4 ms·

And still building houses out of toothpicks.

pixl97 2y ago
And what is that going to do about flooding and storm surge?
dcchambers 2y ago
I don't understand this sentiment. Modern construction with lumber is great. It's cheap, relatively easy to fix/replace as needed, and a renewable resource.
- ghaff 2y ago
  It's part of the general sentiment that you see ancient buildings built out of stone in Europe so Americans building houses out of wood (of which there are plenty of examples that are hundreds of years old) are stupid.
  - Insanity 2y ago
    Those USA ones would be a 2-3 centuries old at most, no? When living in EU, there was a church about 5 minutes waking distance that was ~900 years old lol
    - ghaff 2y ago
      My house is over 200 years old which isn't really rare for the area of the country where I live. Yes, it's had a sequence of renovation/expansion work over the years--the last of which this summer actually involved chimney brickwork. Why should I care if it lasts 900 years or not?
      - Insanity 2y ago
        Not saying you should - just replying to the “plenty of old buildings in the US” statement. As it goes - 100 miles is a long distance in Europe, while 100 years is a long time ago in America. From my lens, a building that is 200 years old is not really all that old.
        ghaff 2y ago
        And Japan even has a much more normalized practice of knocking down a house and building a new one if you buy it. Europe is probably the outlier of routinely preserving residences through centuries--and I suspect it's not really that universal even there. I've extensively modified and upgraded my house since I've bought it. Even so, I'm sure there are aspects (e.g. one small bathroom) that would give many buyers pause.
        Insanity 2y ago
        It depends - parts of Europe allow you to knock down and change the part of the house that is not visible from the street. So the facade (“Frontend”) from the street is maintained, but the “backend” is renewed.
  - Tade0 2y ago
    I think this is reinforced by the stereotype of walls being generally punchable in the US(provided they are not load-bearing). I have drywall in my apartment, but I would hurt myself trying to punch any of my walls.
    - dcchambers 2y ago
      This is more a drywall/sheetrock vs plaster thing. Plaster walls are much harder than drywall, but are more expensive to install with little practical benefit.
  - michaelteter 2y ago
    It's part of the general sentiment of "look at these tornado aftermath photos". Wooden homes do not survive as well in high wind situations, and hurricanes are high wind situations.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      And you often have flooding situations as well, if you look at photos of Asheville. Granite walls don't necessarily help you much in those situations, nor if the roof is blown off or a tree crashes on it. And much of the US doesn't routinely have really high wind situations. Had a windstorm in my area last fall. A big mature spruce tree came down and managed to avoid hitting my house or neighbor's utility wires but house was fine. Wood construction is not uniquely susceptible to wind events relative to other things that tend to happen in severe storms. And, if you have a direct tornado hit, I'm not sure it really matters what your residential property is made of.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Toothpick houses aren't like other lumber constructions, you can build sturdy with wood. Trees are extremely sturdy, thin branches are not.
- ydnaclementine 2y ago
  Is rebuilding houses every 30-50 years eco friendly?
  - dcchambers 2y ago
    There is no need to rebuild lumber framed houses every 30-50 years. What gives you that idea? My house is 30 years old and in great shape. There are 100+ year old wood framed houses all over the US. Water is the primary enemy of wood, keep the water out and wood frames houses will last generations. Modern pressure treated lumber lasts even longer.
    - michaelteter 2y ago
      > There are 100+ year old wood framed houses all over the US. Not in the parts of the US which are prone to tornados and hurricanes. And as we know, the areas prone to wind-related extreme weather are growing. Oh, I forgot to mention fire. Many parts of the US are becoming more susceptible to fires. Concrete is not a great eco choice, but it is a far better choice for homes that need to withstand increasingly harsh environments.
- michaelteter 2y ago
  American houses not made of concrete usually do not withstand high winds well. An increasingly large part of the US is subject to storms that include very high winds. When a tornado or hurricane hits a wooden house directly, the results are not usually good for the structure or the occupants. Concrete homes tend to survive much better.
Insanity 2y ago
Yeah, US housing does feel reminiscent of the “three little pigs” story. Except that the wolf is now an actual hurricane. Does also explain why housing is relatively cheap - just not very durable.
matwood 2y ago
Modern housing can survive very high winds, nothing can survive the flooding though. Look up the regulation changes post Andrew if you’re curious about modern housing in hurricane areas.
oooyay 2y ago
I've read this style of comment a lot lately. I'm an amateur wood worker, carpenter, and occasional framer; to call a wood structure toothpicks is a bit misleading. Houses are primarily composed of "sticks" aka 2x4s that are themselves composed in a series of frames. The frames put together are part of supporting the load of the forces put on top of the house, while beams distribute that load evenly. Places where there's peak load they'll reinforce with metal bracing. The last structural components of a house are sheething and siding, which are equally important. The concept isn't dissimilar to timberframing which uses all the same mechanisms but leverages wood joinery instead of metal brackets and would still use stick framing and sheething. Timber frames have stood for hundreds of years. Frankly, just because your house is built from solid structure masonry doesn't mean that it will withstand hurricane level forces or dense flying objects at tens or hundreds of mph.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Only house standing in Hiroshima was made out of stone. Stone is far superior as a material to withstand extreme winds, no hurricane comes close to a nuclear bomb. So there is really no reason to argue wood can be as strong, it can't, you can of course make a stone building that is as brittle as wood though. https://www.expedia.com/Atomic-Bomb-Dome-Hiroshima-City-Centre.d6102476.Vacation-Attraction https://www.expedia.com/Atomic-Bomb-Dome-Hiroshima-City-Cent...
  - oooyay 2y ago
    That building is made of steel with a stone and mortar facade. Facade is not structural. You can tell what side of the building absorbed the blast because that side is missing and likely melted. Structural stone is carved out of large slabs. It's much more expensive pound for pound and non-renewable, but will be equal to large timbers for structural purposes. https://www.archidust.com/blog/2023/11/20/stone-or-timber-dense-or-perforated-various-types-of-building-materials-and-their-applications/ https://www.archidust.com/blog/2023/11/20/stone-or-timber-de...
kcplate 2y ago
No. This is not true at all. For the last 30+ years (basically post-Andrew) new building codes are pretty strict regarding structural ability to weather our storms. I feel safe in my home (built 2017) up to a Cat 4. Cat 4 is the magic number where I am going to worry a little beyond the loss of some lanai screening and roof shingles. More from flying debris. Generally when you see major home destruction post hurricane those homes were built prior to the ‘90s or washed out by surge. Those of us in Florida know…it’s not so much the wind we worry about, it’s the water from the surge. Helene’s damage in the Tampa Bay Area was mainly storm surge…the wind, which did occasionally gust beyond 65mph, wasn’t as much of an issue.
xnx 2y ago
Building codes in some areas of Florida require windload resistance to 180 mph. Better to specify requirements than dictate specific implementation.

And what is that going to do about flooding and storm surge?

I don't understand this sentiment. Modern construction with lumber is great. It's cheap, relatively easy to fix/replace as needed, and a renewable resource.

ghaff 2y ago
It's part of the general sentiment that you see ancient buildings built out of stone in Europe so Americans building houses out of wood (of which there are plenty of examples that are hundreds of years old) are stupid.
- Insanity 2y ago
  Those USA ones would be a 2-3 centuries old at most, no? When living in EU, there was a church about 5 minutes waking distance that was ~900 years old lol
  - ghaff 2y ago
    My house is over 200 years old which isn't really rare for the area of the country where I live. Yes, it's had a sequence of renovation/expansion work over the years--the last of which this summer actually involved chimney brickwork. Why should I care if it lasts 900 years or not?
    - Insanity 2y ago
      Not saying you should - just replying to the “plenty of old buildings in the US” statement. As it goes - 100 miles is a long distance in Europe, while 100 years is a long time ago in America. From my lens, a building that is 200 years old is not really all that old.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        And Japan even has a much more normalized practice of knocking down a house and building a new one if you buy it. Europe is probably the outlier of routinely preserving residences through centuries--and I suspect it's not really that universal even there. I've extensively modified and upgraded my house since I've bought it. Even so, I'm sure there are aspects (e.g. one small bathroom) that would give many buyers pause.
        Insanity 2y ago
        It depends - parts of Europe allow you to knock down and change the part of the house that is not visible from the street. So the facade (“Frontend”) from the street is maintained, but the “backend” is renewed.
- Tade0 2y ago
  I think this is reinforced by the stereotype of walls being generally punchable in the US(provided they are not load-bearing). I have drywall in my apartment, but I would hurt myself trying to punch any of my walls.
  - dcchambers 2y ago
    This is more a drywall/sheetrock vs plaster thing. Plaster walls are much harder than drywall, but are more expensive to install with little practical benefit.
- michaelteter 2y ago
  It's part of the general sentiment of "look at these tornado aftermath photos". Wooden homes do not survive as well in high wind situations, and hurricanes are high wind situations.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    And you often have flooding situations as well, if you look at photos of Asheville. Granite walls don't necessarily help you much in those situations, nor if the roof is blown off or a tree crashes on it. And much of the US doesn't routinely have really high wind situations. Had a windstorm in my area last fall. A big mature spruce tree came down and managed to avoid hitting my house or neighbor's utility wires but house was fine. Wood construction is not uniquely susceptible to wind events relative to other things that tend to happen in severe storms. And, if you have a direct tornado hit, I'm not sure it really matters what your residential property is made of.
Jensson 2y ago
Toothpick houses aren't like other lumber constructions, you can build sturdy with wood. Trees are extremely sturdy, thin branches are not.
ydnaclementine 2y ago
Is rebuilding houses every 30-50 years eco friendly?
- dcchambers 2y ago
  There is no need to rebuild lumber framed houses every 30-50 years. What gives you that idea? My house is 30 years old and in great shape. There are 100+ year old wood framed houses all over the US. Water is the primary enemy of wood, keep the water out and wood frames houses will last generations. Modern pressure treated lumber lasts even longer.
  - michaelteter 2y ago
    > There are 100+ year old wood framed houses all over the US. Not in the parts of the US which are prone to tornados and hurricanes. And as we know, the areas prone to wind-related extreme weather are growing. Oh, I forgot to mention fire. Many parts of the US are becoming more susceptible to fires. Concrete is not a great eco choice, but it is a far better choice for homes that need to withstand increasingly harsh environments.
michaelteter 2y ago
American houses not made of concrete usually do not withstand high winds well. An increasingly large part of the US is subject to storms that include very high winds. When a tornado or hurricane hits a wooden house directly, the results are not usually good for the structure or the occupants. Concrete homes tend to survive much better.

Insanity 2y ago

Yeah, US housing does feel reminiscent of the “three little pigs” story. Except that the wolf is now an actual hurricane. Does also explain why housing is relatively cheap - just not very durable.

matwood 2y ago

Modern housing can survive very high winds, nothing can survive the flooding though. Look up the regulation changes post Andrew if you’re curious about modern housing in hurricane areas.

oooyay 2y ago

I've read this style of comment a lot lately. I'm an amateur wood worker, carpenter, and occasional framer; to call a wood structure toothpicks is a bit misleading. Houses are primarily composed of "sticks" aka 2x4s that are themselves composed in a series of frames. The frames put together are part of supporting the load of the forces put on top of the house, while beams distribute that load evenly. Places where there's peak load they'll reinforce with metal bracing. The last structural components of a house are sheething and siding, which are equally important. The concept isn't dissimilar to timberframing which uses all the same mechanisms but leverages wood joinery instead of metal brackets and would still use stick framing and sheething. Timber frames have stood for hundreds of years. Frankly, just because your house is built from solid structure masonry doesn't mean that it will withstand hurricane level forces or dense flying objects at tens or hundreds of mph.

Jensson 2y ago
Only house standing in Hiroshima was made out of stone. Stone is far superior as a material to withstand extreme winds, no hurricane comes close to a nuclear bomb. So there is really no reason to argue wood can be as strong, it can't, you can of course make a stone building that is as brittle as wood though. https://www.expedia.com/Atomic-Bomb-Dome-Hiroshima-City-Centre.d6102476.Vacation-Attraction https://www.expedia.com/Atomic-Bomb-Dome-Hiroshima-City-Cent...
- oooyay 2y ago
  That building is made of steel with a stone and mortar facade. Facade is not structural. You can tell what side of the building absorbed the blast because that side is missing and likely melted. Structural stone is carved out of large slabs. It's much more expensive pound for pound and non-renewable, but will be equal to large timbers for structural purposes. https://www.archidust.com/blog/2023/11/20/stone-or-timber-dense-or-perforated-various-types-of-building-materials-and-their-applications/ https://www.archidust.com/blog/2023/11/20/stone-or-timber-de...

kcplate 2y ago

No. This is not true at all. For the last 30+ years (basically post-Andrew) new building codes are pretty strict regarding structural ability to weather our storms. I feel safe in my home (built 2017) up to a Cat 4. Cat 4 is the magic number where I am going to worry a little beyond the loss of some lanai screening and roof shingles. More from flying debris. Generally when you see major home destruction post hurricane those homes were built prior to the ‘90s or washed out by surge. Those of us in Florida know…it’s not so much the wind we worry about, it’s the water from the surge. Helene’s damage in the Tampa Bay Area was mainly storm surge…the wind, which did occasionally gust beyond 65mph, wasn’t as much of an issue.

xnx 2y ago

Building codes in some areas of Florida require windload resistance to 180 mph. Better to specify requirements than dictate specific implementation.