3 ms·
Much of the conversation here derails the original post: we desperately need less expensive construction processes (overall, including permitting etc). Even whe
by creer 3y ago
Much of the conversation here derails the original post: we desperately need less expensive construction processes (overall, including permitting etc). Even when the local community makes it not-worthwhile to build affordable housing.
- gertlex 3y agoNot sure the article ("original post") makes that claim either. It just asserts that mass timber is (probably) not in fact cheaper, and has not been/is not going to accelerate building of more housing. A solution, i.e. what "we desperately need", is not covered in the article.
- creer 3y agoThe article points out a range of tradeoffs for mass timber (and I'm not arguing that mass timber should by itself solve the construction cost issue - it's more interesting as one more very different direction). More directions will be helpful for finding more cost effective solutions for different buildings. For one thing mass timber allows far more floors than current "5 over 1" construction - because of better fire behavior. In current cities that is certainly a useful feature. At least in cities that do grant construction permits... That should be helpful even in cities that grant ENOUGH construction permits for that to influence unit affordability.