Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

America’s Wooden Houses

In London in 1666 we had a little conflagration, after that houses were brick or stone. The change took a single disaster.
In March 1996 we had a school shooting. The result was a complete ban on handguns, this legislation was in response to a single school shooting incident.
House still burn down and people still get killed by guns in this country
 
In London in 1666 we had a little conflagration, after that houses were brick or stone. The change took a single disaster.
In March 1996 we had a school shooting. The result was a complete ban on handguns, this legislation was in response to a single school shooting incident.
And then there was the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, and things are much the same. Tower blocks are still being built.
 
In London in 1666 we had a little conflagration, after that houses were brick or stone. The change took a single disaster.
In March 1996 we had a school shooting. The result was a complete ban on handguns, this legislation was in response to a single school shooting incident.
And I suppose this stood london in good stead centuries later when the Germans were dropping incendiary bombs
 
I am sure the flats are lovely, but they should not be piled on top of one another.
Why not ? It uses less precious ground space and can house a lot of people. I think because of shoddy building and upkeep/maintenance of said buildings historically they have been demonised in the public view......this view is not so in Europe for instance....there is no reason why decently sized flats cannot be built.....i live in one
 
Many of the older cities (Chicago, New York, Boston, Toronto even) have suffered a major fire at some point and legislated brick housing. But it has to make sense in terms of available resources - the West Coast is short on clay, so even after a disastrous fire in 1906 San Francisco is still mainly wood. Wood shingle isn't all that common though, most I've seen are tar or clay.

Even wood is expensive now. Cheapest house is steel framed with aluminium siding.
 
Another thing ...LA hasn't built a new reservoir since 1979 and one of the existing ones had been empty for a year as part of referb
 
Why not ? It uses less precious ground space and can house a lot of people. I think because of shoddy building and upkeep/maintenance of said buildings historically they have been demonised in the public view......this view is not so in Europe for instance....there is no reason why decently sized flats cannot be built.....i live in one
I am not opposed to flats, I am opposed to high rise blocks of flats. Most people do not want to live above a few floors. Furthermore, tower blocks obscure the sky. I visited Tottenham recently, and in the past few years it has had a number of tower blocks built near each other, and it looks like something out of a dystopian novel.
 
I am not opposed to flats, I am opposed to high rise blocks of flats. Most people do not want to live above a few floors. Furthermore, tower blocks obscure the sky. I visited Tottenham recently, and in the past few years it has had a number of tower blocks built near each other, and it looks like something out of a dystopian novel.
And my mate lives in the middle of a cluster of high rises in downtown Wellington and it looks great. Plenty of those low rise estates in the UK look dystopian frankly.
 
I am not opposed to flats, I am opposed to high rise blocks of flats. Most people do not want to live above a few floors.
Stop opening your big mouth and declaring what people supposedly do or do not want when you clearly have no fucking idea.
Have you ever even lived in a tower block?
 
Many of the older cities (Chicago, New York, Boston, Toronto even) have suffered a major fire at some point and legislated brick housing. But it has to make sense in terms of available resources - the West Coast is short on clay, so even after a disastrous fire in 1906 San Francisco is still mainly wood. Wood shingle isn't all that common though, most I've seen are tar or clay.

Even wood is expensive now. Cheapest house is steel framed with aluminium siding.


It’s not only that though.

Wooden houses are more resistant to earthquakes.

The kind of low level grinding that is the norm in CA (not earthquakes, more like the earth finding a comfortable position so it can continue sleeping) can put pressure onto harder materials over time that can lead to less capacity for the actual earthquake. Wooden structures can absorb and adjust to those movements over time without losing integrity.



If a reinforced concrete building survives a big earthquake, that’s about protecting the inhabitants so they won’t be killed. After the quake, the building may not be safe enough for continued habitation. Wooden structures that survive can be patchworked back to safety, and/or are quicker and easier to replace/ rebuild.
 
I am not opposed to flats, I am opposed to high rise blocks of flats. Most people do not want to live above a few floors. Furthermore, tower blocks obscure the sky. I visited Tottenham recently, and in the past few years it has had a number of tower blocks built near each other, and it looks like something out of a dystopian novel.
Bollocks......i live on the top corner of the block (fifth floor)...the building goes higher as you go round, goes up in steps, we have a really good lift system and as long as they are kept maintained and working there is no problem. I also have a small balcony, on clear days a marvellous veiw. I am pretty sure that were there to be more blocks like this that were social housing people would be very happy to have one.
 
I am not opposed to flats, I am opposed to high rise blocks of flats. Most people do not want to live above a few floors. Furthermore, tower blocks obscure the sky. I visited Tottenham recently, and in the past few years it has had a number of tower blocks built near each other, and it looks like something out of a dystopian novel.
When I lived in one I liked the view, didn’t like re journey up & down
 
Back
Top Bottom