Stone building good. Wood building bad

All it takes is a match

Have you heard of earthquakes?

Attached: images (87).jpg (678x452, 58.77K)

What are you talking about fren? You can get R21 walls easily with wood.

The rest of the world doesn't live on the ring of fire, and building out of wood has issues of its own. Fuck off and stop obsessing you moron. Your culture was given to you by China and your modern state was created by American manlets. Nothing to be proud of.

Wood rots and can be used for firewood.
Rocks can't rot and can't burn.

stop having earthquake, then, they're shit and annoying anyway

Masonry cracks and has mediocre insulation value. Wood doesnt rot unless it gets wet and cant dry out.

Besides europoors didnt know what the fuck they where doing with timber framed buildings like pic related right?

Attached: 3dab504ad9a102a7b4d91f569f392ac7.jpg (321x350, 38.82K)

Have you ever heard about cold drafty castles? Stone is sturdy, but it isn't a good insulator.

greater sound insulation
greater heat insulation
greater structural strength
greater fire resistance

stone is superior, hirohito needs to make interlocking stone blocks just like he made interlocking wood

>Batt is rated to 1200C heat rating
>Batt has just as good sound insulation
>Batt has R22 walls and E60 roofs
>wood frame homes have 265pkh wind rating
So what's the point friend? I've yet to see passive homes made from masonry yet.

no offense but to me it sounds like your country suffers from 3rd world construction practices, everyone knows that a house, even a tiny little 2 or 3 story house is built with cement, concrete carrying walls and brick support walls
not only do you never have to care about the wind rating because there is no wind on earth that can knock it down (at least in europe lol), there is also no maintenance.. one and done

i just dont understand why'd you build a house you can knock down with a sturdy pair of boots when you can build stuff that not even a truck can go through
plus no mold

fire proof wood exists

Yes, because all american construction practices are the same. I live in a small 93sqm home its made of concrete masonry units. Masonry isn't set and forget as you have to make sure the weathering and insulating barrier to the wall is checked out. Its not set and forget. Concrete homes in my state must be rated to 321kmph wind rating, while your walls may be fine masonry isnt meant to have load pushing on the walls. Pic related this building had a wind of 400+kph bearing load on the walls.
Also a proper wood frame home doesnt get mold as its sealed and even older homes dont due to ventilation and not having top plates.

Attached: 343364634.jpg (700x951, 224.38K)

oh christ, cinder blocks and brick facade....

mate, you are making an extreme issue out of nothing
literally every single building is built like this all over the world (or at least in europe, ive personally worked on and built 7 houses in the balkans)
1) you set the rebar/steel/iron reinforcements for concrete
2) you set up smooth surfaces around the steel frames
3) you pour the concrete into the space between smooth surfaces with steel reinforcements
4) you ply the smooth surfaces off
voila: what is left is steel reinforced concrete, the most fucking basic construction practice in the world, steel reinforced concrete

cant believe a world superpower is using some subpar jewish trickery like.. brick facade or wood, a fucking wood, a dog house fucking material

jesus fuck even the cheapest village house is built like this

Attached: beton zid.png (1512x912, 2.27M)

Its pretty cool, but intricate construction doesn't make it better

Interesting, whats the R value of those walls my friend? Also in terms of roofing joists how do you do them as well?

interesting? no man, its the ONLY way i have ever seen construction being constructed and i worked on 7 different construction sites so far over my tiny career of 2 years
>r value
not sure what you mean, maybe you mean heat insulation, thats not what construction is about, construction here is about strength and stability/carrying capacity, this is what we concern ourselves with at this point, later on you can put as thick layers of stone wool, glass wool, styrofoam, facade, panels of whatever thickness and insulation you consider is adequate for you

but you CANT build a CORE construction out of FUCKING WOOD
carrying walls, support beams, THE FRAME simply MUST be steel reinforced concrete

otherwise its not a building, what you are building is some weird montage toy house or ask God what are you even doing if you are not pouring concrete over rebar

>wood
>tensile strength

Attached: standard rebar construction.png (672x502, 884.82K)

Interesting, most euros I see tend to build most homes with timber framing. But then again homes here are disposable, since the average american lives in about 4-10 homes though their lifetime. Im 25 and I already own 3 homes.

well this is a complete culture shock for me
only construction practice i know is, you cant even call something a house or a home if its made out of wood
wood = temporary/montage object, but it is most certainly not a construction
if you want to register a house or a building or a piece of construction, it has to have a proper foundation and a proper frame, all of which absolutely must be made out of (at the minimal requirement, at least) steel reinforced concrete
yes even some backwater village house, if its 'a house' it must have a proper frame and foundation
wood (or plastics or.. cloth or rubber or whatever else crazy material you can think of) is NOT a construction grade material

>houses are disposable
yeah but it requires bulldozers, cranes and controlled demolition, it is a process so when you build something you build it for 500+ years lol, its a labor intensive process you dont want to build without planning a bit first

Smoke of which is going to kill you faster than the fire itself

>Post Varg charicature
>Most historical building in Norway are made of wood
>Most housing in Norway in general is built in wood

Im learning just as much as you my friend.
As last time I went to western europe they have timber frame buildings built in the 1300s that are still standing like pic related.
Now all modern construction does have steel reinforced concrete foundations granted those can get ripped up by tornadoes as well. Question I really have is how much is it per square meter to build concrete reinforced buildings? Its about $3500/sqm for building with reinforced concrete.

Attached: museum-Anne-Hvides-Gard-Den-Svendborg.jpg (1600x1188, 1.33M)

yeah I don't get why euros keep saying wood houses are fragile when their continent is covered in buildings like that

Nigger what
Concrete blocks are garbage at insulation and freezing fuck everything up the moment you have water entering your shit

Its literally timber and mud.

no fucking way, this discussion is getting more and more insane

concrete is 1:3 cement (1) and construction grade sand/fraction (so grain size between 1 and 2, fine sand)
my supplier is бeoчин, local construction concrete supplier and he sells a 50 kilo (110 pound) bag of concrete for 6.2$ per bag
fine sand or fraction (size 1, thats 0.4mm) costs me 0.9$ per 50kilo bag (110 pounds)
6x2 meters, 4mm thick rebar net (pic related) i have a supplier from ukraine, his price is ~13$ per net since this is a very poor quality steel, you do not need any better
with labor costs, a fucking illiterate manual laborer can be trained to set this up i could find workers in balkans for 3$/hour

total cost of a sqm of reinforced concrete over there would be 3500$? over here it would be 400$

holy christ, building stuff here costs 10 times less

thats a literal museum

Attached: reo-2-dark.jpg (900x900, 144.11K)

I'd like to pitch in to this conversation, that a single family house built in Scandinavia, will usually be built almost exlusively using wood.

The reasons for this are for example, but not limited to;
-Flexible material that can whitstand drastic temperature changes through out the seasons
-Cheaply avaliable in Scandinavia
-Inexpensive, and low effort maintance

The foundation itself, would be naturally be a continiously solid bric or concrete basin from the ground, all the way up to the first floor, or basement.
And larger buildings would of course be constructed as you showed exaples of.

I might also add that here, a "carpenter" would not be the one setting up the frame of the house itself. That is concidered a seperate profession that I believe is best transalated as a "timberer",

Attached: Hus.jpg (650x460, 106.22K)

(400$ i'd charge is pure materials and labor, land prices are obviously much more, heavy machinery like cranes, bulldozers, claw diggers etc can also go from 100$ per hour to 500$ per hour depending on the project requirements, how many are needed etc)