Hacker News Reader

There are definitely large swaths of "McMansions" built in the way you describe, but I don't think it's representative of the entire market by any stretch. Many newly built houses (especially in the Northern parts of the US) are using insulating concrete forms that should last hundreds of years going forward (they're moisture, pest, fire, earthquake, resistant). Several close friends and relatives have built new homes with this method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulating_concrete_form

> In much of Europe both new and old homes are built using brick(!). These homes have already lasted over one hundred years and will likely last at least another fifty or more with normal maintenance (e.g. roof repair, replacing some plumbing, etc).

AIUI, Brick construction is actually less resistant than wood-frame to many kinds of things including -- particularly relevant to California residents -- earthquakes.

Its less resistant to axes, sure, but then that just means that modifications are less expensive -- but its not exactly like hostile attacks by axe against homes are that common.

Unreinforced brick construction is actually illegal in many parts of California, possibly all. It's pretty easy to reinforce, though; if you sink rebar through the brickwork every now & again, it's as resilient as concrete and arguably prettier.

Admittedly this is much easier in new construction...

The houses I like the most in Germany are the Fachwerkhäuser which have lasted a while and are made of wood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_framing#German_tradition...

An axe would be overkill. We built absolute shit in the U.S. because homes are recognized to be consumables. Literally no thought is given to upgradability. Plumbing and electrical is buried anonymously beneath drywall. Stick-built is still the standard, which is a fucking disgrace in the 21st century.

Fortunately there is a sliver of light at the end of this tunnel (article from previous HN post):

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3020237/new-yorks-newest-skyscrap...

In the part of the US I'm in (California) they omit the insulation step, but otherwise yeah pretty much.

Folks in the US do produce real homes, but it's in very small numbers as a pseudo-artisanal thing. http://www.vermontframes.com are pretty neat, for example. The trend in timber framing has been to use structural insulating panels (which are actually pretty good and also, funnily enough, insulate) for infill between the timbers. Technically you can make the entire house out of SIPs, although they're not amazing looking.

There are many old wood houses around Boston built in the 1900s. When maintained (The roof and siding are renewed to prevent water damage and termite prevention) their frames seem to hold up well.

Is your 50 years a guesstimate or do you have a source for that?

It is interesting why brick or concrete - preferred materials in other parts of the world, are not so common for residences in the US.

To me wooden houses have a charm that concrete or brick construction does not. Also, I feel that I can fix/update things in a wooden house more easily than in a brick or concrete house because of the drywall construction.

Just want to be clear, a good quality natural wood home can last hundreds of years. But I am talking about "log cabin"-style homes built out of natural cuts of strong woods (typically with few joins or sections).

The stuff that goes into most US homes is not wood in that vein, it is the "leftover" wood chips crushed back into wood-like substance and used as walls.

As to your source, there are some here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-lifespan-of-a-US-h...

But you won't in general find many homes built like that beyond 50 years. In places around military bases where at one point in home most houses were built in that style, you notice that most of them aren't around now and the few that are are in really bad shape.

Contrast that with much of Europe where in many places your average house is over 100 years old and are still in great shape. But again brick constructed homes last.

But you won't in general find many homes built like that beyond 50 years.

That's not true at all. There are thousands of homes in San Francisco that are over 100 years old (built after the earthquake).

Go to the East Coast and these "crap" homes are even older.

I'm hoping your just on a hyperbole kick because your statements don't really line up with reality.

High quality timber framed houses are built in Europe and the US. Bricks have a much larger carbon footprint, are more expensive, do not insulate as well as a wooden frames with proper insulation. Brick walls also take longer to assemble. Timber framed houses can also be cladded or plastered on the outside.

I've built an entire house in weeks using concrete blocks (Florida) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygiPeFoPWO0). Not only is it more sturdy, its termite and hurricane resistant.

When I lived in new england for a while someone asked me how it compared to the west coast. "The buildings smell of mud." For someone used to wood covered in drywall and paint, interior bricks smell like the material from which they were made.