3 ms·

I don't understand why more houses in areas prone to wind/fire aren't built from concrete. There are large parts of the world where that is the default due to l

I don't understand why more houses in areas prone to wind/fire aren't built from concrete. There are large parts of the world where that is the default due to lack of wood.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Note that fire can and does compromise concrete structures anyways, and more crucially, concrete structures tend to be significantly more expensive to build. A standard wood frame house is insanely cheap to build the structure of, and unsurprisingly, consumers tend to want to build a lot very cheaply. Finally, there are only two types of concrete: Concrete that has cracked, and concrete that hasn't cracked yet.
- SergeAx 3y ago
  For several decades I cannot wrap my head around the fact that US houses are built literally from sticks, alabaster and paper, and still an order of magnitude more expensive that typical Europe concrete/masonry house.
jandrewrogers 3y ago
The prevalence of strong earthquakes across large parts of the US explains almost all of it. It is very difficult and expensive to engineer a building with structural masonry that can survive magnitude 7-8+ earthquakes, and the building code requires it in many places (M 8.5 where I live). They used to build a lot of masonry buildings in the US just like Europe using the same techniques but they stopped doing it after they were repeatedly flattened in earthquakes. Strong earthquakes mean you can only really build with wood or steel frames, so that is what they build with. Steel framed construction is significantly more expensive to buy, build, and maintain, so it isn’t commonly used in houses since they don’t need the extra strength. You don’t need masonry to be fire resistant. Large brush fires would drop burning embers all over your house when I lived in the southwestern US, but the ubiquitous stucco-and-tile exteriors were largely unaffected.

I don't understand why more houses in areas prone to wind/fire aren't built from concrete. There are large parts of the world where that is the default due to lack of wood.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

Note that fire can and does compromise concrete structures anyways, and more crucially, concrete structures tend to be significantly more expensive to build. A standard wood frame house is insanely cheap to build the structure of, and unsurprisingly, consumers tend to want to build a lot very cheaply. Finally, there are only two types of concrete: Concrete that has cracked, and concrete that hasn't cracked yet.

SergeAx 3y ago
For several decades I cannot wrap my head around the fact that US houses are built literally from sticks, alabaster and paper, and still an order of magnitude more expensive that typical Europe concrete/masonry house.

jandrewrogers 3y ago

The prevalence of strong earthquakes across large parts of the US explains almost all of it. It is very difficult and expensive to engineer a building with structural masonry that can survive magnitude 7-8+ earthquakes, and the building code requires it in many places (M 8.5 where I live). They used to build a lot of masonry buildings in the US just like Europe using the same techniques but they stopped doing it after they were repeatedly flattened in earthquakes. Strong earthquakes mean you can only really build with wood or steel frames, so that is what they build with. Steel framed construction is significantly more expensive to buy, build, and maintain, so it isn’t commonly used in houses since they don’t need the extra strength. You don’t need masonry to be fire resistant. Large brush fires would drop burning embers all over your house when I lived in the southwestern US, but the ubiquitous stucco-and-tile exteriors were largely unaffected.