| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:07 ImAbstracT wrote: I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal? i actually never saw a wooden house before, at least not a real family house, just some holiday huts and dandruffs.. the houses i know are built from stone. | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:33 bobbob wrote: One of the reasons that wood is used over brick is earthquakes, bricks are not exactly the most flexible material when dealing with earthquakes, nor would you rather have a brick wall hit you rather than a wood wall. That being said, I don't really know of many earthquakes near Indianapolis, but maybe I am just unaware. Probably the twisters, I've seen the wizard of Oz. Houses everywhere are generally made out of what's cheap. Stone was easy to come by at the local quarry at the time most of the stone houses were made in europe, brick is just a cheap easier to lay extension of that, breeze block even more so. If you don't need thick walls wooden houses kinda make sense. It is amusing when they paint bricks on them though. Increasingly here in new builds only the outer skin is brick/decorative block and the inners are timber frame and plasterboard affairs. | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
ZenCaser
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:49 cari-kira wrote: i actually never saw a wooden house before, at least not a real family house, just some holiday huts and dandruffs.. the houses i know are built from stone. Yeah, I think its pretty uncommon to see houses in europe made of wood. (at least where I live) The only houses I've seen made of wood are the ones you rent for vacation. Like beach houses etc. Brick and stone is the way to go =) | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Here ALL houses are build from stone (95%+) and in the usa nearly all houses are build from wood. Wood building is alot cheaper then stone, (about 50% of price for similar stone house) wich i asume is the main reason. America is not as rich and europe is not as poor as manny people think. Stone is alot better though, most people probably know the tale of the wulf and the 3 piggies, where the piggies first build a straw house, then a wooden house and in the end a stone house, only the stone house survives the big bad wulf. Earthquakes: not sure this is a relevant argument, the east coast of the usa is seldomly hit by earthquakes and cant be a reason to build houses in wood,a well build stone house is pretty resilliant against earthquakes, maybe even more so then the wooden houses. If i then see the devestation huricanes do to wooden houses in the usa i cant helpt thinking by myself, why dont they build in stone? a well build stone house is verry resilliant against even huricane winds. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
Fortunately my mom smelled the gas and immediately alerted the fire department  | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:49 cari-kira wrote: i actually never saw a wooden house before, at least not a real family house, just some holiday huts and dandruffs.. the houses i know are built from stone. In the US timber houses are more common on the west coast due to their flexibility during earthquakes, but they are still fairly common on the east coast compared to brick/cement houses, lumber is cheaper in the US then in europe. Also for a larger price homes can and have been made with using steel. There are also differences with working with brick and working with timber, brick requires proper training to properly lay brick quickly and even if you can get it done quickly a timber house can be done quicker, land is abundance and houses are larger in the US. And depending where you live and how you live a house can last 30+ years easily, which is a lifetime of ownership to one direct family. Anyways i doubt modern houses in europe are made purely using brick, they may have a brick exterior but are using wood on the inside to hide wiring, pipes and insulation, they might not even be brick houses but just a brick exterior for appeal just due to cultural ties to brick housing for centuries. Also holy shit those houses got destroyed shame 2 people died. | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:47 Rassy wrote: The wood-stone difference between europe and the usa is verry interesting. Here ALL houses are build from stone (95%+) and in the usa nearly all houses are build from wood. Wood building is alot cheaper then stone, (about 50% of price for similar stone house) wich i asume is the main reason. America is not as rich and europe is not as poor as manny people think. Stone is alot better though, most people probably know the tale of the wulf and the 3 piggies, where the piggies first build a straw house, then a wooden house and in the end a stone house, only the stone house survives the big bad wulf. Earthquakes: not sure this is a relevant argument, the east coast of the usa is seldomly hit by earthquakes and cant be a reason to build houses in wood,a well build stone house is pretty resilliant against earthquakes, maybe even more so then the wooden houses. If i then see the devestation huricanes do to wooden houses in the usa i cant helpt thinking by myself, why dont they build in stone? a well build stone house is verry resilliant against even huricane winds. Eh. I think the difference is simply culture. Many people build houses in the US thinking they will eventually sell them off, they aren't usually seen as ancestral homes or something that will be passed down through the generations. Also why build from expensive stone when you can build from cheap wood and both products look great? I don't know why I would pay more for a stone house even if it was easily affordable. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: it's a shame, that house was the bomb Oh boy, here come the puns! This will be a blast. | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
On November 16 2012 08:27 m4inbrain wrote: Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise? Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado. As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado. | ||
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:27 DaCruise wrote: Maybe illegal fireworks caused this. You mean illegal fireworks like plastic explosives? lmao. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:12 holy_war wrote: Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado. As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado. Brick houses are still very vulnerable to tornadoes, tornadoes are different from hurricanes, a tornado is much more likely to rip apart a brick house by compromising the roof, you still have to build a house made to take the conditions and it's still too costly to make something that is out on the outer instances of what is the norm, and brick houses don't fit hurricanes, timber housing on stilts is actually the most approbate due to there isn't the same foundation that becomes compromised by flood waters. Timber houses also over the years of research mostly from army corps of engineers can by made to withstand the normal scope of category/F 3 or lower, few housing is made to withstand past that scope just because it's too costly. It's just cheaper to build the best you can at a cost and evacuate the area or go into shelters built to withstand that kind of damage. On November 17 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote: You mean illegal fireworks like plastic explosives? lmao. Yeah those two houses were completely obliterated, i wonder what kind of gas leaked for that kind of pow. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:31 semantics wrote: Brick houses are still very vulnerable to tornadoes, tornadoes are different from hurricanes, a tornado is much more likely to rip apart a brick house by compromising the roof, you still have to build a house made to take the conditions and it's still too costly to make something that is out on the outer instances of what is the norm, and brick houses don't fit hurricanes, timber housing on stilts is actually the most approbate due to there isn't the same foundation that becomes compromised by flood waters. Timber houses also over the years of research mostly from army corps of engineers can by made to withstand the normal scope of category/F 3 or lower, few housing is made to withstand past that scope just because it's too costly. It's just cheaper to build the best you can at a cost and evacuate the area or go into shelters built to withstand that kind of damage. Yeah those two houses were completely obliterated, i wonder what kind of gas leaked for that kind of pow. My guess is that one of the houses in question was entirely full of leaked gas, it is really the only way the totality of the damage makes sense. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:47 Rassy wrote: The wood-stone difference between europe and the usa is verry interesting. Here ALL houses are build from stone (95%+) and in the usa nearly all houses are build from wood. Wood building is alot cheaper then stone, (about 50% of price for similar stone house) wich i asume is the main reason. America is not as rich and europe is not as poor as manny people think. Stone is alot better though, most people probably know the tale of the wulf and the 3 piggies, where the piggies first build a straw house, then a wooden house and in the end a stone house, only the stone house survives the big bad wulf. Earthquakes: not sure this is a relevant argument, the east coast of the usa is seldomly hit by earthquakes and cant be a reason to build houses in wood,a well build stone house is pretty resilliant against earthquakes, maybe even more so then the wooden houses. If i then see the devestation huricanes do to wooden houses in the usa i cant helpt thinking by myself, why dont they build in stone? a well build stone house is verry resilliant against even huricane winds. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, and I can't believe you cited a nursery rhyme as your proof. Lumber is much cheaper than stone, especially in the USA, but it has nothing to do with which region is rich or poor. Earthquakes aren't as common on the east coast as they are in the west coast, but all it takes is one significant earthquake over the lifespan of a stone house to completely compromise the structure. As for hurricanes, the vast majority of timber houses, unless they are little shanties, are built to withstand your average hurricane. The velocity of hurricane winds required to level a timber house would also probably cause irreparable damage to a stone house, it just may not be leveled to the ground. And if a tornado travels directly through your home, it's going to get ripped apart whether it is timber or stone. The only reason I could see somebody having a brick home in the U.S. is for aesthetic reasons, or it is a really old home that was around prior to the big timber housing boom in this country. Timber is just too cheap and too effective for the current style of U.S. housing development, which is put up a residential subdivision as quickly as you can, as cost-efficiently as you can, for as little money as possible while passing all of your building codes. As for this explosion, based on the severity of the damage I doubt a stone house would have survived, although if the surrounding houses had been stone they probably would have sustained less damage. Then again, who knows, because if those houses were made of stone it would have been brick shrapnel colliding with those homes instead of timber splinters. But in the end it all comes down to cost. No one wants to pay for a stone home so no one builds them. | ||
|
MooMu
Canada615 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote: My guess is that one of the houses in question was entirely full of leaked gas, it is really the only way the totality of the damage makes sense. And the only way that could've happened is if no one was in the home to set off the mental alarm bells, as was the case here. Coupled with the fact that the daughter says she had smelt something funny off and on for a whole week, and I can see how an escalation in the possible leak could have occurred the day everyone was away to lead to this explosion. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote: Kinda feels like the only way it makes sense is if both houses were filling up with gas as that is what it usually takes to just completely make a house vanish short of exodia.My guess is that one of the houses in question was entirely full of leaked gas, it is really the only way the totality of the damage makes sense. | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:07 ImAbstracT wrote: I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal? Concrete and brick. Every acceptable house in Thailand is built with concrete, except those vacation house that are in the mountain, or poor people's house in a slum, that are built with wood. | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
There was a post on reddit about this, the experts said it was most probably a gas leak. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 9652Horang2  2047actioN 863Hyuk 709ggaemo 549BeSt 347Mind  245Zeus 193Movie 188Pusan 80[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
BSL
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
