Americ’s Wooden Houses

[HeatherG]

I can’t remember where I posted it but yesterday I wanted to know why American properties are made from wood. I stated that brick homes were more likely to be able to withstand bad weather including fires. Someone said it was because wooden homes are much cheaper and prettier (or better looking) than brick houses.

Well, on BBC news yesterday, the reporter was interviewing some upset home owners. When I looked behind the person being interviewed, the only structures standing were internal brick walls, fireplaces and tall chimney-looking things. They had been inside the now burned down homes.

I think it proves the point I was trying to make in the first place. I know that these fires weren’t started on their own but ‘helped along’ by the males of our species (let alone climate change).

Houses don’t suddenly ignite on their own. No sooner had I typed what I said about the males of our species most likely to have been responsible, then did police arrest none other than a man (of course!) and charge him with arson! All the more reason to build your homes out of non-flammable material! It makes sense - to me, anyway. I’m just saying!

 

[Dogsauce]

It might be due to lack of available materials and also the logistics in producing bricks may have not been practical when the nation was established across a very large land area, leading to timber becoming a cultural norm.

You need clay to make bricks, and not everywhere has it, I know (from spending time staring at geological/aquifer maps in a previous job) that there are large parts of Scotland without it, so houses there are historically either stone or timber (you see more timber housing than in other bits of the UK I think).

To produce bricks you need clay to extract, a kiln to bake them then means to transport them to where needed, which when the US was forming might have been some distance, without established transport infrastructure. They’re heavy, so you can’t just load them on a horse and cart. Then you need the gypsum for cement to stick it all together which will also have a complex supply chain. If you want to build a timber house, timber can usually be sourced locally and is quick and easy to put together.

I’m remembering the Pogues song ‘last of the Irish Rover’ which had a line about a cargo of bricks for New York, perhaps an indication that such materials weren’t available locally.

 

[Pickman's model]

It might be due to lack of available materials and also the logistics in producing bricks may have not been practical when the nation was established across a very large land area, leading to timber becoming a cultural norm.

You need clay to make bricks, and not everywhere has it, I know (from spending time staring at geological/aquifer maps in a previous job) that there are large parts of Scotland without it, so houses there are historically either stone or timber (you see more timber housing than in other bits of the UK I think).

To produce bricks you need clay to extract, a kiln to bake them then means to transport them to where needed, which when the US was forming might have been some distance, without established transport infrastructure. They’re heavy, so you can’t just load them on a horse and cart. Then you need the gypsum for cement to stick it all together which will also have a complex supply chain. If you want to build a timber house, timber can usually be sourced locally and is quick and easy to put together.

I’m remembering the Pogues song ‘last of the Irish Rover’ which had a line about a cargo of bricks for New York, perhaps an indication that such materials weren’t available locally.

The bricks from NY came from the banks of the Hudson river not the banks of the broad majestic shannon

 

[Sue]

I can’t remember where I posted it

If you click Find threads (top-left of your screen), you'll be able to see any threads you started.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can’t remember where I posted it but yesterday I wanted to know why American properties are made from wood. I stated that brick homes were more likely to be able to withstand bad weather including fires. Someone said it was because wooden homes are much cheaper and prettier (or better looking) than brick houses.

Well, on BBC news yesterday, the reporter was interviewing some upset home owners. When I looked behind the person being interviewed, the only structures standing were internal brick walls, fireplaces and tall chimney-looking things. They had been inside the now burned down homes.

I think it proves the point I was trying to make in the first place. I know that these fires weren’t started on their own but ‘helped along’ by the males of our species (let alone climate change).

Houses don’t suddenly ignite on their own. No sooner had I typed what I said about the males of our species most likely to have been responsible, then did police arrest none other than a man (of course!) and charge him with arson! All the more reason to build your homes out of non-flammable material! It makes sense - to me, anyway. I’m just saying!

You are charles biffen and I claim my £5

 

[HeatherG]

If you click Find threads (top-left of your screen), you'll be able to see any threads you started.

Thank you!

 

[HeatherG]

It might be due to lack of available materials and also the logistics in producing bricks may have not been practical when the nation was established across a very large land area, leading to timber becoming a cultural norm.

You need clay to make bricks, and not everywhere has it, I know (from spending time staring at geological/aquifer maps in a previous job) that there are large parts of Scotland without it, so houses there are historically either stone or timber (you see more timber housing than in other bits of the UK I think).

To produce bricks you need clay to extract, a kiln to bake them then means to transport them to where needed, which when the US was forming might have been some distance, without established transport infrastructure. They’re heavy, so you can’t just load them on a horse and cart. Then you need the gypsum for cement to stick it all together which will also have a complex supply chain. If you want to build a timber house, timber can usually be sourced locally and is quick and easy to put together.

I’m remembering the Pogues song ‘last of the Irish Rover’ which had a line about a cargo of bricks for New York, perhaps an indication that such materials weren’t available locally.

Wow! Thank you very much for that information. Now I understand but still…

 

[A380]

Cost innit. Timber framed buildings wood covered buildings are cheaper than brick or cement block for a given volume and outside city centres the Americans tend to build on bigger plots.

Plus I think there is more of a culture there of knocking down houses at 30/50 years old and rebuilding rather than restoring as we do here.

 

[Aladdin]

They might start building more concrete homes now in places like Pallisades.after this catastrophic fire.

I see the Eames home (glass and metal built) so far has escaped.

While the billionaires have plenty money to rebuild, I feel awful for the ordinary people. There was an interviewer the other day saying they spoke to people whose homes burn to the ground and they still turned up to their jobs working in restaurants.

There are some museums and galleries that would be a shame to lose..the contents of them that is.

11 dead so far. If these were started deliberately that's surely going to mean murder charges.

Getting back to building materials. Timber homes are quick and cheap to build because of the availability of materials. They're environmentally friendly (except when they burn en masse) and seen as healthier by many.

They might start choosing other materials as a result of this fire.
or maybe they'll take a leaf from Japan's wooden homes and scorch all the timbers (Yakasugi) to toughen them and make them more resistant to fire damage.

Using the Yakisugi or Shou Sugi Ban method of charring wood, the cellulose layer gets burned off. Once the cellulose is burned off, the lignin layer gets exposed, resulting in significantly increased fire resistance.

 

[two sheds]

Wood homes are easier to insulate properly aren't they (part of being environmentally sound as Aladdin says).

Interesting that the Japanese scorch wood - a while ago I was wanting to build wooden cold frames and the recommendation there, too, was to char the wood to slow it from rotting.

 

[two sheds]

On second thoughts though, it's strange that scorching wood improves its fire resistance. I can imagine that it gets rid of splintery type wood that might catch easily. You'd think that scorching/charring though produces a very thin layer of charcoal, which actually burns really well.

 

[A380]

On second thoughts though, it's strange that scorching wood improves its fire resistance. I can imagine that it gets rid of splintery type wood that might catch easily. You'd think that scorching/charring though produces a very thin layer of charcoal, which actually burns really well.

Doesn’t making charcoal need you to heat wood with no or restricted oxygen? So charring wood in the open won’t make it.

 

[two sheds]

To char it all the way through yes, but the restricted oxygen is just so it doesn't actually catch fire. I think charring the surface layer would as it suggests just produce a thin layer of charcoal, which is basically (I think) wood that has had all the water driven off.

 

[story]

I can’t remember where I posted it but yesterday I wanted to know why American properties are made from wood. I stated that brick homes were more likely to be able to withstand bad weather including fires. Someone said it was because wooden homes are much cheaper and prettier (or better looking) than brick houses.

Well, on BBC news yesterday, the reporter was interviewing some upset home owners. When I looked behind the person being interviewed, the only structures standing were internal brick walls, fireplaces and tall chimney-looking things. They had been inside the now burned down homes.

I think it proves the point I was trying to make in the first place. I know that these fires weren’t started on their own but ‘helped along’ by the males of our species (let alone climate change).

Houses don’t suddenly ignite on their own. No sooner had I typed what I said about the males of our species most likely to have been responsible, then did police arrest none other than a man (of course!) and charge him with arson! All the more reason to build your homes out of non-flammable material! It makes sense - to me, anyway. I’m just saying!

What on earth are you on about?

There’s no evidence at the moment that any of the fires in California were set by any person known or unknown. A homeless man was apprehended by citizens and he’s been charged with felony probation charges, no arson charges against him. Arson is always investigated when wildfires happen. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Right now, there’s nothing to support the theory of arson in the California fires.

Fires start “on their own” pretty often. How do you think wildfires get started? The ones that aren’t on purpose I mean. Fires have been part of natural history as far back as we can see.

These fires may have been started on purpose, but could easily have started by accident. An ember from a back yard BBQ, a cigarette butt flipped carelessly into the verge, a spark from some kind of equipment. It’s the Santa Ana winds that have made it into a catastrophe. Nothing more weird or sinister than 100kph winds blowing embers across to new areas, all tinder dry because of ongoing drought.

Houses can easily catch fire when embers are blown onto them. Dry wooden houses, electrical cables loosened and broken and then sparking the nearby house, any number of different possibilities. If you’re saying they “don’t suddenly ignite on their own” are you suggesting that each house was set on fire individually? How did they all catch fire if not by, yunno, a wildfire marching before the wind.

And what’s all this “none other than a man” bollox? Women set fires too.

 

[tim]

Doesn’t making charcoal need you to heat wood with no or restricted oxygen? So charring wood in the open won’t make it.

Charcoal houses would be amazing. The landscape would be scattered with red glowing boxes long after the main fire had passed.

 

[tim]

The architect pf the Coal House in West Virginia was obviously thinking along the same lines as me. It caught fire in 2010, but sadly they managed to extinguish it before peak glowieness was reached