T
The Natural Philosopher
Guest
On 22/02/2023 04:06, micky wrote:
Broadly speaking, yes.
Modern houses in the USA are probably more fire resistant, and you have
a fire department.
These are quite a recent invention.
In the Great Fire Of London, over a square mile of wooden houses was
completely destroyed. 100% attrition.
We lose
That is today, we were talking about \'traditional\' houses.
Structurally it looks like 700 years is possible with wood. But several
thousand with stione or brickk.
..
--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:11:56 +0000, The Natural
Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/02/2023 22:13, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2023-02-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 12:41:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is quite hard in the UK to get a mortgage on a 100% timber frame.
That would explain the Soviet style apartment blocks I see in British
films. Some attempt to dress up the poured concrete construction with
limited success.
The word you\'re looking for is brutalism. It was/is a style:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
Almost all new construction in this area is platform
framed wood construction, sheathed with OSB, wrapped in Tyvek, and some
sort of decorative siding applied. The exception is multistory commercial
buildings.
It\'s about how this country was settled: plenty of timber, no
restrictions on cutting it on your own property; easy for the
yeoman-farmer to build with, especially since there were all
those felled trees left from clearing the virgin forest.
It\'s not a bad material. The oldest surviving timber-frame house
in the U.S. was built in about 1640.
There\'s quite a few older than that in the UK.
However the problem is that the statistics show that eventually nearly
all of them catch fire.
I don\'t see how that could be. There are maybe 100,000 wooden houses in
the Baltimore area and I don\'t think more than 50 burn down a year.
That\'s 5/100\'s of a percent, which means it would take 2000 years for
them all to burn down. Is that what you mean by eventually?
Broadly speaking, yes.
Modern houses in the USA are probably more fire resistant, and you have
a fire department.
These are quite a recent invention.
In the Great Fire Of London, over a square mile of wooden houses was
completely destroyed. 100% attrition.
We lose
about 10 or 20 very nice houses a year by new owners tearing them down
to build something bigger or nicer. As neighborhoods get older, that
number is surely increases, before they have a chance to burn down.
That is today, we were talking about \'traditional\' houses.
Structurally it looks like 700 years is possible with wood. But several
thousand with stione or brickk.
..
And there is nothing left to rebuild.
--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.