*
A friend who recently relocated from Ukraine made some observations about American residential construction practice.
He noted that American residential construction, even in high-end homes, appears “flimsy” by comparison with European construction. Walls built with low-grade softwood studs, sheathed in OSB and protected from the weather by plastic siding don’t seem to offer much resistance to fire, rot, insects or even a good strong gust of wind, he chuckled.
“A real house would never be built this way in Ukraine” he asserted. “Only dacha, which is vacation home we use on weekend.” “I can’t believe Americans building half-million dollar house from this kind of junk.”
My friend observed that Ukraine is not an affluent country like America, but even modest homes are built of masonry with exterior walls often two-feet thick, a tile roof and full-thickness plaster instead of sheetrock. “House built to last hundreds of years” he smugly stated.
There are some valid points here. Masonry certainly offers the advantages of strength, solidity, resistance to fire, insects and rot, thermal mass, and low maintenance. While stone and brick are considered “premium” materials and are often used only as veneer due to their cost, concrete and block are cost-effective materials and can be very interesting architecturally.
My question is this: In light of the fact that the price of lumber continues to rise, the quality continues to decline, and the resources continue to dwindle, and in light of all of the inherent disadvantages of our “flimsy,” platform-frame lumber houses, why do we continue to build houses in this way? Why hasn’t masonry construction for residences caught on to any great extent in this country, considering that it has been used successfully for centuries in Europe?
Replies
*
I don't have any supporting stats, or a real solid grasp of global econonomies, but my guess would be:
1) Cost of labour. Europeans have a much greater number experienced masonry craftsman. Hense when you want those 2 ft thick masonry walls, it's as cheap to hire the mason as it is to hire a wood worker for a framed wall. Here it's a specialty item, practiced by few and charged at a premium.
2) Cost of materials. Don't forget that Europe has a VERY long history. Much of it spent building for the very rich, not the masses. By the time mass housing construction developed in Europe, lumber for purposes as mondane as hiding in walls was becoming short on supply. Rock and sand on the otherhand is plentiful. We on the other hand jumped straight into mass housing construction on this continent and are blessed (cursed) with an unlimited supply of increadibly cheap lumber. At least it was unlimited back then, anyway.
3) Cost of shipping. I think nothing of a 2 hour car ride to visit my folks, or head to the lake. Many European communities are based around the "everything within walking distance" plan. A 2hr trip is something you take a train for and it's a BIG deal, not a casual weekend trip. Again, all that cheap lumber transports pretty cheaply. Much cheaper than heavy masonry products, and probably cheaper than the cost of digging it out of the ground.
4) Habit. If your neighbour's house is built of stone, yours will be too. Pretty much a chicken and egg argument. If your community is made of stone houses, you'd be insane not to do the same. The trades are geared up for the demand of that kind of construction.
When the cost of lumber (or lack of quality) reaches the point where masonry construction is competatively priced, then it will become common place. And when it becomes common place, then the cost of masonry will fall as more and more tradesmen enter the field to meet the demand. Someday, we may look back on the "lumber framed house" as an interesting historical period. But personally, I think it's just going to evolve through sustainable harvesting and engineered wood substitutes.
*
Thanks for taking the time, Scott, to write an astute response to my posting. I have to agree that economics, tradition and habit are probably the most important factors in determining why we do things in a particular way.
While I see your point in "Old World" vs. "New World," and would love to see handcrafted masonry cottages replace tract homes, I realize that for the reasons you discuss this is an unrealistic proposition.
However, let's consider masonry construction in terms of current commonplace technology rather than old-world craft skills. I think few would argue that concrete and steel are materials infinitely better suited to form the structural elements of a building than wood and wood products. Wood is a material of great versatility, warmth and beauty. Why not utilize wood where it is best suited: in creating only the interior decorative elements of homes rather than the basic structure?
Concrete is a material that is cheap and typically produced locally. We use concrete in residential construction to build foundations, basements, driveways, swimming pools, patios and garages. Why not use concrete or concrete block products to build the entire house? Would the cost be prohibitive? Would people question the aesthetics? Some of our greatest architects demonstrated that concrete can be used to masterful effect in creating beautiful buildings.
There is no shortage of contractors experienced in commercial concrete construction. How can techniques used in commercial buildings translate to residential?
Why do high-tech lumber suppliers bend backwards to come up with new "engineered wood products" (i.e. laminated beams, etc.) when steel is stronger, fire and insect proof and possibly more cost effective? The wooden beam is undoubtedly prettier but if it's inside a floor or wall who cares?
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see why the same methods used to commonly and economically build a commercial structure cannot translate to residential construction. Can't an innovative builder come up with a durable, maintenance-free, thermally-efficient masonry home to compete in price with a conventional lumber-frame home?
*Having grown up in the South Florida area, as well as practicing architecture there for 20+ years, I can understand your Ukranian friend's reaction. In that area of Florida, the "hurricane code" came into effect during the early '50s, and the commonly-accepted solution was to build everything in "CBS" (concrete block,stucco). It works like a charm, is as economical as frame construction there, and makes frame seem "flimsy" by comparison.About 10 yrs ago, I relocated to the northern end of Florida, where frame is the norm, and to this day, I can't feel quite as comfortable in a frame house. The basics that I lived in and designed (I did a _lot_ of residential developer work...probably responsible for upwards of 5000 houses in that area) were conc. slab on grade, 8" block to tie beam ht., which was poured continuous around the exterior perimeter, anchor straps embedded into the conc. tie beam, wood trusses strapped to the beam, and then the trusses conventionally sheathed and roofed (or, as an expensive alternate, tiled with clay/cement tile).For those of you who remember seeing the videos of Hurricane Andrew, as it moved through the Miami area, I'll tell you that the vast majority of my buildings were in the immediate, hardest-hit area, and to the best of my knowledge, I lost not a single structure. The damage that you may have seen was the result of poorly inspected (and yes, built) work by the "good ol' boy" system that had moved into place. The worst-hit area was a development(remember the entire roof departing a 2-story house?...that was one of them) that employed an "experimental" _frame_ system...and was, as I understand it, about to become involved in a class-action lawsuit; the result of a reputedly faulty construction "system". The CBS system was not generally as fragile. I wouldn't tell you that none of them were hurt, but on balance, I would expect that the statistics were dramatically against the frame homes.In brief, the "system" for economical masonry construction of residences does exist...at least in one area of the country. The fact that there was very little wood available there in the first place simply added to the movement in that direction (pre-'50s homes were frequently of frame construction, and many of those have also stood up to many hurricanes, but they would _not_ be "economical" to build by today's standards!)I'm presently in the process of considering a form of masonry residential construction that is relatively new in this country..."AAC", or Autoclaved, Aerated Concrete, mfg. by Hebel, Acco, Ytong, etc. I'm planning to build my own home from the material, and all the claims to date indicate that it should prove to be competitive with frame construction in my area (being 25 miles from the plant may help a bit! ) We'll see...(keeping my fingers crossed -- and still searching for the Holy Graille!)
*
when an earthquake hits one of those central Asian countries, TENS of THOUSANDs of people die. Sometimes, those buildings simply collapse under their own weight, so porrly constructed are they.
I would not want to live in any building, let alone concrete block, built under Soviet style "building codes" & Soviet style government corruption.
In Turkey's earthquake last year (50,000 dead), many of those "durable" buildings were found to be missing reinforcing steel, or the mortar was mixed with ocean sand. Grout in the CMUs? Ha! out of sight, out of mind.
Aesthetically, most buildings of CMU tend to look like WW2 army barracks - the flexibility of stick framing just isn't there. But as was pointed out , there are many countries where there simply aren't any forests nearby - making it impractical to stick frame, even if the tradesman knew how.
*Another thing to consider is the temperature of the Ukraine.Most of their homes are built this way for insulation purposes. Regular stick frame housing would not be a good structure to try to insulate there. These people do not have the central air/heat systems like we do, nor are they likely to. They use wood burning stoves, coal fired stoves, oil and gas fired stoves, etc... They live a lot like the pioneers did here. Some, however, do rely on steam heat. They need the extra thick walls, and the extra insulating power that these walls, and this type of construction offer. Basically, they build like this out of necessity, and because that's how it has alweays been done there.I personally like concrete block houses. They are bland to look at, but they seem comfortable. Would not ICF building techniques be an advanced building technique and technology over stick framing? Have we not started seeing more and more ICF structures going up?Just a thought...James DuHamel
*
Your points are well taken, Tom. A lot of substandard housing was built under the old Soviet system. But here we're talking about properly constructed homes.
Each of the individual Republics that once comprised the Soviet Union has a unique flavor and a unique ethnic identity (the Soviet Union was a HUGE country). In areas away from the central bureaucracy traditions were (and are) carried on much as they have been for a very long time irrespective of who presumes to be in charge. People there are of necessity very resourceful (the expression is "to make everything with nothing.")
What happened in Turkey was a tragedy of horrific proportions. May I gently point out, however, that Ukraine along with neighbors Russia, Bulgaria and Belarus is one of the Cyrillic countries of Eastern Europe (not Central Asia.)
When America and the Soviet Union were engaged in the cold war we Americans tended to be shown only the worst aspects of society under the Soviet system, just as Soviet citizens were shown the worst aspects of society in America. Many people have a mental image of the dismal, army-barracks type housing you mention. Now that the "Iron Curtin" is gone, however, we can more clearly see the rich architectural traditions and craftsmanship indigenous to the people of this area as apart from that which a totalitarian government would impose.
I agree that stick framing does offer flexibility and expediency. But is it the best system, or can we do better at an equivalent cost?
*Some excellent thoughts, James. Just one thing, though. Do concrete-block homes really have to be bland? As one classic example of what can be done with block materials look at Wright's "Textile Block" homes. At the time they were built they were labor-intensive and expensive, but perhaps he was on the right track.
*Thanks Jack for sharing some of your experience from the perspective of an architect practicing in hurricane country!It is gratifying to hear an opinion that speaks to the search for an economical, common-sense approach to construction that results in a home of greater durability, longevity and comfort than the prevailing norm.Hats off to you!
*
Chris,
I hesitate to even mention this because it can engender emotional responses, pro and con, but since I'm in the business, and familiar with the process, I'd like to point out that the PCA (Portland Concrete Association) research shows that concrete houses, as a percentage of new starts is increasing in this country. I'm not looking at their research now but my recollection is that they predict a number like 15% of new starts will be concrete within 10 years.
I am convinced of the merits of using concrete, I am an ICF advocate for its many advantages which can't be duplicated using wood as the basic ingredient of exterior walls. Once again, I'm hoping not to stir up a wood vs. concrete debate, just pointing out that some of the benefits of concrete are becoming apparent to some in the building industry. I should also point out that there is a natural synergistic relationship with lumber, particularly engineered lumber, in an ICF exterior concrete house.
The entire building industry in this country does a great job, but I think your friend from the Ukraine is quite accurate in noting the basic structural differences and that you are thoughtful to question why we design most of our residences of wood. I'm not much of a historian or philosopher so I'll stay away for the reasons except to say that the industry as a whole is averse to major change much as Scott pointed out... its a lot about habit.
Ron
*With the ever increasing payout cost the insurance companies are facing due to natural disasters (hurricanes, tornados, flooding, earthquakes, etc...) I am willing to bet that the building codes are going to get a lot more strict around the country in the next few years.The insurance companies and their lobbying groups are very powerful. They can, and will get this type of strict code requirements going.When the codes start to get more strict than they already are (especially for the wind zones, earthquake zones, etc...) then you will start seeing some major changes in the way homes in these areas are built. Concrete homes offer a much stronger structure that can withstand a lot more of nature's wrath. Floods and mudslides will no longer be "total" losses either. Concrete homes are much easier to clean up, without the interior wall, insulation, and siding damage that occurs in wood framed homes.We'll have to wait and see, but I am willing to bet concrete homes become more and more common in the near future (or at least something very similar in nature and construction technique).Just a thought...James DuHamel
*How do ICF's perform with respects to termites, insects, etc.? I have heard that SRP's have had some problems in that regard.
*Somebody mentioned pioneer living. My city is located smack in the middle of the prairies. Not a hill, valley, forest, rock in sight for miles and miles. Oh, to be sure there's bushes (usually hiding a mosquitoe breeding pond), but nothing substantial for building materials. Early settlers dug a hole in the ground, fashioned a roof using branches, covered the whole thing with sod and called it home. You make do with what you have, and around here we have nothing (a large number of the population was settled by Ukrainian, Polish and German immigrants looking for a better life). I guess in a sense it could have gone either way because neither stone, concrete or lumber are readily available (Even today, our local concrete industry is based on trucked in portland). But at the time, construction techniques were born of necessesity as was a philosophy of temporary shelter (who REALLY expects to spend their life living in a sod house?). When the much more "refined" railway arrived, hords of "better off" settlers came with it, as well as virtually free lumber and a necessesity for "upscale" instant housing. Heck to some of the later immigrants and second generation residents, wood may have even been considered a higher quality "luxury" material not available to them in the old world. Add to this the fact that the builders were (and still are) attempting to apply a single generic building method to large geographic regions.If I remember what I've read about the birth of wood framed housing, the single most intrumental factor was the invention of standardized lumber. And in order to have standardized lumber, you have to have either a very large market, or a very cheap supply. Initially it was probably supply driven, now it's probably market driven. I also remember an A&E special (don't know exactly what the main topic was) where they described an inventor trying to develop a method for mass concrete housing. It used an elaborate system of mold panels (with plumbing and vent channels built into the mold) which could be set up and poured to create a home in a day. The end result was anything but a "bunker" and very architecturally rich. I don't recall what the problems where, but in the end I don't think it could compete with the cost and flexibility of that standardized wood offered.A couple of theories I haven't seen posted yet are space and western values. In a restaurant the other day I was admiring the architecture in a poster on the wall. It was a street in an Italian city lined with what appeared to be identical stone or brick structures. The street was really more of a stair way which wound up a hill, each "house" shared a common wall and the structures stepped up to follow the slope. I was thinking to myself "Is it more prestigious to be in the top house looking down on your neighbors, or to be in the bottom house and not have to climb the stairs". I was also wondering how many families lived in a single dwelling or whether they were passed from generation to generation. Space and values take on a whole different meaning for this kind of housing.In the "new world" we seem to have adopted the opposite attitude. Families don't share a home, they spread out and build their own homes. Homes and land aren't passed down from generation to generation (well, for most of us anyway), it's a one lifetime proposition. Construction that out lives you, or takes up more of the yard or interior space (thicker walls) are negative factors in this environment. Toss in the fact that our kids are growing up fast in the "disposable" lifestyle and things like durability and value just don't carry any weight anymore.I bought my home with a mindset of living in it until I die and passing it down to my kids. It has solid, well aged foundation, plenty of yard space I can add on to, in a neighbourhood which I feel has long lasting qualities. My peers bought starter homes in newer urban developments which they only plan to live in long enough to sell and move up to the next home. Needless to say, our ideas of what's good value are quite different. But THEY are the active "buying" market, so short term, low cost, disposable housing is the demand. And that rules out masonry.
*James - depends on your type of "disaster" and your type of design. During the earthquakes when I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, the frame buildings held up better than the masonry ones - certainly better than the unreinforced masonry ones. At the University of California, the undergraduate library that was built of concrete during the early 70's had to be extensively remodeled recently because it was too rigid and it was felt it would crack and fail in a severe earthquake. Properly designed frame buildings seems to be the material of choice for low (4 floors or less) residential structures in earthquake country. (Of course, the Oakland Hills fire that took out most of the city's frame buildings in that upscale neiborhood could give one a different perspective - not to mention the various fires in the Topanga Canyon area in L.A. ...)
*I was wondering if the Texas Board of Insurance regs have had much effect on the way homes are built in coastal Texas areas? There were some complaints from some developer/roofing contractors in the Houston area I seem to recall. The regs seemed more than reasonable to me ....hurricane clips, etc.
*Hey jc,Yes they have had a great impact on the way homes are built.Only it wasn't the Insurance Board, it was the Insurance COMPANIES. They lobbied hard and fast for new building code regs to accomodate the areas farther inland. We now have Hurricane Codes 60 miles farther inland than we had (this all happened 2 years ago) Not only do we have to use roofing clips, we have to use hurricane straps and bracing, foundation anchors like never before, and OSB is not allowed for roof decking in my area. It seems that the powers that be determined from some serious investigations and research that the OSB does not effectively hold fasteners during a serious storm. They found all kinds of roofing damage, and most of what they found was OSB decking laying on the ground with the fasteners still attached to the rafters. Shingles blew off too, with the nails still in the shingles. Most contractors around here still use OSB, but they aren't supposed to. Many of the builders have known the inspectors for most of their lives, and the inspectors just kinda look the other way. I am always curious to know how the insurance companies react when they find that the roof decking that gets damaged is OSB, and if they actually pay out for a claim.I personally believe a whole lot of the fastener problems had to do with improper installation and overdriving of the fasteners, but what do I know.Anyway, to answer the question, yes the Insurance industry at least got some changes made. I do not think we have heard the last of the changes either.James DuHamel
*Chris: Ask your friend how long a light bulb lasted in the Ukraine. Last I heard, 20 years! I think even 20/20 at one time had a report on it. Think they make one that lasts 20 DAYS here???? Although, the unemployment was high, because they made things that lasted, and so there was no need for, at least, a factory employing hundreds of people to keep making light bulbs. Built-in obsolescence, the American way. (Now don't go jumping all over me!) You'd think that SOMEWHERE out there (not shouting, just emphasizing), is a creative, imaginative architect/builder/whatever (or whoever) that can come up with some innovative building technique to knock the socks off the norm, and be moderately frugal in the process! I know, asking for the improbable, if not the impossible. Look what the reaction was with the geodesic dome. We ought to be looking at other parts of the world (such as Europe, as mentioned), for different ways to do things. After all, they HAVE been around a lot longer than we have and survived. They have the same climate conditions we do. Instead of knocking the things we could never use or adapt, use what's feasible and forget the stuff that's not. Why are we (Americans in general) so afraid to learn from other people, whether we like them or not? Being a proud nation doesn't mean we have to be a stupid nation. BTW, the above commentary could be applied to all industries, not just building. My 2 cents. I'll go now.
*Chris:Here is some pure speculation and opinion - we're just having a discussion - right?:Well, it all comes down to money. I'm not totally up on what's going on in Eastern Europe but if I remember correctly the Ukrainian economy is in constant turmoil. I think, astronomical inflation in excess of 5,000%!!! during the first part of the last decade, and very unstable since then. I believe that unemployment is low, but wages are much lower. I guessing that if you compared the housing of the average American to the average Ukrainian, our "flimsy" stick built houses would stack up pretty well. My guess would be that the average Ukrainian can't even afford to own a home. Therefore, I'm not sure that we would be wise to take an economic lesson in this area from that country. I think your friend's assessment may have been accurate for the quality (sturdiness) of building (pure speculation on my part having never been there), but not the quality of life. I mean, who cares how well a house is built if you can't own one, or can only afford 400 sq. ft? So, I'll be happy to build you a solid masonry house for $200/sq.ft, or, if that sounds a bit pricey, import your Ukrainian masons and I'll pay 'em their 3$ an hour and I'll deliver for a mere $140 a ft.! By the way, I'll still have to stick frame the inside of the exterior walls for insulation purposes.Adrian:Just as an FYI, I built a geodesic dome back in the 70s. It was the most impractical structure I have ever built!! It wasn't a matter of acceptance, it i was a matter of feasibility/livability. The geodesic dome was just a theory that didn't hold water.Anyone:If you have lived in the Ukraine, or visited there for any significant period of time, please, educate us on what the standard of living is really like there. Set me strait if I'm all wrong!
*
Thanks, Ron, for the information about new starts using concrete and for sharing your observations.
I'm pleased to hear that concrete is on the upswing, albeit a relatively small percentage of new starts. I too am becoming convinced that this is the sensible way to go for fabrication of the primary structural elements of a home. Unfortunately, I think American homeowners have in many ways reaped the unpleasant consequences of a (mainly post-WW II) housing industry more concerned with expediency and short-term profit than sound construction practice. Perhaps with education and dynamic, innovative people bringing a fresh perspective to the industry, this picture will gradually turn around. Another powerful motivating factor I hope will gain significance in the future is the more knowledgeable homebuyer voting for quality construction with his or her dollars.
*Thanks, James, for your observations. What you mention about the lobbying power of the insurance industry is certainly true. Look at the health-care industry, for example.Building a structure entirely with wood made sense back in the days when your home site was surrounded by trees and you had to make do with what was indigenous to your land.Today we're no longer forced to make do with what's available. We can choose the materials and technologies we incorporate into our homes, and perhaps it's time to take a look at some new (or a fresh look at some very old) building methods.
*Again, Scott, you make some excellent observations. When you talk about the birth of wood-framed housing and compare the market then with the market today, certainly what we now must live with is an industry accustomed to building these houses and a public accustomed to buying them. Would sophisticated homebuyers have any influence in changing the industry for the better? How do you educate Mrs. Smith to the fact that her money is better spent on structural details she can't see than for the giant restauraunt stove she is convinced she must have?Going back to the "Old World" vs. "New World" discussion, I have to agree that the "throwaway" mentality is a tragic and shameful byproduct of our consumer culture. It is evident in the embarrasing fact that America generates more trash per capita than any other nation on the face of the planet (Canada's not quite as bad). What to do with all this garbage? Perhaps recycle it into building materials for the disposable houses people seem to want to buy.Yes, in Europe there is a different mindset. People build to last and treasure their older buildings. For example, my wife's family in Barcelona has lived in a building that's over 400 years old for generations! Their apartment is handed from parent to child and the building itself (which is quite beautiful) is maintained to superb standards.By contrast, look at how many beautiful, unique and well-constructed pre-war buildings in America (particularly in cities) have been abandoned or allowed to deteriorate. The public laments that it is too expensive to build this way any longer but allows these gems to be torn down and replaced with cheap, nondescript buildings to yield the greatest square footage at the lowest cost. An example on a monumental scale: New York City's Pennsylvania Station.I'm happy that you and your family were able to maintain your standards and achieve something of more lasting value for yourselves. Unfortunately I think new homes of true quality and value will probably remain a small segment of the housing market for the forseeable future.
*Adrianne, the question about the light bulb is an interesting one. I'll ask and let you know if it's true.In reference to maintaining an open mindset I agree completely. Being open to new ideas (or old ideas for that matter) means overcoming your own inertia -- a tough proposition for a person and especially so for an entire industry. The way I see it, as long as we have a few architects, builders and homebuyers courageous enough to buck the norm it's a good start.
*Matt, you're right about the economy in Ukraine. It's a very complicated situation with many contributory factors. You're dealing with bad economic decisions, misplaced priorities and institutionalized corruption and an underground economy left over from the Communist era.My friend, who is an anesthesiologist, has told me he was accustomed to going literally months without a paycheck. Professionals like physicians who are well paid in this country make very little in that part of the world. As a result, almost every enterprising individual has some side business to generate cash for living expenses. In my friend's case, he made prosthetic appliances in his apartment!While most are in the same miserable economic situation, you have to consider that the cost of living is also extraordinarily low. I'm told that people who hold menial positions and have no other source of income live in correspondingly dismal housing. The other side of the coin is that it takes very little cash, by American standards, to build a magnificent home or live in a very luxurious apartment.With people who are used to chronic shortages of everything, it doesn't take much to achieve a quality of life that they are, if not happy with, at least contented with.
*Just an amateur, just back from my first trip to Florida looking at condos. Block construction to the top of the wall, poured concrete second floors, tile roofs. No wood I could see until the roof trusses and sheathing. No termite worry, looks mighty permanent. Is this the wave of the future?
*I hope so!
*
...........don't really know what the problem is...I keep hearing about "throw-away " houses...they don't exist...the only types of housing I ever see being torn down are high-rise and trailers..
North America has the highest percentage of owner occupied housing in the world....do you think that Levittown is falling down?....
Sure ...I see a lot of shoddy building practise...but guess what.. most of it 'll still be here a hundred years from now..it's called managing an investment....people buy these houses, raise their families, and maintain them so they can sell them to the next generation....
I worked on a very simple gambrel two months ago, 2x4 rafters four feet on center.....built in 1680...and the present Owners don't have a lot of money either..
I can drive 3 miles and visit the house where Lafayette met with George Washington, and there are 20 houses built at the same time sitting out there on the Point, built about 1730 weathered many a storm and many a hurricane... simple wood framed houses.... your friend from the Ukaraine just doesn't understand construction... it's always a local vernacular... and it's maintained by each generation...
Throw away housing...don't be silly... that is the average family's single greatest investment....and each region builds what is appropriate....
*Chris, don't get too worked up about your European friend's comments. They love to bash anything the Americans do.Did you bother to ask him if he owns one of those houses?I have a German friend too. He tells me that even though he worked two jobs, and made well over 6 figures, he couldn't afford to buy a house in Germany.I live on a lake here in MI, in a modest remodeled walkout ranch style home. My German friend tells me that only the ultra-rich in Germany would be able to buy a house like mine. The "common" people never even get through the gated roads to take a peek at the lakes!I'm quite content with my "flimsy" house, so tell the Ukraine to keep his insulting remarks to himself. If I wanted a stucco block home, I could buy one, but I don't. And...ask the Ukraine why the cheap Ukrainians stop at two foot thick walls? Aren't four foot thick walls better?Tell Ukie that I have witnessed the total destruction of a grand total of two flimsy houses in all my years here in MI from a tornado. So, should we all start building tornado proof homes now?Tell him to go back to his substandard apartment, since he thinks they are all so special!blue
*
A friend who recently relocated from Ukraine made some observations about American residential construction practice.
He noted that American residential construction, even in high-end homes, appears "flimsy" by comparison with European construction. Walls built with low-grade softwood studs, sheathed in OSB and protected from the weather by plastic siding don't seem to offer much resistance to fire, rot, insects or even a good strong gust of wind, he chuckled.
"A real house would never be built this way in Ukraine" he asserted. "Only dacha, which is vacation home we use on weekend." "I can't believe Americans building half-million dollar house from this kind of junk."
My friend observed that Ukraine is not an affluent country like America, but even modest homes are built of masonry with exterior walls often two-feet thick, a tile roof and full-thickness plaster instead of sheetrock. "House built to last hundreds of years" he smugly stated.
There are some valid points here. Masonry certainly offers the advantages of strength, solidity, resistance to fire, insects and rot, thermal mass, and low maintenance. While stone and brick are considered "premium" materials and are often used only as veneer due to their cost, concrete and block are cost-effective materials and can be very interesting architecturally.
My question is this: In light of the fact that the price of lumber continues to rise, the quality continues to decline, and the resources continue to dwindle, and in light of all of the inherent disadvantages of our "flimsy," platform-frame lumber houses, why do we continue to build houses in this way? Why hasn't masonry construction for residences caught on to any great extent in this country, considering that it has been used successfully for centuries in Europe?