3 ms·
Some of it also has to do with seismic activity. Traditional masonry is a very poor choice if you're expecting earthquakes. In Japan (another earthquake-prone
by Turing_Machine 4y ago
Some of it also has to do with seismic activity.
Traditional masonry is a very poor choice if you're expecting earthquakes.
In Japan (another earthquake-prone area) the classic houses also tended to be lumber and even paper, not masonry, because lightweight materials are less likely to squash you like a bug when the next earthquake comes along.
Obviously the Japanese did use masonry for fortifications and suchlike, but not usually for a standard dwelling.
- booi 4y agoMy understanding is masonry generally has less give and wood buildings can flex in the case of an earthquake. In fact it’s not to code in California to build with masonry without significant steel rebar reinforcement. It’s not necessarily due to the weight although I’m sure it plays a factor
- xenadu02 4y agoThis is correct. Wood frame buildings sway and flex during an earthquake. The weight is less important. The problem spots tend to be attachment to the foundation (the building disconnects from the moving ground and starts to skitter around), insufficient beam connections (beams slide off their supporting columns), or support wall collapse. If you live in the Bay Area all of those things are fairly easy to fix - even as a DIY project. Install more concrete anchors in the sill plates, add earthquake rated connections to beams (which were often just toe-nailed), and put plywood on interior garage walls and half height supporting walls which makes those walls much stiffer (old building standards didn't require nearly as much blocking or cross-bracing between studs). As long as a wood stick construction structure stays connected to its foundation and has the smallest bit of strength it can withstand even massive earthquakes without issue.