Why wooden houses?

[The Batman]

Probably more for GQ or IMHO, but I want to give this new board a spin.

Why are wooden houses so prevalent in the US? It seems to me that in most parts of the world - I know personally that in Mexico it is certainly the case - brick, cinder block and cement are the most common materials used to build houses. Why not so in the US?
It seems like renovation and upkeep are big issues in housing in the US and it looks like its mostly due to the fact that the wood doesn't last long, a wooden house can't go 20 years without needing some renovation, while stone and brick houses can go for much longer.

Why is this the case? Tradition? Cost? Insulation? As far as I can tell they do seem to be built faster than any other type of house, but is that the only advantage?

[An Gadaí]

I've nothing to add except that I too am interested in the answer to this question. In Ireland I've only ever seen a couple of wooden houses. They're very rare.

[Ed Zotti]

Originally Posted by Tijuana_Golds

Why are wooden houses so prevalent in the US?

I spend most of a chapter on this, but the short answer is: cheap wood. My house was built during the golden age of wood construction in the U.S., when the virgin forest was being cut down and enormous quantities of high quality lumber were available at low cost. Even now, despite steady price increases, wood is used to frame 80 percent of the houses in the U.S. European forests were reduced long ago and the lumber just isn't available. My Polish carpenters told me that was the big difference between construction in the U.S. and Europe.

[StGermain]

When my house was built (1860), it was a farm in the middle of nowhere. From the looks of things, thing probably had a portable sawmill used timber on the land. Although there's a ton of rock in my area of Tennessee, mostly it's limestone bedrock, which isn't easy to unearth and build with.

StG

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

I've nothing to add except that I too am interested in the answer to this question. In Ireland I've only ever seen a couple of wooden houses. They're very rare.

I learned the answer to that on PBS. You guys burned up all your wood making iron.
And in fireplaces while poets sat around drinking yummy Guinness and writing beautiful prose.
Ah, the heart doth pine.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Hombre]

Additionally, it's easier to train labor for wood construction. Not the mention the huge infrastructure we have here to support stick built framing - modular sizing and all.

[The Batman]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

I imagined it was something along the lines of what hombre posted but it never dawned on me that it's because of the availability of wood in the US. It seems pretty obvious now.

[elmwood]

Originally Posted by Tijuana_Golds

It seems like renovation and upkeep are big issues in housing in the US and it looks like its mostly due to the fact that the wood doesn't last long, a wooden house can't go 20 years without needing some renovation, while stone and brick houses can go for much longer.

As long as it is being lived in and given routine preventative maintenance -- heated during the winter, and kept insulated from the elements -- a wood frame (what builders often call "stick built") house will last centuries. There's thousands of houses from the 18th century throughout New England.

Some cities in the US are what I call "brick cities", either because of tradition, or legislation that often arose from disastrous fires. Chicago is perhaps the largest. Houses built before WWII in Omaha and Denver are primarily brick as well. Frame houses will still be found in their post-WWII suburbs, though.

In parts of the US where termites are a problem, frame houses are the exception. throughout Texas (outside of the West Texas desert) and Oklahoma, most new houses are brick. In central and southern Florida, it's stucco-covered concrete block; in northern Florida face brick covers cinder block. In Florida, often the second floor of a two-story house is frame. Older houses in Florida are often constructed from Cypress wood, which is termite-resistant. A Floridian here could probably tell you about a "termite bond" that banks often require when one gets a mortgage on a frame house in that state.

One big problem with wood construction: delicate elements such as architectural decoration or railings may deteriorate quickly in a harsh climate. In Buffalo, outside of historic districts, very few houses built more than 40 years ago have their original wood railings. Through the years most were replaced with gaudy Italian-style wrought iron.

[Kevbo]

It is also cultural. Consider that Columbus landed in the Americas only a little over 500 years ago, and the US declared independence from England only a little over 200 years ago.

When I was in Austria, I had dinner with a man who built a stunning timber framed house including cork insulation. Everyone in the village laughed at him, because everyone knows that if you build a house out of wood, it won't be around in 2 or 3 hundred years. In America they think 100 years is a long time. In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long distance.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Kevbo

It is also cultural. Consider that Columbus landed in the Americas only a little over 500 years ago, and the US declared independence from England only a little over 200 years ago.

Er... cite?

For the cultural part, not for Columbus' arrival or independence.

[Key Lime Guy]

Originally Posted by elmwood

As long as it is being lived in and given routine preventative maintenance -- heated during the winter, and kept insulated from the elements -- a wood frame (what builders often call "stick built") house will last centuries. There's thousands of houses from the 18th century throughout New England.

Just curious - what does being heated have to do with it?

My impression is that lumber will last forever if it is kept free of moisture & insects.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Kevbo

It is also cultural. Consider that Columbus landed in the Americas only a little over 500 years ago, and the US declared independence from England only a little over 200 years ago.

When I was in Austria, I had dinner with a man who built a stunning timber framed house including cork insulation. Everyone in the village laughed at him, because everyone knows that if you build a house out of wood, it won't be around in 2 or 3 hundred years. In America they think 100 years is a long time. In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long distance.

We have a Doper, whose name escapes me at the moment, who once dryly remarked, "I have furniture older than your country." IIRC, he lives in an actual castle in France.

Yes, I can corroborate that at least in some areas of the country, 100 years is an old building. I live in Chicago, in one of the "old" apartment buildings on the north side. Construction was completed in 1928 according to the tax records, and 1930 according to NexTag. This age of building is old enough to be too old by community standards - anything that sells on this block is torn down and replaced with similar, but newer construction. Not single family homes replaced with 3 flats, but 6 flats torn down and replaced with newer 6 flats, just because these buildings are "too old" to be appealing and/or expensive to heat and cool.

"Old" was a little older where I spent summers in New Jersey growing up. But even there, my father's Victorian was "old". No one was sure the actual year of construction, but there were signatures under the wallpaper from 1892 on.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Yes, I can corroborate that at least in some areas of the country, 100 years is an old building.

Orlando has a metro population of just over 2,000,000, and yet the Rogers building downtown (c. 1886) is the oldest in the city.

[Shagnasty]

My circa 1760 house in Massachusetts is all wood, in great shape, and mostly original. There are oodles of houses in the immediate area from the 1700's and a few down the street from the early 1600's. I grew up in Louisiana where it is very humid. I always believed that wood deteriorated just as a function of age but that is not true. As mentioned above, wood houses can easily last for centuries and have no real expiration date.

[casdave]

Wood can certainly last a long time, not far from me is a house that has 1611 carved into the oak timber framing, and that only refers to the extension part of the house which was the most recent addition.

http://www.leodis.org/display.aspx?r...9&DISPLAY=FULL


http://www.leodis.org/display.aspx?r...8&DISPLAY=FULL

I think the only place that is likely to be much older is the Bingley Arms which dates back to around 953AD, which makes William the Bastard something of a newcomer - but to be honest its not properly old and it has had a lot of work fairly recently from the 1700s onwards.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Key Lime Guy

Just curious - what does being heated have to do with it?

My impression is that lumber will last forever if it is kept free of moisture & insects.

Warm air in winter keeps the wood dry. Turn off the heat for a couple of winters and mold starts to grow everywhere.

[Harmonious Discord]

Cheap wood was available in most places, but it also insulates better than stone and is shaped easier. The US supply of wood has tightened up drastically in the last few decades. This is why engineered lumber and alternative materials have been incorporated into most housing.

The Caledonia bluffs near here had an abundance of glacial drift. The stones have to be removed from the fields yearly. The original farm houses are all beautiful cut field stone in walls that are about two feet thick. I love these houses.

[Harmonious Discord]

I've looked at a barn to be burned this winter. The beams under the floor are hard oak about 10 inches thick cut parallel on two sides. The sides vary up to 18 inches wide. It's a shame to see somebody just burn this wood. The main posts for the loft are OK, but nothing special. Maybe 10x10". This is what happens when farms get bought up to form one big farm.

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by Harmonious Discord

I've looked at a barn to be burned this winter. The beams under the floor are hard oak about 10 inches thick cut parallel on two sides. The sides vary up to 18 inches wide. It's a shame to see somebody just burn this wood. The main posts for the loft are OK, but nothing special. Maybe 10x10". This is what happens when farms get bought up to form one big farm.

Won't people come and demolish that barn for the wood? Maybe even pay for it?

[Harmonious Discord]

Originally Posted by mangeorge

Won't people come and demolish that barn for the wood? Maybe even pay for it?

It's owned by somebody that has enough money and acreage he doesn't want to bother dealing with something like that. The house was a drug house and after those people were removed the house and barn were marked to be burned this winter. I would love to have the barn wood. The beams and some of the flooring is good, the rest is bad. The guy is trying to restore the dikes and drain the fields from the flood damage still.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Ed Zotti

...the short answer is: cheap wood. My house was built during the golden age of wood construction in the U.S., when the virgin forest was being cut down and enormous quantities of high quality lumber were available at low cost... European forests were reduced long ago and the lumber just isn't available.

The prevalence of wooden houses in New Zealand, and the recent deforestation here is another good example of this -- in the 100 or so years from the early 1800's to the early 20th C over 90% of the North Island's estimated 12,000 sq kilometers of kauri forests were cut / destroyed, and while much was burnt or exported large quantities of the wood was used locally in both ship- and house-building; many of the Auckland villa style houses from the late 19th / early 20th century use kauri throughout, being an ideal wood for both framing and exposed / polished surfaces. It's a beautiful golden colour. (Photo of exterior of typical villa -- not sure if the word means the same in US).

Once the kauri was (largely) gone other woods were used. My 50 year old house is largely built from rimu, another versatile wood, although not as strong as kauri. (Personally I prefer the look of rimu, a lovely warm red-gold colour).

These days those woods are only used for polished trim or special furniture, and often recycled from demolished dwellings, and the framing is radiata pine from the large planted / managed /sustainable forests, with the exterior cladding likely to be fiber cement siding, or some other un-wood-like substance.

[slaphead]

Originally Posted by Ed Zotti

I spend most of a chapter on this, but the short answer is: cheap wood. My house was built during the golden age of wood construction in the U.S., when the virgin forest was being cut down and enormous quantities of high quality lumber were available at low cost. Even now, despite steady price increases, wood is used to frame 80 percent of the houses in the U.S. European forests were reduced long ago and the lumber just isn't available. My Polish carpenters told me that was the big difference between construction in the U.S. and Europe.

In scandinavia a lot (probably most) houses are built of wood. Lots of timber and space. In town wood is still common, but there are more concrete/brick/stone houses. Many of the larger towns have been completely destroyed by fire at least once, and places like Stockholm and Sundsvall are fairly typical in that the historic centre is made up of old stone buildings, largely due to old fire regulations

Sundsvall is a magnificent neo-Renaissance town with richly ornamented buildings. But it wasn't always so. The Sundsvall of the foresters and timber barons naturally grew up as a town of wood. And wood is flammable. When the town was devastated by fire for the third time in 1888, rendering 9,000 people homeless, residents decided enough was enough-the town would be rebuilt in stone.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Another way to look at this is: a shortage of cheap stone in the US.

Europe has salvaged a lot of building stone from old buildings, some hundreds or even thousands of years old.

Over the centuries, the labor necessary to cut stone has been conserved in stone that has already been cut.

When we arrived in North America, there wasn't much in the way of stone buildings.

Oh, a few. But not a lot.

Cutting stone takes lots of time & labor. And for the first 300 years or so (post-Pilgrims), labor was always rather scarce in contrast to the need.

We used wood because it was, simply, less labor intensive. You folks used stone, in part, because your ancestors never hesitated to rip up olds Gothic churches or Roman ruins to build a stone cowbarn.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Kevbo

It is also cultural. Consider that Columbus landed in the Americas only a little over 500 years ago, and the US declared independence from England only a little over 200 years ago.

When I was in Austria, I had dinner with a man who built a stunning timber framed house including cork insulation. Everyone in the village laughed at him, because everyone knows that if you build a house out of wood, it won't be around in 2 or 3 hundred years. In America they think 100 years is a long time. In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long distance.

I can see the Austrians' point, but the thing is, this still wouldn't explain why most houses in Latin America are not timber, or why a "good house" in Latin America is not timber (I have seen houses made of wooden planks, but calling them "houses" is polite - they were solid only by comparison with the metal planks house across the road). The difference in the availability of good timber is definitely a factor.

I'm not sure about it being easier to train someone to work wood than brick, though. Building a single-storey brick house doesn't require a lot in the way of big beams.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Wood reacts well to earthquakes, if constructed correctly.

The house my parents designed and built is all-wood construction (Built in 1978), and it has endured dozens of respectable quakes and more than a few big quakes.

Such as the 7.1, 6.6, 6.6 Trifecta of Seismic Might on April 25th/26th,1992 (yes, that's all three in one 24 hour period).

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by elmwood

a wood frame (what builders often call "stick built") house

Just a little nitpick, but related to the OP: "stick built" is only a subset of wood frame houses, referring to the modern method of framing using lots of small (2x4 and slightly larger) pieces. As opposed to old-school "post and beam" using fewer but massive timbers. The switch happened generally in the middle of the 1800s in the U.S. The big reason was the shortage of massive timbers (both because all the big old trees in the east had been cut down, and because there weren't a whole lot of big trees to begin with in the midwest plains where people were now settling).

[bump]

Originally Posted by elmwood

In parts of the US where termites are a problem, frame houses are the exception. throughout Texas (outside of the West Texas desert) and Oklahoma, most new houses are brick.

At least in Houston, Galveston, Austin, Dallas, College Station, those cities' surrounding areas and everywhere else I've been, the houses are primarily wood framed, with a brick veneer (i.e. brick outer walls that are not structural).

Almost ALL new construction in those areas I mention is and has been like that since the 1950s.

[mangeorge]

Gah! I forgot to unsubscribe from this thread. So I'll perpetuate it instead.
mangeorge

[Kalhoun]

I think it depends on where in the US you're building the house. In the northern half of the nation, wood is plentiful. Out in the desert, not so much.

[gotpasswords]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Yes, I can corroborate that at least in some areas of the country, 100 years is an old building.

In San Francisco, any building that survived the 1906 earthquake is celebrated and fairly rare.

As a side note, documenting anything older than 1906 is a challenge as the city records were lost in the fires following the quake. IIRC, about all there is to go with is water company records of when water or sewer lines were connected, and survey maps done by a fire insurance company.