EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D8U85.jpg)
I can't imagine living in a wooden house. And stone feels way too cumbersome for a modern building.
Massive explosion in Indianapolis neighbourhood - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
I can't imagine living in a wooden house. And stone feels way too cumbersome for a modern building. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:11 Veldril wrote: 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. Every single thing I've read suggests that Thai houses are built on stilts and are almost always made of wood or bamboo. I understand that you see an opportunity here to possibly one up NA building standards, but you don't need to lie. http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/203644/virtues-of-the-traditional-thai-house As the moniker “Thai stilt house” suggests, one universal aspect of Thailand’s traditional architecture is the elevation of its buildings on stilts, most commonly to around head height. The area beneath the house is consequently used for storage, crafts, lounging in the daytime, and sometimes for livestock. The houses were raised as a result of heavy flooding during certain parts of the year, and in more ancient times, predators. Thai building and living habits are often based on superstitious and religious beliefs. Many other considerations such as locally available materials, climate, and agriculture have a lot to do with the style. Thai houses are made from a variety of woods and are often built in just a day as prefabricated wood panels are built ahead of time and put together on site by a master builder. Many houses are also built with bamboo, a material that is easily constructed and does not require professional builders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Thailand | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:19 Soap wrote: Here even houses in a slum are built on brick. Only the very poorest homes would be made of sheets of plywood. I can't imagine living in a wooden house. And stone feels way too cumbersome for a modern building. Why not? No one is talking about ply wood either. They mean thick ass 2x4 and up sized timber used to frame a house. | ||
|
omgCRAZY
Canada551 Posts
3 people killed. A bunch of houses were deemed unlivable and my house had the outside door including the frame ripped out of the house from the shockwave. ![[image loading]](http://inews880.com/Pics/2010News/June/Explosion/crater3.JPG) EDIT: My house is about 14 houses done from the house that exploded. | ||
|
Dranak
United States464 Posts
| ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from... | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
for brick vs wood... well its no question for most people.always was weird for me that over there people dont build homes to last, but if you want to build your home with wood do as you wish ~~ | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:50 Dranak wrote: On the wood vs stone construction discussion, it's also a lot easier to insulate a building with wood/steel stud construction than it is to insulate a stone one. According to some quick google-fu, a standard 2x4 stud constructed wall with standard fiberglass insulation (pretty much the minimum norm anywhere in the US that actually gets cold) is 15 times better than an equivalent thickness of brick/concrete. well we've obviously got fiberglass insulation over here as well and not just bricks / concrete. I don't think it makes a difference at all that way and I agree with someone who posted earlier that it's merely about culture. Where I'm from your own (family) house/home is supposed to last for generations and I just don't think it's practical to use wood if that's the main criteria. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: looks like a heacy explosion but i dont see 40 homes damaged. unless we include some wood on the lawn as damaged. for brick vs wood... well its no question for most people.always was weird for me that over there people dont build homes to last, but if you want to build your home with wood do as you wish ~~ But wood homes do last. In some older areas of cities there are wood homes that are hundreds of years old. | ||
|
Dranak
United States464 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:58 CrtBalorda wrote: That doesnt look like 80 homes have been damaged... In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from... Most of the damage is probably of the sort that doesn't show well in aerial photos- houses shifted off their foundations/foundations cracked by the blast wave nearby, with windows blown out/shingles damaged further away. | ||
|
Dranak
United States464 Posts
On November 17 2012 05:00 Toadesstern wrote: well we've obviously got fiberglass insulation over here as well and not just bricks / concrete. I don't think it makes a difference at all that way and I agree with someone who posted earlier that it's merely about culture. Where I'm from your own (family) house/home is supposed to last for generations and I just don't think it's practical to use wood if that's the main criteria. Obviously you have insulation there, was merely pointing out another advantage of wood (easier/cheaper to apply that insulation). I agree it's mostly about culture driven choices and cost. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
The Fairbanks House in Dedham, Massachusetts is a historic house built between 1637 and 1641 making it the oldest surviving timber-frame house in North America that has been verified by dendrochronology testing. Puritan settler Jonathan Fairebanke constructed the farm house for his wife Grace (Lee Smith) and their family. The house was occupied and then passed down through eight generations of the family until the early 20th century. Over several centuries the original portion was expanded as architectural styles changed and the family grew. ![[image loading]](http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/dedham-fairbanks-house-ma771.jpg) | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:58 CrtBalorda wrote: That doesnt look like 80 homes have been damaged... In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from... Count again, there are 2 houses just completely gone and 2 other houses half missing. That level of umph in an explosion wouldn't just condemn the homes that have been demolished by the explosion but it would also structurally weaken the structures around it, requiring repairs in order to bring them back up to code. On November 17 2012 04:31 omgCRAZY wrote: This happened in my neighbourhood about 2 years ago. 3 people killed. A bunch of houses were deemed unlivable and my house had the outside door including the frame ripped out of the house from the shockwave. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: My house is about 14 houses done from the house that exploded. I guess gas explosions pack more wallop then one would think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8X76e.gif) http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=57411&channelID=311 A quick line between differences in housing markets, the US has more GDP per capita and larger homes, while not dropping in ownership rates, along with more space per capita in homes. And again in terms of natural disasters, heavy winds and flooding such as tornados and hurrcaines timber construction is effective against most, along with things like earthquakes, even if your house is like UK standards of 2 brick layers with filler inbetween, that doesn't work great in high winds+ heavy flooding foundations slip and will break a building no matter what. And in pure high winds your wooden roof is vulnerable and would have to be anchored just as it would have to be in a wooden house, and just becuase a house is made out of brick doesn't make it fireproof, it just means the fire has less to spread on from house to house, the one house will still burn and modern firefighting. It's not like the house will burn up and be in any better condition, the 2nd + floor is likely not made of bricks at best it's reinforced concrete and the roof the same deal. Houses in europe aren't bunkers, i don't get why people are thinking it's 100% brick and covered with a concrete layer to laminate it. On November 17 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote: But wood homes do last. In some older areas of cities there are wood homes that are hundreds of years old. SF Victorian styled houses are quite cherished and old. I think people don't understand the purpose of paint on a house and just think wood auto rots not matter what. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Ladies | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:19 Soap wrote: Here even houses in a slum are built on brick. Only the very poorest homes would be made of sheets of plywood. I can't imagine living in a wooden house. And stone feels way too cumbersome for a modern building. What difference does it make? If you want a house built on brick foundation, you can, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the extra cost. It just isn't very popular throughout most of the US. Also, in regards to this explosion, it would not have made a difference. | ||
|
Penev
28451 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote: You mean illegal fireworks like plastic explosives? lmao. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:58 CrtBalorda wrote: That doesnt look like 80 homes have been damaged... In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from... what happens to windows when bomb goes boom? | ||
|
Tantaburs
Canada1825 Posts
| ||
|
FIStarcraft
United States154 Posts
| ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:21 farvacola wrote: Every single thing I've read suggests that Thai houses are built on stilts and are almost always made of wood or bamboo. I understand that you see an opportunity here to possibly one up NA building standards, but you don't need to lie. http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/203644/virtues-of-the-traditional-thai-house http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Thailand Ummm no I didn't lie. But I might phrase it a little bit incorrectly. There's no one live in that kind of house anymore, especially in Bangkok. Newer house in Bangkok, or in residential district are all built with brick and concrete mostly.The wooden house are still being used, but mostly in poorer family in countryside and slum. The traditional Thai house using special kind of wood is considered a luxurious that only upper-class would build one. So the standard now is brick and concrete for middle-class. People with lower income still live in houses made from wood plank but generally the trend is moving away from them, except for the luxurious Thai house that use special kind of wood (which cost around 1 million USD per house). Please note that I have nothing against house made from wood as a standard. I like to even live in them. But I just want to address that in different country people have different standard for the houses. | ||
|
MooLen
Germany501 Posts
| ||
| ||
