8 ms·

What's wrong with wooden houses? Easy to build, easy to insulate, in normal circumstances cheap. Far far better for the environment than concrete...

lotsofpulp 5y ago
It is comical how so many seem to think wood and drywall is always inferior to concrete. I would even say it is the opposite, you are lucky to have access to cheap enough wood.
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
  I think the only advantage wood has it that it can be burned for heating. No seriously, i do not see a single advantage of a wooden house. But I am eager to hear.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Easy to work with is the main one. I can do almost everything myself with less time, less equipment, and less chance of injury. Cheaper (where I am). Let’s WiFi signals through easier, so I need fewer access points. I’ve worked with both, and the main advantage of concrete would be the sound insulation. But I feel like a quality wood + drywall + insulation installation can come close enough for residential purposes.
  - echelon 5y ago
    They don't waste energy to heat or cool. They sequester carbon rather than produce it. They're easy to modify and expand. They're durable and last forever if you take care of them.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - capitainenemo 5y ago
    Easy to insulate, easy to build with, durable, easier on the environment.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - stronglikedan 5y ago
    The can stand up better to an earthquake.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    You can change your mind, knock out a wall there, put in a new wall here. Basically easier to remodel. Plus the carbon sequestration And in the case of craftsman style homes the use of wood is very beautiful but of course you could throw a few planks of wood onto a concrete shell. It’s softer too, I lived in a condo that was all concrete and granite, anytime you bumped into a corner or fell down it just hurt more than wood.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Wood is cheaper up to certain scale, less environmental impactful, and flexible in the face of dynamic load changes and construction. For larger construction, pumped concrete is cheaper to build. It’s generally (but not always) more fireproof without special measures being taken. You think that concrete is stronger because it looks solid and heavy. In many cases, concrete or other masonry buildings are actually clad buildings with wood or other framing. Also, generally speaking a small scale, poorly built concrete structure will be more solid than a poorly built wooden structure. I live in an urban house in upstate NY, it’s a wood frame house built in 1925. It’s not a luxury or high-end construction, but there’s no structural reason that it won’t be standing in 2125. Keep a roof on it and control storm water and you’re good to go.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > In many cases, concrete or other masonry buildings are actually clad buildings with wood or other framing. That’s an American thing. The walls in my brick house in the UK literally are a foot thick of brick. Even internal walls.
- ben7799 5y ago
  Concrete has horrible greenhouse gas emissions issues that wooden construction doesn't. The chemical reaction for the cement in concrete generates C02 in a 1:1 ratio with the amount of cement produced. Unless you're capturing it you release 1 ton of C02 for your 1 ton of cement. Steel for rebar is even worse, the ratio of C02 generated is greater than 1:1. None of this includes any of the energy you used to heat any of the ingredients either. Even plastic is better, some of the Carbon & oxygen get sequestered in the plastic. A process to completely sequester or not generate any C02 in the production of cement & concrete that was cheap & easy would be a Nobel prize winning innovation. If the whole world switched to that it would be more significant than switching all vehicles in the world to electric.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Is there any comparison available? I've seen concrete and masonry houses built, and while the concrete has a greater carbon footprint, there's little waste compared to wood houses with drywall: wood treatments and coatings, insulating foam, materials wrapped in disposable plastic sheets, etc. Modern wood houses are far from just wood.
- jhallenworld 5y ago
  I would rather live in a cheaply made wooden house than a cheaply made concrete one. The simple common way to build a wooden house is massively redundant. Concrete houses use post and slab, even in poor countries. So in Nairobi, they were having six building collapses per month. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0430/Why-are-buildings-in-Kenya-collapsing https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0430/Why-ar...
  - codefined 5y ago
    Your source seems to contradict 'six buliding collapses per month': "A six-story building collapsed Friday night in Nairobi, killing at least a dozen people. Several buildings in Kenya have collapsed in the past year. Why?"
    - jhallenworld 5y ago
      My source for the 6/month figure is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPYJ4l-lBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPYJ4l-lBI Only the big ones end up in the media.. But you are right it seems like an overestimate. I found this showing 17 buildings collapsed in eight years, citing a CMU study: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2016/05/02/kenya-s-long-history-housing-disasters https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2016/05/02/kenya-s-l...
ars 5y ago
You don't want to live in a multi-family wooden house - the noise from above you will drive you wild. With a concrete house you don't hear your neighbors.
- capitainenemo 5y ago
  Hm. The only multi-family building I've ever lived in was an apartment complex and it was steel and concrete. I don't think they are typically built out of wood even here, although I've read about some experiments with wooden office buildings as more environmentally friendly. I guess if I was really curious I could look and see if they'd added extra sound damping to deal with that. In any case, the typical American wooden home is not going to have a family above you. :)
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    There is a ton of 4 story stick-built multi family housing in the US
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      That specific type of construction started in 2009 after the building code was changed to allow it. They are known as a “1+4” or “1+5”, with the first floor being concrete and then 4 or 5 wood floors above. Very economical, and hence why almost all new multi unit construction has been that style for the past decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-plus-five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-plus-five
  - jhallenworld 5y ago
    Three deck homes are common in New England, here are some examples (I think these are five family homes, the upper floors are two families each): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2662623,-71.8167462,3a,75y,193.51h,101.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBETCiUnDooy9N2BH13ojEg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2662623,-71.8167462,3a,75y,1...
- brandonhorst 5y ago
FridayoLeary 5y ago
It does sound a bit weird. How long do they last? In UK you would expect a house to remain standing for 80-150 years. Maybe more.
- echelon 5y ago
  Wooden homes last just as long. There are many wooden homes of that age, and they have a ton of character and command steep prices.
- capitainenemo 5y ago
  My current home is a dirt cheap one built during the explosion in housing post world war II. It's wood on top of poured concrete slabs for a foundation (yes, ok, some concrete - maybe something else could have been used? brick?). It has no structural issues. (it has issues due to stupid design decisions from stamping out homes at that time, but none related to the wood). It is now 60 years old. I imagine it will be standing for a long time to come.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    Cinderblock foundations aren't uncommon, brick or stone and mortar. And lots of basements were packed eaeth, a whole nother level of 'unfinished'
- RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
  I live in a 100 year old wooden house. Its got some character due to modifications and its era (1920's). But its been well maintained and there is no apparent reason it wouldn't survive another 100 years.
  - waynesonfire 5y ago
    same. and it was built so long ago that the 2x4s used in it's construction are actually 2"x4", and probably made from old growth.
    - 5y ago
pletnes 5y ago
Fire safety is not great. (Many other things are. )
- elric 5y ago
  That's an over-generalization which is very often wrong. Massive timber (including things like CLT or Brettstapel) are very fire resistant and very safe in a fire. The outer layers tend to char while the rest of the structure is preserved.
  - dan-robertson 5y ago
    To say more: if a large timber beam is exposed to fire and comes out charred, you can often just scrape off the charred part, but for a steel or concrete beam the damage may be fundamental (introducing cracks or permanently changing the size or material properties) requiring the part to be replaced.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      In a fire, you will die long before the structure will collapse
      - dan-robertson 5y ago
        It’s about what happens after a minor fire, not what happens when a building burns down

lotsofpulp 5y ago

It is comical how so many seem to think wood and drywall is always inferior to concrete. I would even say it is the opposite, you are lucky to have access to cheap enough wood.

yawaworht1978 5y ago
I think the only advantage wood has it that it can be burned for heating. No seriously, i do not see a single advantage of a wooden house. But I am eager to hear.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Easy to work with is the main one. I can do almost everything myself with less time, less equipment, and less chance of injury. Cheaper (where I am). Let’s WiFi signals through easier, so I need fewer access points. I’ve worked with both, and the main advantage of concrete would be the sound insulation. But I feel like a quality wood + drywall + insulation installation can come close enough for residential purposes.
- echelon 5y ago
  They don't waste energy to heat or cool. They sequester carbon rather than produce it. They're easy to modify and expand. They're durable and last forever if you take care of them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- capitainenemo 5y ago
  Easy to insulate, easy to build with, durable, easier on the environment.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  The can stand up better to an earthquake.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  You can change your mind, knock out a wall there, put in a new wall here. Basically easier to remodel. Plus the carbon sequestration And in the case of craftsman style homes the use of wood is very beautiful but of course you could throw a few planks of wood onto a concrete shell. It’s softer too, I lived in a condo that was all concrete and granite, anytime you bumped into a corner or fell down it just hurt more than wood.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Wood is cheaper up to certain scale, less environmental impactful, and flexible in the face of dynamic load changes and construction. For larger construction, pumped concrete is cheaper to build. It’s generally (but not always) more fireproof without special measures being taken. You think that concrete is stronger because it looks solid and heavy. In many cases, concrete or other masonry buildings are actually clad buildings with wood or other framing. Also, generally speaking a small scale, poorly built concrete structure will be more solid than a poorly built wooden structure. I live in an urban house in upstate NY, it’s a wood frame house built in 1925. It’s not a luxury or high-end construction, but there’s no structural reason that it won’t be standing in 2125. Keep a roof on it and control storm water and you’re good to go.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > In many cases, concrete or other masonry buildings are actually clad buildings with wood or other framing. That’s an American thing. The walls in my brick house in the UK literally are a foot thick of brick. Even internal walls.
ben7799 5y ago
Concrete has horrible greenhouse gas emissions issues that wooden construction doesn't. The chemical reaction for the cement in concrete generates C02 in a 1:1 ratio with the amount of cement produced. Unless you're capturing it you release 1 ton of C02 for your 1 ton of cement. Steel for rebar is even worse, the ratio of C02 generated is greater than 1:1. None of this includes any of the energy you used to heat any of the ingredients either. Even plastic is better, some of the Carbon & oxygen get sequestered in the plastic. A process to completely sequester or not generate any C02 in the production of cement & concrete that was cheap & easy would be a Nobel prize winning innovation. If the whole world switched to that it would be more significant than switching all vehicles in the world to electric.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Is there any comparison available? I've seen concrete and masonry houses built, and while the concrete has a greater carbon footprint, there's little waste compared to wood houses with drywall: wood treatments and coatings, insulating foam, materials wrapped in disposable plastic sheets, etc. Modern wood houses are far from just wood.
jhallenworld 5y ago
I would rather live in a cheaply made wooden house than a cheaply made concrete one. The simple common way to build a wooden house is massively redundant. Concrete houses use post and slab, even in poor countries. So in Nairobi, they were having six building collapses per month. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0430/Why-are-buildings-in-Kenya-collapsing https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0430/Why-ar...
- codefined 5y ago
  Your source seems to contradict 'six buliding collapses per month': "A six-story building collapsed Friday night in Nairobi, killing at least a dozen people. Several buildings in Kenya have collapsed in the past year. Why?"
  - jhallenworld 5y ago
    My source for the 6/month figure is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPYJ4l-lBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPYJ4l-lBI Only the big ones end up in the media.. But you are right it seems like an overestimate. I found this showing 17 buildings collapsed in eight years, citing a CMU study: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2016/05/02/kenya-s-long-history-housing-disasters https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2016/05/02/kenya-s-l...

ars 5y ago

You don't want to live in a multi-family wooden house - the noise from above you will drive you wild. With a concrete house you don't hear your neighbors.

capitainenemo 5y ago
Hm. The only multi-family building I've ever lived in was an apartment complex and it was steel and concrete. I don't think they are typically built out of wood even here, although I've read about some experiments with wooden office buildings as more environmentally friendly. I guess if I was really curious I could look and see if they'd added extra sound damping to deal with that. In any case, the typical American wooden home is not going to have a family above you. :)
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  There is a ton of 4 story stick-built multi family housing in the US
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    That specific type of construction started in 2009 after the building code was changed to allow it. They are known as a “1+4” or “1+5”, with the first floor being concrete and then 4 or 5 wood floors above. Very economical, and hence why almost all new multi unit construction has been that style for the past decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-plus-five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-plus-five
- jhallenworld 5y ago
  Three deck homes are common in New England, here are some examples (I think these are five family homes, the upper floors are two families each): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2662623,-71.8167462,3a,75y,193.51h,101.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBETCiUnDooy9N2BH13ojEg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2662623,-71.8167462,3a,75y,1...
brandonhorst 5y ago

FridayoLeary 5y ago

It does sound a bit weird. How long do they last? In UK you would expect a house to remain standing for 80-150 years. Maybe more.

echelon 5y ago
Wooden homes last just as long. There are many wooden homes of that age, and they have a ton of character and command steep prices.
capitainenemo 5y ago
My current home is a dirt cheap one built during the explosion in housing post world war II. It's wood on top of poured concrete slabs for a foundation (yes, ok, some concrete - maybe something else could have been used? brick?). It has no structural issues. (it has issues due to stupid design decisions from stamping out homes at that time, but none related to the wood). It is now 60 years old. I imagine it will be standing for a long time to come.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  Cinderblock foundations aren't uncommon, brick or stone and mortar. And lots of basements were packed eaeth, a whole nother level of 'unfinished'
RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
I live in a 100 year old wooden house. Its got some character due to modifications and its era (1920's). But its been well maintained and there is no apparent reason it wouldn't survive another 100 years.
- waynesonfire 5y ago
  same. and it was built so long ago that the 2x4s used in it's construction are actually 2"x4", and probably made from old growth.
  - 5y ago

pletnes 5y ago

Fire safety is not great. (Many other things are. )

elric 5y ago
That's an over-generalization which is very often wrong. Massive timber (including things like CLT or Brettstapel) are very fire resistant and very safe in a fire. The outer layers tend to char while the rest of the structure is preserved.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  To say more: if a large timber beam is exposed to fire and comes out charred, you can often just scrape off the charred part, but for a steel or concrete beam the damage may be fundamental (introducing cracks or permanently changing the size or material properties) requiring the part to be replaced.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    In a fire, you will die long before the structure will collapse
    - dan-robertson 5y ago
      It’s about what happens after a minor fire, not what happens when a building burns down