Hacker News Reader

Comment by decasteve | Hacker News Reader

You are not wrong. However, houses could still be built from wood like the 500 year old houses and churches made with actual timbers. Timber framed houses would use a lot less wood in the long run due to less waste and greater longevity (especially when coupled with bricks and concrete).

Milling large trees down to 2x4s and coupling it to drywall to build homes that don't last is a travesty.

View on HN

What are you counting as a house that hasn’t lasted? 50 years? 100? The house I am in was built in the 1940’s by the state as an employment and housing scheme for returned servicemen post WW2. It’s wood framed and has a fair few years of life left if cared for.

The bulk of NZ houses are wooden, and have been for its entire history. They are also cold and are often damp, though these problems can be solved with decent building practices.

Concrete and brick are not that desirable in an earthquake prone country.

And yes, milling big old trees is bad. They are now made of treated pine, which comes with its own environmental concerns.

I think that Europeans just are biased against wood frame houses. I've heard this argument over and but a wood frame house can easily last 100+ years with maintenance and owners who care about what happens to it.

OP here. I guess you are right about the bias. I've learned a lot from this thread, thank you!

The funny thing is that Europe some really old wooden buildings. There is a 1200 year old one in Essex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensted_Church

Reply on news.ycombinator.com