Concrete and metal can not withstand the temperature fluctuations in the United States, that’s why wood is used. If you take concrete from -10C to 40C, its going to crack and fail after a few years.
The problem is that the wood has gotten significantly more cheap over the years. But if you’ve seen actual wood houses, its absurd how they last centuries while concrete weathers and turns to dust, and metal corrodes.
Further, wood stands up just as well as brick and concrete do in the face of tornados and earthquakes… In that they don’t. They all collapse. the foundations are made with brick or concrete but its cheaper to rebuild the top if its wood then another material. You’re not saving your house if it gets hit with a tornado.
Also concrete requires steel supports in order to be load bearing, which is again very expensive. If you don’t put structural steel in the concrete, then you’ve created a death trap.
The cost argument is probably the more correct one, i don’t think that the temperature fluctuation excuse holds water. In Eastern Europe we have some pretty extreme temperatures too, in a continental climate you can easily go from double digit negative temperatures in the winter to 30-40 in the summer. And the use of concrete and bricks and so on is still very widespread.
I didn’t say it was impossible, it’s not like if you use concrete it’s going to instantly vaporize and explode.
However it will require significantly more upkeep and repair, and will become dilapidated quickly without proper maintenance.
Just look what happened to all the khrushchevki after the Union fell. Many stop receiving support and fell apart quickly.
Also I don’t know what you mean by the reason not holding water. It’s not the end all be all, but it’s simply science. Concrete expands and contracts to much in the face of water and temperature to make a viable long term building material without constant upkeep.
Except Khrushchevki were never designed to be long-term solution. They were a stopgap measure and have in fact outlived their projected service time by decades
What about stones? Stone houses last a long time, stone doesn’t expand. Many houses in china also experience extreme temperature fluctuation and they build houses of stone too.
That’s all true, but stones are also much harder to transport, weigh more, are harder to acquire then wood, and are significantly more expensive then wood. That’s why masonry is much more common in Europe as opposed to the US as Europe has plenty of quarries in close proximity to all its population centers while the United States does not.
On the other hand, much of Europe has extremely limited wood so people turned to stone.
It’s just basic supply and demand, and what’s easier and cheaper to access.
Concrete and metal can not withstand the temperature fluctuations in the United States, that’s why wood is used. If you take concrete from -10C to 40C, its going to crack and fail after a few years.
The problem is that the wood has gotten significantly more cheap over the years. But if you’ve seen actual wood houses, its absurd how they last centuries while concrete weathers and turns to dust, and metal corrodes.
Further, wood stands up just as well as brick and concrete do in the face of tornados and earthquakes… In that they don’t. They all collapse. the foundations are made with brick or concrete but its cheaper to rebuild the top if its wood then another material. You’re not saving your house if it gets hit with a tornado.
Also concrete requires steel supports in order to be load bearing, which is again very expensive. If you don’t put structural steel in the concrete, then you’ve created a death trap.
The cost argument is probably the more correct one, i don’t think that the temperature fluctuation excuse holds water. In Eastern Europe we have some pretty extreme temperatures too, in a continental climate you can easily go from double digit negative temperatures in the winter to 30-40 in the summer. And the use of concrete and bricks and so on is still very widespread.
I didn’t say it was impossible, it’s not like if you use concrete it’s going to instantly vaporize and explode.
However it will require significantly more upkeep and repair, and will become dilapidated quickly without proper maintenance.
Just look what happened to all the khrushchevki after the Union fell. Many stop receiving support and fell apart quickly.
Also I don’t know what you mean by the reason not holding water. It’s not the end all be all, but it’s simply science. Concrete expands and contracts to much in the face of water and temperature to make a viable long term building material without constant upkeep.
Except Khrushchevki were never designed to be long-term solution. They were a stopgap measure and have in fact outlived their projected service time by decades
I agree, but that doesn’t dent the fact the millions still live in them to this day.
What about stones? Stone houses last a long time, stone doesn’t expand. Many houses in china also experience extreme temperature fluctuation and they build houses of stone too.
That’s all true, but stones are also much harder to transport, weigh more, are harder to acquire then wood, and are significantly more expensive then wood. That’s why masonry is much more common in Europe as opposed to the US as Europe has plenty of quarries in close proximity to all its population centers while the United States does not.
On the other hand, much of Europe has extremely limited wood so people turned to stone.
It’s just basic supply and demand, and what’s easier and cheaper to access.