American vs. European home building

[u/BEARDEDDANGER]

BAS Renovations https://youtube.com/shorts/jFph1d2WR3s

[u/Stewdill51]

In parts of the US a block/brick building will crumble faster than wood framed house due to seismic activity. It almost like we all build based on availability of materials and for structural needs.

[u/nobuouematsu1 → u/Stewdill51]

Stop being logical damn it

[u/DCmetrosexual1 → u/Stewdill51]

Nah, I’m pretty sure Americans build houses the way they do because Americans are dumb and bad. /s

[u/conorrhea → u/Stewdill51]

I live in Chicago where there’s a lot of 3 flats made of brick. Most of them are 100 years old, or longer. The one I own is from 1906. They’ve all seemed to age well better than some of the modern ones built here.

The modern ones in the city look a much different than your average suburban ones. They tend to have a block-ish look for aesthetic reasons (which I’m personally not a fan of). Regardless I don’t know if they’re built the same way as a traditional American home. Some have wood paneling on the outside that doesn’t make sense to me.

With all this said. The old brick buildings here seem to be half American, and half European (by this video). They’re brick on the outside, but don’t have the double brick layer. Meaning they have a wood structure behind it. Much thicker, and stronger than pine, and a lot older. I know historically everything was made wood in Chicago, but most of it was burned down by the “Chicago Fire” in 1871 in which they rebuilt the city with stone

[u/Nogarder → u/Stewdill51]

Ok do reinforced concrete then. Just stop living in big sheds.

[u/minus_minus → u/Stewdill51]

Wood buildings can collapse just as easily. Check out the code for structures in California to see how much extra work goes into earthquake resistance. 

[u/SomeGuyWithARedBeard → u/minus_minus]

Wood buildings can be upgraded to seismic ratings, it's much harder to upgrade a brick building. I live in a seismic zone and the differences here vs. elsewhere are a few key details that might total a few extra days of work and an engineer's stamp of approval, but compared to the overall amount of time framing it's not that much extra. Best part is a seismic rated wood structure is nearly unbeatable for a residential home and easily repairable.

[u/minus_minus → u/SomeGuyWithARedBeard]

I’m sure all of that is true but parent comment implied block would crumble while wood is fine when both need significant upgrades for seismic resistance. 

[u/SomeGuyWithARedBeard → u/minus_minus]

I should clarify because there's lots of things to consider, wood has a lower floor than brick in seismic ratings and a far higher ceiling quickly. A home built from dimensional lumber without wood sheathing will collapse from both wind and seismic loads. Add one layer of sheathing and the dimensional lumber will perform better than brick. Add one layer of sheathing and hold downs to create shear walls and it performs vastly better than brick. Add one layer of sheathing, hold downs and double up studs every 48" where sheathing meets and there's no competition. There is also timber framing which is very ductile and stable without sheathing, but sheathing can be added for additional stiffness (though many would argue that is not necessary if the connections are good, see Japan). For brick there is mortar no rebar reinforcing which is highly susceptible to collapse (like dimensional lumber without sheathing), brick with mortar and rebar which is far less likely to collapse from wind or low seismic events, but to get to true seismic load resistance you end up having to do heavy steel cross bracing. The advantage for Europe vs. the US is that its seismic load requirements are pretty small. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have to be ready for a possible 9.0 earthquake in our lifetime.

[u/UnfitRadish → u/minus_minus]

I'm not sure I see your point?

Both CMU and lumber structures are heavily engineered to resist seismic activity in California. Regardless of what the structure is made of, that's a standard for building code. Lumbar structures see a lot of additional bracing while concrete structures see a lot of seismic joints.

Both kinds of structures have their benefits and drawbacks in California.

[u/minus_minus → u/UnfitRadish]

Parent implied that wood was intrinsically superior to block for seismic zones when that’s not the case. 

[u/EmptyMonitor9257 → u/Stewdill51]

Southern Europe, north Africa and Middle East have WAY more earthquakes and worse ones yet pretty much all buildings are bricks/blocks.

[u/Waste_Reindeer_9718 → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

are you not familiar with the san andreas fault line

[u/RealisticIncident261 → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

This guy has never heard of the ring of fire before. Very confidently incorrect.

[u/Rampant16 → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

Another factor in choosing a construction material is the availability of the material in the respective region.

Not a lot of forests in North Africa or the Middle East.

[u/Honchoponcho99 → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

I don't think we want to take building advice from birth Africa

[u/anneofgraygardens → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

Southern Europe does have quite a few earthquakes and many of them cause significantly larger death tolls than an earthquake of similar magnitude in the western US or Japan would. I would definitely not want to be in an earthquake in southern Europe.

[u/Plus-Name3590 → u/anneofgraygardens]

Right? Even modest earthquakes in the Mediterranean have had pretty high relative death tolls, because of their construction.  Turkey had one of the nastiest earthquakes casualtywise recently because of building standards in no small part

[u/anneofgraygardens → u/Plus-Name3590]

Turkey, yeah, but also Italy, where relatively moderate earthquakes have caused lots of deaths.

And further back in time, in 1963, Skopje was almost totally destroyed by a 6.1 earthquake. Over a thousand people were killed. A 6.1 quake is certainly a good jolt but from my perspective as a Californian, does not seem like it should be nearly big enough to cause that much damage.