Hacker News Reader

Comment by k8sToGo | Hacker News Reader

Not fall apart, but depending on region, you guys really like to just use "sticks" and dry wall :)

In central Europe, usually the center is made out of concrete and then bricks on the outside.

Brinks and concrete are common materials in Europe due to the lack of abundant lumber. Much of Europe was deforested centuries ago, and what forests remain are generally heavily protected. In North America, there are trees out the wazoo. In the parts of europe that do still have substantial lumber supplies, like Sweden, you see substantially more lumber used in construction.

Lumber is easy to produce, easy to transport, easy to form into structures, has excellent tensile strength and flexibility. It is an ideal construction material. There is a reason even the wealthiest in North America still live in stick frame buildings.

You do know that the R value of air is better than bricks, right? And repairing sticks and dry wall is a small job for the weekend vs needing to call out a mason?

My house is over 90 years old and has had two remodels, with a third being done now. It will easily last 100 more barring some disaster.

Cheaper does not always mean better. I’d be fascinated to see what your house does in an 8.0 earthquake, but for your sake not while you’re inside of it.

My house does nothing, because I can't afford a house :(

I would also prefer a house of sticks than no house ;)

Most places have never experienced an 8.0 earthquake and never should - if you live in an earthquake area (like Japan) then sure, that is going to dominate architecture choices, but it's not relevant elsewhere. The largest ever recorded 'shaking' in my city is 4.0 IIRC, which was caused by a far away 6.0 earthquake.

You should learn more about timber construction. They are building highrises out of it, including in europe. It's a great material.

https://youtu.be/L4QYkEpw9pA

My house is ~180 years old, and is of timber construction. It may not be as well insulated/air-tight as a modern house, but it is hardly "sticks". While energy use is higher, not having an entirely air-tight house is a good thing in my region, as much of the ground below is made of granite which emits a large amount of Radon gas. In a perfectly air-tight house this radioactive gas would accumulate more in indoor spaces, so I'm happy with a larger degree of change over with the outside air (even at a larger heating cost).

A timber house is very much different. I find them very cozy and preferable anyways.

Much of the US is subject to strong earthquakes, and the construction regulations require buildings that can survive a strong earthquake. Old masonry buildings tend to be damaged, sometimes severely, in earthquakes. If you visit regions with large numbers of brick buildings from the previous centuries, you will notice that many have a steel frame that was added in the last several decades to keep the building from collapsing during earthquakes. A lot of money is spent on seismic retrofitting of old construction built before modern earthquake-safe building codes in the US. Most of Europe doesn't have to worry about this.

For earthquakes, "sticks" and steel are the most durable materials so Americans build with them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com