Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

America’s Wooden Houses

They may have lots but they don’t have enough, certainly not surplus.

There is a tree deficit in the USA and they are still cutting them down at stupid rates. Yuwipi Woman has told us about her neighbours chopping down trees for fear of flu-ridden birds roosting in them. They’re still cutting down some of their old growth forests. Where they do plant trees, they create monocultures. Urban areas don’t have enough trees. Trees planted in rich areas aren’t part of surrounding healthy diversity and often get isolated by manicured gardens. In the Deep South the old growth was removed for plantations and in some areas its rare to find any tree older than about 200 years, with subsequent disastrous soil erosion and even more problematic efforts to fix the soil.

And so on. Plenty of fine detail to be argued over, and they do have more trees now than they did 100 years ago. But on the whole, America has a tree deficit.
They have lots of trees
 
Plenty of people are happy to live in tower blocks, otherwise they wouldn't be spending shedloads on leases.
Bollox, people only spend shedloads to exist in a tower block because it costs shed loads x 2 to live somewhere decent in that area.
 
Bollox, people only spend shedloads to exist in a tower block because it costs shed loads x 2 to live somewhere decent in that area.
Thank God there are still a few cheap flats left in this tower block. :thumbs:

 
Bollox, people only spend shedloads to exist in a tower block because it costs shed loads x 2 to live somewhere decent in that area.

Bollocks, there're flats around here that are much more expensive than similiar sized houses.

Some people just prepare living in a tower block for various reason, personally I prepare having a garden, but different strokes for different folks.
 
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!

Here's my take on it:

When settlers first arrived, they built makeshift houses out of sod. These were only good for a couple of years before they caved in. The aspiration was to build a better house, but an affordable one. What the US had a lot of was old growth forests. Those were quickly chopped down and turned into lumber. It had several advantages; it was relatively cheap, and the results are reliable. Most of the people who came from Europe didn't have carpentry skills, but building with dimensional lumber could be learned in a couple of days. Building with brick takes skills like ceramics and bricklaying and quality output doesn't happen right away. After that an infrastructure for building with wood became the norm. By contrast, Europe had a class of workmen who could produce quality brick and bricklaying, while they had cut a large percentage of their old growth forests.

My house was built in 1914 and if you look at the bones of the house, you can see floor joists that run the entire length of the house. They supports are four inches wide and spaced about a foot apart. Since we've cut down a lot of our old growth forest, you can't get lumber like that now. If you look at new houses the floor supports are three feet apart and the lumber is 2x4s that if measured are about a quarter inch shorter than advertised. I'm seeing more dimensional plastic lumber being used. I suspect this is because it fits within the current infrastructure intended for wood products.

There are older structures made of limestone blocks and bricks. Usually, the limestone buildings are massive old barns. This could have become a major source of building materials, except that it doesn't produce conformity. You can't expect one stone to be exactly like another. I think brick didn't take because it's a lot of labor to produce and fire bricks and then build with it. My grandfather built a lot of houses with brick. He made the brick himself using a "clamp." It's basically a pit that is layered with fuel and bricks, which is set on fire. It's a labor-intensive process and you can't just walk away and leave it. It also doesn't result in particularly good bricks.
 
Thank God there are still a few cheap flats left in this tower block. :thumbs:


Cheers Sue, been riding past that and was wondering how to go about buying the penthouse.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sue
I feel this is a good place to drop this link. Solomon Butcher was a 19th century photographer who made his living traveling around the plains taking pictures of families and their houses. It's a good frame of reference for the evolution of homebuilding. The other thing you might notice is that the people he photographs pull everything they own out for the photo. You see horses, carriages, cows, farm equipment in addition to the family. These were the 19th century equivalent of haul videos:

 
There are American wooden horses hidden in Barns at strategic ponys all along the Canadian border. They will be activated the minute Trump us innaugurated. There are also two fleets of American seahorses currently in formation at either end of the Panama canal.
 
The only reason 72 people were killed in that building is down to the fact it was wrapped in unnecessary, unsafe cladding to appease the sort of cunts who moan about having to look at a towerblock.
Not really - the main reason for recladding was to improve thermal efficiency and thus make people’s homes warmer and cheaper to keep that way. There are safe materials that could have been used, but the stuff used was considered safe due to dodgy testing/crooked companies etc.

That kind of cladding mostly looks like shit anyway.
 
After a bit of googling it does seem like it was for both the thermal aspects of it and the appearance of the building.


An architect who drew up the specifications for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment has said he was not involved in any discussion about the fire performance of the proposed cladding panels, and that instead the focus was on “appearance and cost”.
 
Back
Top Bottom