Materials are regional. Woods easily accessible in Canada and USA, so it’s the predominate material.
Wood and plaster isn’t the most ideal material, but it serves it purpose for the expected longevity in f its purpose. It’s not gonna last as long as stone, but at the same time, does everything need to? People do like change as well.
They can build it stronger, but why waste the money? If a Honda works, why always buy a tank? Not everyone likes them as well.
Yeah, there’s a good argument to be made that right now, we shouldn’t be optimizing our homes to last for centuries. Think about how much life has changed in the last century or two. Think of just how differently people live now compared to then. The only way anyone today is living in a 200 year old house is if that home has been extensively renovated, likely gutted down to the bare stone walls, just to make it livable. Ultra durable architecture makes a lot of sense if population and tech levels are stable over many centuries. If a community is going to look reasonably similar 200 years from now as it does today, then designing buildings to last centuries is rational. But in times of rapid change, there’s no point in making a building last forever, if it’s going to be hopelessly obsolete in just a century or two.
Very well said. The other consideration is that many regions of USA are more prone to earthquakes, and wood structures can flex in a way that concrete and brick cannot. Wood is fine for most people.
Materials are regional. Woods easily accessible in Canada and USA, so it’s the predominate material.
Wood and plaster isn’t the most ideal material, but it serves it purpose for the expected longevity in f its purpose. It’s not gonna last as long as stone, but at the same time, does everything need to? People do like change as well.
They can build it stronger, but why waste the money? If a Honda works, why always buy a tank? Not everyone likes them as well.
Yeah, there’s a good argument to be made that right now, we shouldn’t be optimizing our homes to last for centuries. Think about how much life has changed in the last century or two. Think of just how differently people live now compared to then. The only way anyone today is living in a 200 year old house is if that home has been extensively renovated, likely gutted down to the bare stone walls, just to make it livable. Ultra durable architecture makes a lot of sense if population and tech levels are stable over many centuries. If a community is going to look reasonably similar 200 years from now as it does today, then designing buildings to last centuries is rational. But in times of rapid change, there’s no point in making a building last forever, if it’s going to be hopelessly obsolete in just a century or two.
Very well said. The other consideration is that many regions of USA are more prone to earthquakes, and wood structures can flex in a way that concrete and brick cannot. Wood is fine for most people.