13 ms·

In China every building is built with cement. In US most homes are built with wood.

by yueq 12y ago

myth_buster 12y ago
From the article: > And where many houses in the U.S. are made of wood, China suffers from a relative lack of lumber. Unlike in the U.S., many people in China live in high- or low-rise buildings made out of cement. A critical argument, but unfortunately mentioned towards the end of the article. But overall its a interesting article and this gif [0] comparing Shanghai '87 vs '13, from it gives a good perspective of the modernization (akin to images of Dubai). [0] https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/03/Shanghai.gif https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/03/...
- VieElm 12y ago
  Why does such a large geographical region lack wood? Really? Maybe they just don't care and are happy with cement buildings.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Very large portions of China, particularly all of the Western half (Xinjiang, Tibet and Qinghai) are mountainous and/or very arid.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Even much of eastern China is mountainous, i miss trees in Beijing's winter (they kind of just disappear until spring, not being evergreens).
      - ptaipale 12y ago
        True, and overall China has little arable land and comparatively even less woodlands. In Beijing, there are some thujas (cypress-like trees) around but I agree that Beijing winter is not very colourful. And the yellow wind (i.e. sandstorm from Gobi) that you're about to get there just now isn't nice either, despite being a natural phenomenon.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Nothing that could sustain a forestry industry. Heck, beijing is a heavy importer of live tree transplants. We haven't had real bad dust storms since 2008, though a few days last year were bad. And the wind does blow out the pollution so....
  - tokenadult 12y ago
    Most of China was deforested a long time ago in the interest of expanding farm fields. As another reply you received noted, much of the western territory of current China (which historically was sparsely populated and not part of China proper) has always been arid and has never had forests.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Xinjiang has beautiful gold pine trees on its border with kazhakistan. I was surprised, actually, I thought the whole place was a desert but it turned out to be more lush than much of northern China (at least for the northern part I visited).
      - abalashov 12y ago
        What on earth is "kazhakistan"? You mean Kazakhstan?
  - sangnoir 12y ago
    I am non-American, and I do not understand why (most/some) Americans think think the default/superior housing material is wood. If someone can explain, I'd be happy to learn. I'm perfectly fine with brick-and-mortar houses (and concrete sky-scrapers). Brick houses have less fuel for fires, better load-bearing properties (pros), although they take longer to construct.
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      One- and two-story wood structures do very well in earthquakes (a consideration for some of us, anyway). It has good tensile strength, it is not brittle, and it is not very heavy. Unreinforced masonry, by contrast, is a terrible choice for an earthquake zone. It's heavy, brittle, and has approximately zero tensile strength.
      - sangnoir 12y ago
        Thanks! You are right falling/flying bricks are not a good idea in an earthquake or hurricane situation. After digging some more, it seems like cost is another factor. I suspect our backgrounds subconsciously color our opinions though: my childhood home (and 99% of homes I have ever visited) were brick and mortar, maybe that is why I am partial to it.
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        Rammed earth (common in many areas of the world) is even worse. A rammed earth building becomes a pre-dug grave when there's an earthquake.
    - pkaye 12y ago
      One thing is brick is not so good in earthquake prone areas.
    - maratd 12y ago
      > I'm perfectly fine with brick-and-mortar houses Brick is just siding. What's the frame made out of? You can use wood, you can use steel, you can use concrete with rebar. Those are your only real options. In the US, you will frequently see 2-3 story houses framed with wood and with a brick siding. I'm in one right now. Anything higher than 3 stories will be done with steel or concrete. Wood is cheaper than steel and lasts for hundreds of years if properly cared for, which is why it's preferred for smaller residential structures.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > Why does such a large geographical region lack wood? Really? History spanning back >5000 years, using either rocks, clay bricks (which require fire) or wood. North America has huge amounts of timber which wasn't exploited much until very recently, and a relatively low population for the size of the territory (even counting just the US, there were more chinese in 1900 than there are USians today, and the 1900 US population was below the Chinese population around year 1000… the two countries have almost identical surface areas). Europe doesn't build with wood either, ignoring wood not being a very good construction material for high-density urban spaces, there's nowhere near the amount of raw materials you'd need lying around, and not enough room to grow it in the quantities necessary. Oh and much of the Chinese territory is completely unfit for lumber growth (too arid, too montainous, or both), and what little would be fit is necessary for food production. China already imports ridiculous amounts of timber as it is.
    - xorcist 12y ago
      What are you talking about? The whole of northern Europe is pretty much built with wood (perhaps with the exception of Iceland?). It is a great construction material. The downsides are that it's comparably expensive and the international know-how is low, since few countries have the amount of wood required. It's also hard to fireproof without modern technology. But you can still build in modules and with modern technology the cost difference isn't that great for low rise areas. Not far from here there's an 8 story building completely built with wood, and higher buildings are not unheard of. For detached family sized houses it's the standard choice. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same throughout Canada, northern US and parts of Russia.
      - woah 12y ago
        In Germany, wooden houses are unheard of. Not sure where you are getting your info.
        DanBC 12y ago
        There are some very high quality German self build companies that use timber frame and glass construction. HufHaus and Weber Haus are two but there are others. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/episode-guide http://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/episode-gui... > Revisit: Walton, 2008 > Kevin revisits David and Greta Iredale, who replaced their original house which they designed and built themselves with a German built, precision engineered Huf Haus. > Esher, 2004 > Kevin McCloud follows a couple who have built houses before, but never on this scale. Their new 'Huf Haus' is designed and made in Germany but delivered for assembly in Surrey.
  - muddyrivers 12y ago
    It is not lack of wood. Check the population, both at country level and at city levels. Take a look at China in Google Map or Google Earth. If you would like to do research a little further, check the areas covered by forrest. Then you might get an answer. A little historical perspective would help as well. Check how many houses are made of wood in New York City. A reminder: a large number of cities in China have a longer history than New York City.
- D_Alex 12y ago
  Is it a critical argument though? Even if single-family homes in the US tend to be made out of wood, that sector does not seem to be that big, and would certainly not account for any major portion of the difference (roughly 6 million new dwellings in US built per year, say half of them wooden houses, say 10 tonnes of cement (ie 60 tonnes of concrete) per house = 30 million extra tonnes per annum, about 1.5% of Chinese consumption). Dams, roads, bridges, factories, shipyards and large malls high-rise buildings is where the cement goes, and China is using ~20 times more than the US... My reading is that they are developing fast and catching up to the Western world in material standards of living. The interesting question is...: how long will this momentum last, and will they keep going lont enough to overtake the current first world economies? I can see good arguments for both sides of this question.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Not just that: China uses lots of unskilled labor that can work with concrete but not very well with steel frames. They also use more concrete per floor (we have thick walls and floors) as a form of over building since the quality isn't that great. Singapore, a modern city by any other definition, uses concrete in the same way so they can import cheap construction labor from India.
- muddyrivers 12y ago
  I think it is the opposite. BECAUSE less steel frames were used, they could hire lots of unskilled labor. Steel was strictly state-controlled. It had a status of "strategy" material. So it was "scarce". The first generation of uber-rich families were created because these families (of highest government officials) could get their hands on these strictly controlled materials. They simply sold the rights of these materials, not the materials themselves, to the manufacturers at a hefty price.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    No, steel really does require skilled construction workers, not unskilled farmer labor. Steel is heavily used in manufacturing and there is a glut of it now. I hope the day of reckoning for the aristocrats is near.
    - muddyrivers 12y ago
      I agree that steel requires more skilled construction workers. What I said is that because steel was scarce, more concretes had to be used in the construction. In turn, they didn't need to hire that many skilled workers to work on steels, and they could afford to hire more workers to work on concretes.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Think of building construction as a jobs programs for unskilled migrant workers, and why China doesn't move up to better more modern construction methods will make a lot of sense. They have the steel, they have the money, but they wouldn't employ as many people (for low wages, but enough to live) and so the entire point would be missed (I've had this explained to me many times by business men in China).

In China every building is built with cement. In US most homes are built with wood.

by yueq 12y ago

In China every building is built with cement. In US most homes are built with wood.

From the article: > And where many houses in the U.S. are made of wood, China suffers from a relative lack of lumber. Unlike in the U.S., many people in China live in high- or low-rise buildings made out of cement. A critical argument, but unfortunately mentioned towards the end of the article. But overall its a interesting article and this gif [0] comparing Shanghai '87 vs '13, from it gives a good perspective of the modernization (akin to images of Dubai). [0] https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/03/Shanghai.gif https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/03/...

VieElm 12y ago
Why does such a large geographical region lack wood? Really? Maybe they just don't care and are happy with cement buildings.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Very large portions of China, particularly all of the Western half (Xinjiang, Tibet and Qinghai) are mountainous and/or very arid.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Even much of eastern China is mountainous, i miss trees in Beijing's winter (they kind of just disappear until spring, not being evergreens).
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      True, and overall China has little arable land and comparatively even less woodlands. In Beijing, there are some thujas (cypress-like trees) around but I agree that Beijing winter is not very colourful. And the yellow wind (i.e. sandstorm from Gobi) that you're about to get there just now isn't nice either, despite being a natural phenomenon.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Nothing that could sustain a forestry industry. Heck, beijing is a heavy importer of live tree transplants. We haven't had real bad dust storms since 2008, though a few days last year were bad. And the wind does blow out the pollution so....
- tokenadult 12y ago
  Most of China was deforested a long time ago in the interest of expanding farm fields. As another reply you received noted, much of the western territory of current China (which historically was sparsely populated and not part of China proper) has always been arid and has never had forests.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Xinjiang has beautiful gold pine trees on its border with kazhakistan. I was surprised, actually, I thought the whole place was a desert but it turned out to be more lush than much of northern China (at least for the northern part I visited).
    - abalashov 12y ago
      What on earth is "kazhakistan"? You mean Kazakhstan?
- sangnoir 12y ago
  I am non-American, and I do not understand why (most/some) Americans think think the default/superior housing material is wood. If someone can explain, I'd be happy to learn. I'm perfectly fine with brick-and-mortar houses (and concrete sky-scrapers). Brick houses have less fuel for fires, better load-bearing properties (pros), although they take longer to construct.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    One- and two-story wood structures do very well in earthquakes (a consideration for some of us, anyway). It has good tensile strength, it is not brittle, and it is not very heavy. Unreinforced masonry, by contrast, is a terrible choice for an earthquake zone. It's heavy, brittle, and has approximately zero tensile strength.
    - sangnoir 12y ago
      Thanks! You are right falling/flying bricks are not a good idea in an earthquake or hurricane situation. After digging some more, it seems like cost is another factor. I suspect our backgrounds subconsciously color our opinions though: my childhood home (and 99% of homes I have ever visited) were brick and mortar, maybe that is why I am partial to it.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      Rammed earth (common in many areas of the world) is even worse. A rammed earth building becomes a pre-dug grave when there's an earthquake.
  - pkaye 12y ago
    One thing is brick is not so good in earthquake prone areas.
  - maratd 12y ago
    > I'm perfectly fine with brick-and-mortar houses Brick is just siding. What's the frame made out of? You can use wood, you can use steel, you can use concrete with rebar. Those are your only real options. In the US, you will frequently see 2-3 story houses framed with wood and with a brick siding. I'm in one right now. Anything higher than 3 stories will be done with steel or concrete. Wood is cheaper than steel and lasts for hundreds of years if properly cared for, which is why it's preferred for smaller residential structures.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Why does such a large geographical region lack wood? Really? History spanning back >5000 years, using either rocks, clay bricks (which require fire) or wood. North America has huge amounts of timber which wasn't exploited much until very recently, and a relatively low population for the size of the territory (even counting just the US, there were more chinese in 1900 than there are USians today, and the 1900 US population was below the Chinese population around year 1000… the two countries have almost identical surface areas). Europe doesn't build with wood either, ignoring wood not being a very good construction material for high-density urban spaces, there's nowhere near the amount of raw materials you'd need lying around, and not enough room to grow it in the quantities necessary. Oh and much of the Chinese territory is completely unfit for lumber growth (too arid, too montainous, or both), and what little would be fit is necessary for food production. China already imports ridiculous amounts of timber as it is.
  - xorcist 12y ago
    What are you talking about? The whole of northern Europe is pretty much built with wood (perhaps with the exception of Iceland?). It is a great construction material. The downsides are that it's comparably expensive and the international know-how is low, since few countries have the amount of wood required. It's also hard to fireproof without modern technology. But you can still build in modules and with modern technology the cost difference isn't that great for low rise areas. Not far from here there's an 8 story building completely built with wood, and higher buildings are not unheard of. For detached family sized houses it's the standard choice. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same throughout Canada, northern US and parts of Russia.
    - woah 12y ago
      In Germany, wooden houses are unheard of. Not sure where you are getting your info.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        There are some very high quality German self build companies that use timber frame and glass construction. HufHaus and Weber Haus are two but there are others. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/episode-guide http://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/episode-gui... > Revisit: Walton, 2008 > Kevin revisits David and Greta Iredale, who replaced their original house which they designed and built themselves with a German built, precision engineered Huf Haus. > Esher, 2004 > Kevin McCloud follows a couple who have built houses before, but never on this scale. Their new 'Huf Haus' is designed and made in Germany but delivered for assembly in Surrey.
- muddyrivers 12y ago
  It is not lack of wood. Check the population, both at country level and at city levels. Take a look at China in Google Map or Google Earth. If you would like to do research a little further, check the areas covered by forrest. Then you might get an answer. A little historical perspective would help as well. Check how many houses are made of wood in New York City. A reminder: a large number of cities in China have a longer history than New York City.
D_Alex 12y ago
Is it a critical argument though? Even if single-family homes in the US tend to be made out of wood, that sector does not seem to be that big, and would certainly not account for any major portion of the difference (roughly 6 million new dwellings in US built per year, say half of them wooden houses, say 10 tonnes of cement (ie 60 tonnes of concrete) per house = 30 million extra tonnes per annum, about 1.5% of Chinese consumption). Dams, roads, bridges, factories, shipyards and large malls high-rise buildings is where the cement goes, and China is using ~20 times more than the US... My reading is that they are developing fast and catching up to the Western world in material standards of living. The interesting question is...: how long will this momentum last, and will they keep going lont enough to overtake the current first world economies? I can see good arguments for both sides of this question.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Not just that: China uses lots of unskilled labor that can work with concrete but not very well with steel frames. They also use more concrete per floor (we have thick walls and floors) as a form of over building since the quality isn't that great. Singapore, a modern city by any other definition, uses concrete in the same way so they can import cheap construction labor from India.

muddyrivers 12y ago
I think it is the opposite. BECAUSE less steel frames were used, they could hire lots of unskilled labor. Steel was strictly state-controlled. It had a status of "strategy" material. So it was "scarce". The first generation of uber-rich families were created because these families (of highest government officials) could get their hands on these strictly controlled materials. They simply sold the rights of these materials, not the materials themselves, to the manufacturers at a hefty price.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  No, steel really does require skilled construction workers, not unskilled farmer labor. Steel is heavily used in manufacturing and there is a glut of it now. I hope the day of reckoning for the aristocrats is near.
  - muddyrivers 12y ago
    I agree that steel requires more skilled construction workers. What I said is that because steel was scarce, more concretes had to be used in the construction. In turn, they didn't need to hire that many skilled workers to work on steels, and they could afford to hire more workers to work on concretes.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Think of building construction as a jobs programs for unskilled migrant workers, and why China doesn't move up to better more modern construction methods will make a lot of sense. They have the steel, they have the money, but they wouldn't employ as many people (for low wages, but enough to live) and so the entire point would be missed (I've had this explained to me many times by business men in China).