficult to upgrade or fix structures. It is entirely possible to make energy efficient and modern buildings in Europe of course - it just doesn’t happen as much (because there is so much existing stock), and it is REALLY expensive compared to the US. Even Munich which got bombed to smithereens and rebuilt not that long ago (so less a problem than most), it’s not common to have well insulated walls or what American’s would consider modern electrical. Lots of retrofit work, surface mounted outlets and conduit, etc. What most Americans would consider a normal remodel (adding a bathroom, changing the layout of some rooms though modifications to non-exterior walls, whatever) are essentially impossible or crazy expensive in many of these buildings too because of the concrete masonry construction. Wood frame construction is cheap and easy to reconfigure, drywall and wood frame is easy to rip off and upgrade what is underneath, then replace, and all of these are easy to stuff with insulation. They’re also remarkably strong, durable, and flexible. They do have flammability and pest issues, but those have good solutions in modern structures. They all do use a lot of wood; which is a bit of an issue now.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    You will not find very many brick or stone buildings in SF...
  - lmm 6y ago
    The whole reason those areas are so expensive is extremely restrictive planning rules.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I wouldn’t consider bricks better than wood. Especially in an earthquake prone area. Now, steel - that would be better. But if thinking about the future I think wood framing is superior. In many places in Europe the old brick or stone homes have a lot of issues by modern standards and they are expensive to renovate. They tend to have floor plans that made sense 200+ years ago but not today. Like small rooms to better conserve fireplace heat. But again, it’s very difficult to renovate these homes to have a sensible, modern floor plan. Old wood frame homes are fairly easy to renovate either to modernize or to renovate.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    The only thing unusually expensive about houses in SF and London is the ground it's sitting on. Even a house that's going to fall over in a year would be worth 75% as much as one that would last 1000 years.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure "average" is doing a lot of work there. I'm willing to bet that number is skewed a lot by younger people moving from apartment to apartment. I certainly moved a lot in my 20s, especially if you count school. But I've been in the same house for over 20 years and I'm sure that's not at all unusual. (Although I don't disagree with your point that most people won't pay a big premium just to have a house that could be standing in a few hundred years.)
  - lazide 6y ago
    It usually does! One thing to consider - during those years you were moving, you also reinforced the market position of not caring too much about long term durability for a large number of properties/landlords/sellers, and your current place you’ve only influenced in the other direction for one property/landlord/seller, correct? A dollar sitting under the mattress for 20 years affects GDP/the economy a lot less than the dollar that gets spent all the time. It isn’t as simple of course as ‘who cares, I’ll be out of here in a few years’ - though a surprisingly percent of the time I’ve literally heard people say that and use it as justification for writing off obvious maintenance issues or buying a place that clearly has problems.
xyzzyz 6y ago
Not earthquakes though, and these are a significant issue, at least in the west.
bluGill 6y ago
Wood frame does just as well. In some cases better. I've been in wood framed buildings in Europe that are more than 300 years old. Brick is harder to the touch, but that doesn't translate into anything useful for mechanical strength.
- corty 6y ago
  > I've been in wood framed buildings in Europe that are more than 300 years old. That is a selection effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
  - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
    No it isn't
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
The wood being used in this construction is not for the exterior of the home, but for the frame and internal walls. Most homes in the US are built with wood frames but brick and / or concrete exteriors.