3 ms·

Nice to see a focus on vernacular architecture and avoiding concrete. I just went through the process of having my own house built - a modern extension to a 200

Nice to see a focus on vernacular architecture and avoiding concrete. I just went through the process of having my own house built - a modern extension to a 200 year old vernacular cottage - and it was very frustrating how much modern architects were blindingly obsessed with concrete EVERYWHERE. And it is a horrific pollutant. While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. (Though I only wonder, I'm not sure - because I really appreciate how great modern insulation and fire/earthquake safety is)

xxs 3y ago
>And it is a horrific pollutant. The CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (<200kg/tonne)[0] Bricks are around 0.5kg CO2 per kg produced (500kg/tonne). Bricks have bit lower (but similar) density than concrete, say 2000kg/m3. That makes them a lot more pollutant than concrete. Brick require a lot higher labour and transport costs as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...
- strken 3y ago
  For fired bricks, yes; I believe unfired mudbrick embodies about half the CO2 of concrete, although it hasn't got the strength of fired bricks. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_Energy_and_CO2_Analyses_of_Mud-brick_and_Cement-block_Houses https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_...
  - birracerveza 3y ago
    Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls, and it's also a very efficient cleaning method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls Well, the wikipedia link that you provided says that there is no evidence for that claim since the houses were destroyed in the burning. Two possible explanations on wikipedia for why it was done are recycling of building material and symbolic end of houses.
  - xxs 3y ago
    the remark was about "architects were blindingly obsessed", concrete is a 'better alternative'
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Which is a good reason to use wood.
op00to 3y ago
> While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. I doubt there's a wide-ranging conspiracy to stop people from building their own houses in the western world. I'd rather you not build a rickety ramshackle hovel next to my house. That's why we have building codes. You're certainly able to build your own house, but it can't fall over onto mine, or cause a citywide fire, or be built with poisionous elements, or ... I recently moved from a house built in 1918 to one built in 1965, and the complexity of the construction is immediately visible. The 1918 wood struction was rough hewn compared to the stuff in my 65 house. All the walls are straight in the 65 house. The 65 house stays cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. I don't have constant critter intrusion. That's just moving from a 100 year old house to a 60 year old house! The new construction in our area (all high quality - they knock down one of the old 1918 houses to build a new one, no idea about tract houses) takes the efficiency and performance a level up. This is all possible through improving building codes - no one would bother with this stuff if it wasn't required.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Well, codes and modern technology. Like I said I'm not sure of it, it was just a weird contrast having a 200+ year old house and a brand new one and comparing the two.

xxs 3y ago

>And it is a horrific pollutant. The CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (<200kg/tonne)[0] Bricks are around 0.5kg CO2 per kg produced (500kg/tonne). Bricks have bit lower (but similar) density than concrete, say 2000kg/m3. That makes them a lot more pollutant than concrete. Brick require a lot higher labour and transport costs as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...

strken 3y ago
For fired bricks, yes; I believe unfired mudbrick embodies about half the CO2 of concrete, although it hasn't got the strength of fired bricks. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_Energy_and_CO2_Analyses_of_Mud-brick_and_Cement-block_Houses https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_...
- birracerveza 3y ago
  Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls, and it's also a very efficient cleaning method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls Well, the wikipedia link that you provided says that there is no evidence for that claim since the houses were destroyed in the burning. Two possible explanations on wikipedia for why it was done are recycling of building material and symbolic end of houses.
- xxs 3y ago
  the remark was about "architects were blindingly obsessed", concrete is a 'better alternative'
CalRobert 3y ago
Which is a good reason to use wood.

op00to 3y ago

> While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. I doubt there's a wide-ranging conspiracy to stop people from building their own houses in the western world. I'd rather you not build a rickety ramshackle hovel next to my house. That's why we have building codes. You're certainly able to build your own house, but it can't fall over onto mine, or cause a citywide fire, or be built with poisionous elements, or ... I recently moved from a house built in 1918 to one built in 1965, and the complexity of the construction is immediately visible. The 1918 wood struction was rough hewn compared to the stuff in my 65 house. All the walls are straight in the 65 house. The 65 house stays cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. I don't have constant critter intrusion. That's just moving from a 100 year old house to a 60 year old house! The new construction in our area (all high quality - they knock down one of the old 1918 houses to build a new one, no idea about tract houses) takes the efficiency and performance a level up. This is all possible through improving building codes - no one would bother with this stuff if it wasn't required.

CalRobert 3y ago
Well, codes and modern technology. Like I said I'm not sure of it, it was just a weird contrast having a 200+ year old house and a brand new one and comparing the two.