4 ms·

Europe has much more density of people living in the same space. And Asia is even more dense. In the US there are things that do not make sense because people

Europe has much more density of people living in the same space. And Asia is even more dense. In the US there are things that do not make sense because people density is so low there, even in places like New York, most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area. When I was living in China I saw lost of things made sense that do not make sense in Europe just by the economic of scale of so much people living in such small areas.

marcinzm 5y ago
>In the US there are things that do not make sense because people density is so low there, even in places like New York, most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area. That's patently false. In NYC only 9% of homes are single unit detached and in NY state it's only 41%.
411111111111111 5y ago
While it's true that Europe has a few cities that are significantly more dense then new York, your phrasing makes it sound like the average town is more dense then NY is... And that's not the case I don't know the exact number, but there are very few cities in Europe with a density higher then NY (10,716.36 people/km2), and i'm pretty sure they're all in France, Greece and Italy
IshKebab 5y ago
The use of bricks over wood can't be due to population density because the practice goes back hundreds of years. I think it is partly due to tradition, and partly due to climate differences.
- manmal 5y ago
  I think it has to do with prices and available know-how. You can build a typical US home for 1/2 or less than a Central European home. Right now, if I were to build a 150m2 (1600sqft) home, that would cost me at least €250k. More likely 300. Zoning often requires houses to be of a certain build and look, so building cheaper than that is often not even an option. As far as I know, a US home of that size usually costs $100k? Please someone correct me if I‘m wrong.
  - greedo 5y ago
    The average cost per square foot for new construction is between $100-$155 in the US. That might be a bit low considering current lumber prices though. So a 1600 sq/ft house would be between $160K-$248K.
    - manmal 5y ago
      Thank you!
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  I think it is pretty conceivable that structural lumber could have been more expensive than bricks in the past. Before modernity, there was scarcely enough food for everyone, so using it for something like forest would have been relatively expensive. For this reason, today more Europe is covered with forests than in 1700. On the other hand, bricks only need small amount of land for extraction of substrates, and some fuel, which didn’t have to be prime firewood like we’re used to now, but more like thin twigs from coppiced trees.
  - Someone 5y ago
    I doubt food scarcity, when it occurred, was for lack of land. Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture, and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either. IIRC, bricks became popular because wooden house were forbidden in dense cities, and clay beat stone in availability/price/suitability (wouldn’t know which) Certainly, after London burnt, “much of the old street plan was recreated in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London#Aftermath)
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      > I doubt food scarcity, when it occurred, was for lack of land. Food scarcity was a constant reality of premodern times. I’m not talking about occasional famines, where people literally died en masse, but rather about normal times. The food had to be scarce, otherwise the population wouldn’t have been a small fraction of the current one. > Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture, Sure, but back then people used even marginal lands if at all possible, precisely because of land scarcity. Ever seen those terraced farms on mountain slopes in China? We don’t do that anymore, but it made sense back then. Moreover, land that wasn’t good enough for farming was mostly used for animal grazing, not forest. > and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either. No, as I said, you can get twigs from coppiced or pollarded trees, which yield more fuel per acre than normal forest, but don’t yield any structural lumber.

marcinzm 5y ago

>In the US there are things that do not make sense because people density is so low there, even in places like New York, most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area. That's patently false. In NYC only 9% of homes are single unit detached and in NY state it's only 41%.

411111111111111 5y ago

While it's true that Europe has a few cities that are significantly more dense then new York, your phrasing makes it sound like the average town is more dense then NY is... And that's not the case I don't know the exact number, but there are very few cities in Europe with a density higher then NY (10,716.36 people/km2), and i'm pretty sure they're all in France, Greece and Italy

IshKebab 5y ago

The use of bricks over wood can't be due to population density because the practice goes back hundreds of years. I think it is partly due to tradition, and partly due to climate differences.

manmal 5y ago
I think it has to do with prices and available know-how. You can build a typical US home for 1/2 or less than a Central European home. Right now, if I were to build a 150m2 (1600sqft) home, that would cost me at least €250k. More likely 300. Zoning often requires houses to be of a certain build and look, so building cheaper than that is often not even an option. As far as I know, a US home of that size usually costs $100k? Please someone correct me if I‘m wrong.
- greedo 5y ago
  The average cost per square foot for new construction is between $100-$155 in the US. That might be a bit low considering current lumber prices though. So a 1600 sq/ft house would be between $160K-$248K.
  - manmal 5y ago
    Thank you!
xyzzyz 5y ago
I think it is pretty conceivable that structural lumber could have been more expensive than bricks in the past. Before modernity, there was scarcely enough food for everyone, so using it for something like forest would have been relatively expensive. For this reason, today more Europe is covered with forests than in 1700. On the other hand, bricks only need small amount of land for extraction of substrates, and some fuel, which didn’t have to be prime firewood like we’re used to now, but more like thin twigs from coppiced trees.
- Someone 5y ago
  I doubt food scarcity, when it occurred, was for lack of land. Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture, and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either. IIRC, bricks became popular because wooden house were forbidden in dense cities, and clay beat stone in availability/price/suitability (wouldn’t know which) Certainly, after London burnt, “much of the old street plan was recreated in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London#Aftermath)
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > I doubt food scarcity, when it occurred, was for lack of land. Food scarcity was a constant reality of premodern times. I’m not talking about occasional famines, where people literally died en masse, but rather about normal times. The food had to be scarce, otherwise the population wouldn’t have been a small fraction of the current one. > Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture, Sure, but back then people used even marginal lands if at all possible, precisely because of land scarcity. Ever seen those terraced farms on mountain slopes in China? We don’t do that anymore, but it made sense back then. Moreover, land that wasn’t good enough for farming was mostly used for animal grazing, not forest. > and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either. No, as I said, you can get twigs from coppiced or pollarded trees, which yield more fuel per acre than normal forest, but don’t yield any structural lumber.