3 ms·

In Italy and Norway, maybe others, I don't know, wood constructions have been pushed quite a lot because they are more environment friendly than concrete and st

In Italy and Norway, maybe others, I don't know, wood constructions have been pushed quite a lot because they are more environment friendly than concrete and steel, can this be so different in los angeles?

hollerith 5y ago
>can this be so different in los angeles? No. Making the cement requires much energy.
- cdot2 5y ago
  More importantly the chemical reaction that makes cement releases a ton of co2
robocat 5y ago
A friend from Spain visited us in Christchurch New Zealand, and they couldn’t work out why all the housing was “temporary”: most of our homes are built of wood which appeared temporary to her. Solid structures also make sense in hot countries, where thermal mass helps keep your home cool without aircon. Another friend bought a large finca in Spain, that is stone (with rubble infill I think) and is hundreds of years old - very comfortable. Here, wood makes more sense, because of cost and earthquakes. Many brick buildings and brick facades failed during the Christchurch earthquake. I own a home with a broken ring foundation, but completely lovable (edit: liveable) still, because it is a wooden home from the 30’s. The main issue with wooden homes are that they need a lot of expensive ongoing maintenance or they deteriorate. Not so much of an issue in the inner city where buildings get demolished, and replaced by new apartments or town houses.
- jollybean 5y ago
  They are 'temporary' in the sense they are not quite designed to last for centuries. In Europe, you have 'Post and Beam' framing which means the underlying structure can last 'a very long time' while the non-weight-bearing walls can be replaced. And there's a lot of stone work which can last 'a very long time' as well. But yes, stone is a problem for earthquakes. I wish there was more research into modern materials for this kind of stuff. I would hope that 'wood' would be something we use for decorative things we see, touch or feel, and that something more mundane can go into the framing.
  - phicoh 5y ago
    Indeed, with such a 'post and beam' construction, a wooden house can last for 400 years (at least, where I live the oldest houses are around the age). That said, in 1669, Amsterdam no longer allowed outside walls made of wood due to the fire spreading risk. Though that means that the construction would still be 'post and beam', but the outside walls would be make of bricks.
Thlom 5y ago
In Norway we have always built our homes with wood, but the last decade or so there have been a few buildings that would normally be built with concrete instead built with timber. Schools, hotels, apartment buildings and so on. Specifically they are using glued laminated timber that is said to to withstand fire better than f.ex steel.

hollerith 5y ago

>can this be so different in los angeles? No. Making the cement requires much energy.

cdot2 5y ago
More importantly the chemical reaction that makes cement releases a ton of co2

robocat 5y ago

A friend from Spain visited us in Christchurch New Zealand, and they couldn’t work out why all the housing was “temporary”: most of our homes are built of wood which appeared temporary to her. Solid structures also make sense in hot countries, where thermal mass helps keep your home cool without aircon. Another friend bought a large finca in Spain, that is stone (with rubble infill I think) and is hundreds of years old - very comfortable. Here, wood makes more sense, because of cost and earthquakes. Many brick buildings and brick facades failed during the Christchurch earthquake. I own a home with a broken ring foundation, but completely lovable (edit: liveable) still, because it is a wooden home from the 30’s. The main issue with wooden homes are that they need a lot of expensive ongoing maintenance or they deteriorate. Not so much of an issue in the inner city where buildings get demolished, and replaced by new apartments or town houses.

jollybean 5y ago
They are 'temporary' in the sense they are not quite designed to last for centuries. In Europe, you have 'Post and Beam' framing which means the underlying structure can last 'a very long time' while the non-weight-bearing walls can be replaced. And there's a lot of stone work which can last 'a very long time' as well. But yes, stone is a problem for earthquakes. I wish there was more research into modern materials for this kind of stuff. I would hope that 'wood' would be something we use for decorative things we see, touch or feel, and that something more mundane can go into the framing.
- phicoh 5y ago
  Indeed, with such a 'post and beam' construction, a wooden house can last for 400 years (at least, where I live the oldest houses are around the age). That said, in 1669, Amsterdam no longer allowed outside walls made of wood due to the fire spreading risk. Though that means that the construction would still be 'post and beam', but the outside walls would be make of bricks.

Thlom 5y ago

In Norway we have always built our homes with wood, but the last decade or so there have been a few buildings that would normally be built with concrete instead built with timber. Schools, hotels, apartment buildings and so on. Specifically they are using glued laminated timber that is said to to withstand fire better than f.ex steel.