Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NarwhalNectarine t1_j1xpu2p wrote

Reply to comment by scorr204 in ELI5: Why does Europeans build houses out of brick when wood frame seems like the better choice across the board? by scorr204

I mean.. Europe has houses still standing that are hundreds of years old. Quality over speed my friend

6

curious_astronauts t1_j1xtvtu wrote

There's an apartment building in the city I live thats from 1308. - Europe (city withheld for anonymity) and it withstood two world wars. So brick and stone is pretty long lasting. 100 years is not long.

3

scorr204 OP t1_j1xq18e wrote

That seems like an excessively long time. Wood frame houses last 100 years as well, and that is more than a reasonable amount of time.

1

naykrop t1_j1xqem9 wrote

It’s really not a reasonable amount of time. A house should last many generations and be fully repairable/maintainable outside of pretty extreme acts of God.

4

NarwhalNectarine t1_j1xqb05 wrote

I'd rather make something that lasts then something easy. Passing down a property is an excellent source of generational wealth. Better to have inherited a sturdy 170 year old home made of brick or stone then a house falling to pieces at 80 years. Plus it's better for the environment to not have rebuild new homes.

3

scorr204 OP t1_j1xqjgb wrote

Wood homes are not rebuilt though. They also last incredibly long. There are neighbourhoods where I am from filled with 100 year old wood homes. Maybe because we dont have termites here as much?

0

NarwhalNectarine t1_j1xrj9c wrote

My house is is 175 years old. It has a stone foundation but wood framing. We've gutted this house and there's tons of rot to the siding, windows, sill beams etc. it was very expensive to fix. But the framing itself is solid- bc they used timber pretty much raw from a tree. They are MASSIVE from natural forest grown trees that were very old which makes the material denser. Code today for modern builds are flimsy by comparison that is generally farm grown from younger trees, so the wood is softer and more porous. I'm a real estate agent have seen modern (1960s and newer) falling apart structurally. Literally.

So yes, houses built from wood 100 years ago are likely very sturdy bc the materials while wood were of much higher quality. BUT a lot of those old wood frame homes are a major fire hazard due to the framing style often popular then (balloon frame used until I think the 1930s.) you probably won't be seeing modern new builds lasting 100 years without significant and expensive maintenance. A stone or brick house generally is a lot more fire resistant so that's an added benefit

2

curious_astronauts t1_j1xtjpj wrote

I'm living in a stone building in Europe that is 300years old friend. If you build a wood house today with the aim of handing down to your children, you're grandchildren are inheriting the problem.

2

NarwhalNectarine t1_j1xqj54 wrote

Plus, in my opinion at least, brick and stone are more aesthetically pleasing.

2

scorr204 OP t1_j1xqmzq wrote

That is what a fascade is for....

0

NarwhalNectarine t1_j1xsb2n wrote

Fascades look so cheap and tacky though haha. No offense to anyone that has them/likes them. Just my opinion

2

scorr204 OP t1_j1zc2f7 wrote

Fascades can be made out of real brick, its just thinner.

1