Wood vs Concrete Construction

This sounds like trying to make a big deal out of something that Europe has been doing for years.Sure, these are "cement like" instead of wooden but otherwise nothing that interesting here. It is common to overskin these pre-made houses with render or bricks if needed for more protection but most wooden framed houses don't get blown down by high winds in Europe, mostly roofs getting blown off from buildings where they weren't tied down properly.

What are you talking about? The whole of northern Europe is pretty much built with wood (perhaps with the exception of Iceland?). It is a great construction material. The downsides are that it's comparably expensive and the international know-how is low, since few countries have the amount of wood required.It's also hard to fireproof without modern technology. But you can still build in modules and with modern technology the cost difference isn't that great for low rise areas.

In New Zealand we have construction not dissimilar to the USA, from how Americans in HN describe house construction. 100+ year old wooden houses are common here.Construction evolves due to avaliable resources and local conditions. Transplanting a technique from one country to on other won't necessarily work.If you have earthquakes such as in NZ, USA or Japan building concrete houses does not make a lot of sense.

Wood has advantages. For one, insulation is easier. A lot of the current best practices for insulating a brick building are basically to build a different kind of building, insulate it, and then add a cosmetic brick facade. But in a Mediterranean climate insulation is less of a concern and some thermal mass to even out the evening vs daytime temperature is enough. Sturdy is a matter of what you're trying to achieve - for example wood is superior in earthquake zones. But the real deciding fa

I am a civil-structural engineering and have obvious bias for Concrete. Over here in India, literally all houses are built using Concrete and Burnt-Clay-Brick / Fly-Ash-Brick Masonry. I hope Concrete gets promoted more as a building material. They buildings which are professionally designed easily withstand 2500 Year Return Period magnitude earthquakes. Last time I enquired on HN about preference for Wood in US (remote areas) Building Materials, someone said, can't design house venera

I suspect it is strongly down to culture and experience (i.e. "common wisdom" is wrong on both sides of the Atlantic). In North America, most everything is built in wood. There are plenty of houses approaching 100 years that are just fine. Good insulation exists and is used. Infestations aren't generally a problem in European climates. There are plenty of techniques for dampening sound.The point is, in North America, everyone builds with wood so it is very difficult (expensive)

Why don't they use reinforced concrete since they're in an earthquake and fire zone? This wood seems so temporary.

I wonder if using wood (2x4's, OSB) as a structural material has a negative impact on long-term durability. In North America, virtually all residential single-family construction is wood-frame, which is unusual compared to most other countries.Masonry, insulating concrete forms (ICF), and poured concrete have superior fire-resistance, insulating properties (thermal and acoustic), and strength--and no need to worry about termites.I don't fully understand why wood-frame constructio

The US used to build using brick and mortar. It was abandoned because it was unsafe, most of those buildings were destroyed by environmental hazards that Europe does not have. Consequently, most housing in the US for the last century or more primarily uses wood, which does survive the hazards endemic to the US.In most of the US, only wood or steel frame construction is safe. Wood houses last centuries.

In dense US cities maybe. Most US homes are built with wood. ~90% of US home constructions are wood framed.