Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimnotgym | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps I can correct some misconceptions. I know mostly about the UK rather than central Europe.

1) New houses in the UK are very well insulated indeed. Walls are commonly of cavity construction with 'lightweight' thermal blocks or timber on the inside skin, and insulation in the cavity. We also indsulate the floors and roofs. Our building code is pretty strict about insulation and I believe that is also true in Germany for instance.

2) We use brick on the outside because the UK climate makes external wood rot very quickly in normal circumstances. Cedar cladding can work if left to 'silver', but you have little chance of keeping paint on anything. Exterior woodwork also has to be treated with fire retardant if used as cladding. Roof coverings are normally clay tiles or slate.

There are buildings in my town that are 600+ years old, built out of oak framing with wattle and daub infills...but this is a very expensive way to build.

View on HN

The notion that you cannot keep wood treatment on anything in the UK is ludicrous. You can choose to leave raw wood exposed, or you can chose to treat it every 5-10 years.

Source: my family in Norway owns several wooden houses that are a couple of hundred years old, and as a kid/teenager I spent a lot of time having to treat these houses :)

Treated external timber in the UK is more exposed to UV light than in Scandinavian countries and requires much more maintenence, say at least every two years instead of five. People just don't want to repaint there houses this frequently. Although, you are right, this isn't to say that timber cladding can not last for a very long time.

As an Icelander living in the UK, I will attest to this being true. It really surprised me that all my wooden outdoor structures and projects decay much, much faster in the UK than they did in Iceland, despite the general lack of frost. I hadn't considered it being due to added UV exposure. But I'm having to varnish my nice oak garage door every 18 months to keep it from going grey, despite using extra tough oil-based polyurethane. Similarly processed wooden structures would last many years in Iceland without any extra maintenance.

There's also the fact that when the ground is frozen, the microbes in the soil that cause rot and decay are less active. The constant dampness of UK soil means any wood that touches the ground is rotted through in a couple of years unless you take significant precautions, while in Iceland, the ground being frozen or dry a large part of the year makes this less of a problem.

It doesn’t sound like you’ve been to western Norway.

We generally do not clad our houses with wood in the US either. We're mostly clad with brick, vinyl, or stucco. Roofing is occasionally wooden shake in dry climates like California. But asphalt and clay are by far more common.

Also cement siding (hardiplank).

I was going to say. In the PNW at least, probably 99% of all new construction uses cement siding for the lion's share of the exterior.

I feel like it is becoming more common here in the southeast as well. I don't particularly like it, tbh, though it does have some advantages. It seems to block noise pretty well.

Here in the PNW most new houses are ugly boxes with some kind of flat paneling. Quite the contrasting sitting next to far more attractive older brick houses.

Brick houses are terrible for insulation, terrible for running any new technologies like wiring or plumbing through, terrible for disasters like earthquakes.

I also live here in the PNW and I know what you mean by the ugly boxes, but that is what people want.

Speaking of both wooden siding and hariplank, construction is a big factor in the survivability of a home in the case of a wildfire.

Cedar shake looks very nice, but perhaps it is a bad idea when there is a non-zero chance of a neighbourhood fire blowing embers onto your roof. Here in western Canada, the Fire Smart guides are great. e.g., https://firesmartbc.ca/

And for Reasons, we make the vinyl look like wood.

Most of the houses in Seattle are wood. Seattle has a very similar climate to the UK including tons of rain. Many very old houses. Besides, with wood siding, you can just replace it, it comes right off and you put more on. My house was built in the 70s. It's cedar siding. The siding is fine.

But why is that better than brick, and (it being a lot harder to, sure, but) not needing to?

Brick in Seattle is not great because we get earthquakes and brick tends to crumble.

There are some brick buildings, and there are some things you can do to reinforce them in preparation for an earthquake. But in general, wood is better.

Plenty of house in Florida that are made out of wood. Wood rot is not a huge problem and I’d bet the heat, humidity, and rain is much more than the UK climate.

54" vs 34". Florida has more volume of rain.

114 days vs 170 days. UK has more frequent rain.

Was just curious so looked it up and shared. Not drawing any conclusions. I actually find it hilarious that so many of the comments here are trying to distil such a complex and nuanced cultural difference down to stats and logic :)

In the Southwest US, houses are often roofed with tiles. In the rest of the US, with asphalt-treated shingles. Why? I guess tiles are heavier and therefore require heavier trusses, but other reasons?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com