Utopia Talk - Politics - Why are US houses so flimsy?

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon May 18 19:51:51 UTC 2026

Utopia Talk / Politics / Why are US houses so flimsy?

williamthebastard
rank Mon May 18 07:11:45
I always wondered about articles about cars driving into homes in the USA. If you drive a car into a house in Europe, in most cases all thats going to happen is the car will get busted up. But its not uncommon to read about a car ending up in someones living room in US media. Then when I went to the USA, I saw close up that while homes look similar, they look flimsier, the walls look like theyre made of paper in comparison.

The reason is, they are. Theyre all built of flimsy wood in a country full of forest fires and hurricanes, unlike Europe where brick houses are brick houses, not wooden houses with a brick facade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vhlvoWmA4

Sam Adams
rank Mon May 18 08:32:18
No one with an ounce of scientific skill thinks brick construction is stronger than wood. While the brick itself is decently strong, the brick-mortar interface is horribly weak and will fail in a pretty small earthquake or any decently sized hurricane or tornado. Then you have heavy bricks falling on you and you die.

Brick is the absolute last building material to use in earthquake country and near the bottom vs extreme wind.

The only time bricks win is verse fire... alas the places in the US that tend to get fires also tend to get quakes and quakes... Without warning... Are much scarier.

Now if you live in the northeast US or most of Europe... Places that don't really get threatened by storms or quakes... Then brick is ok.

TheChildren
rank Mon May 18 08:44:47
muricanesium

thats why. its sturdy..until termintes or fires wipe it out in 5 min

than da truth comes out. its basically made out of cheese. sturdy when cold. melts like butter when warm

williamthebastard
rank Mon May 18 08:48:18
Theyre actually called "disposable homes". US wood huts last for about 70 years, while european stone houses last about 700 years

Sam Adams
rank Mon May 18 09:41:28
Euro cars are also tiny.

Who wants to live in a 700 year old house from an era with primitive construction techniques? Give me my modern giant windows and open concept interior, oh and straight lines without centuries of settling and sagging.

williamthebastard
rank Mon May 18 10:10:07
What the hell is the Lying Pedophile waffling about? Small cars? Wood is as strong as concrete? lol...Like Trump, everything is an attack on their fragile small penis-insecurity.

williamthebastard
rank Mon May 18 10:15:02
The building I live in in France is twice the age of the USA, once upon a time the office building for the local church here.

Of course, the outer walls are 2 foot thick stone walls, cool in the summer, warm in the winter, and any car trying to smash into this building would be reduced to rubble.

jergul
rank Mon May 18 11:15:18
Plywood is the problem for the US. It has poor construction variation tolerance. The house is screwed if the builder messes up the wall ventilation and is a total nightmare with water leaks from piping or condensation.

Sam Adams
rank Mon May 18 12:51:24
"Wood is as strong as concrete?"

Wtb you should really work on your thinking problem. You said brick. Not concrete. But if you do want to talk about concrete:

Concrete by itself is extremely shitty in earthquake country, though unlike hopelessly worthless brick that should never be part of any modern structure, concrete can at least be a component of a very solid structure with a bit of help from other materials. And without quake risk concrete is great.

"The building I live in in France is twice the age of the USA"

Ya society does generally relegate poor people to older, shittier buildings.

Rugian
rank Mon May 18 13:04:29
Wood has stronger earthquake resistance than brick and lumber is plentiful here so it's much cheaper to use.

...does this thread really need to continue beyond that?

williamthebastard
rank Mon May 18 13:39:51
So according to AI, the reason so many houses even in wildfire prone regions like California still choose wood is because they have to choose between equal risks of fire or earthquake, and wood being cheaper, they usually choose that risk lol

williamthebastard
rank Mon May 18 13:43:59
Apparently its standard engineering today in most cases to prepare stone buildings for earthquakes, it just costs more, so flimsy wood buildings that burn like tinder are really just about being cheap.

jergul
rank Mon May 18 16:39:33
Stone is a complete different material. It is ludicrously strong, way stronger that concrete. Granite close to an order of magnitude stronger.

Forwyn
rank Mon May 18 16:44:53
"Apparently its standard engineering today in most cases to prepare stone buildings for earthquakes, it just costs more"

Where? Japan also uses primarily wood for residential builds, and they lead the world in quake-resistant engineering.

show deleted posts

williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 07:11:45 I always wondered about articles about cars driving into homes in the USA. If you drive a car into a house in Europe, in most cases all thats going to happen is the car will get busted up. But its not uncommon to read about a car ending up in someones living room in US media. Then when I went to the USA, I saw close up that while homes look similar, they look flimsier, the walls look like theyre made of paper in comparison. The reason is, they are. Theyre all built of flimsy wood in a country full of forest fires and hurricanes, unlike Europe where brick houses are brick houses, not wooden houses with a brick facade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vhlvoWmA4
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 18 08:32:18 No one with an ounce of scientific skill thinks brick construction is stronger than wood. While the brick itself is decently strong, the brick-mortar interface is horribly weak and will fail in a pretty small earthquake or any decently sized hurricane or tornado. Then you have heavy bricks falling on you and you die. Brick is the absolute last building material to use in earthquake country and near the bottom vs extreme wind. The only time bricks win is verse fire... alas the places in the US that tend to get fires also tend to get quakes and quakes... Without warning... Are much scarier. Now if you live in the northeast US or most of Europe... Places that don't really get threatened by storms or quakes... Then brick is ok.
TheChildren rank	Mon May 18 08:44:47 muricanesium thats why. its sturdy..until termintes or fires wipe it out in 5 min than da truth comes out. its basically made out of cheese. sturdy when cold. melts like butter when warm
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 08:48:18 Theyre actually called "disposable homes". US wood huts last for about 70 years, while european stone houses last about 700 years
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 18 09:41:28 Euro cars are also tiny. Who wants to live in a 700 year old house from an era with primitive construction techniques? Give me my modern giant windows and open concept interior, oh and straight lines without centuries of settling and sagging.
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 10:10:07 What the hell is the Lying Pedophile waffling about? Small cars? Wood is as strong as concrete? lol...Like Trump, everything is an attack on their fragile small penis-insecurity.
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 10:15:02 The building I live in in France is twice the age of the USA, once upon a time the office building for the local church here. Of course, the outer walls are 2 foot thick stone walls, cool in the summer, warm in the winter, and any car trying to smash into this building would be reduced to rubble.
jergul rank	Mon May 18 11:15:18 Plywood is the problem for the US. It has poor construction variation tolerance. The house is screwed if the builder messes up the wall ventilation and is a total nightmare with water leaks from piping or condensation.
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 18 12:51:24 "Wood is as strong as concrete?" Wtb you should really work on your thinking problem. You said brick. Not concrete. But if you do want to talk about concrete: Concrete by itself is extremely shitty in earthquake country, though unlike hopelessly worthless brick that should never be part of any modern structure, concrete can at least be a component of a very solid structure with a bit of help from other materials. And without quake risk concrete is great. "The building I live in in France is twice the age of the USA" Ya society does generally relegate poor people to older, shittier buildings.
Rugian rank	Mon May 18 13:04:29 Wood has stronger earthquake resistance than brick and lumber is plentiful here so it's much cheaper to use. ...does this thread really need to continue beyond that?
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 13:39:51 So according to AI, the reason so many houses even in wildfire prone regions like California still choose wood is because they have to choose between equal risks of fire or earthquake, and wood being cheaper, they usually choose that risk lol
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 13:43:59 Apparently its standard engineering today in most cases to prepare stone buildings for earthquakes, it just costs more, so flimsy wood buildings that burn like tinder are really just about being cheap.
jergul rank	Mon May 18 16:39:33 Stone is a complete different material. It is ludicrously strong, way stronger that concrete. Granite close to an order of magnitude stronger.
Forwyn rank	Mon May 18 16:44:53 "Apparently its standard engineering today in most cases to prepare stone buildings for earthquakes, it just costs more" Where? Japan also uses primarily wood for residential builds, and they lead the world in quake-resistant engineering.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: