How come more new builds don't use all concrete?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is terrible for the environment.

https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth

https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/concrete

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/concrete-climate-change-environmental-injustice/

https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/environmental-impacts-of-concrete/

Maybe the initial cost upfront is more to the environment, but concrete structures use a lot less heating and cooling over the lifetime of the structure. How much environmentally better is building a home with cheaper materials if you have to constantly fix it or even knock them down and build new again when they've reached their end of life? Concrete can last for way longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you say concrete, do you mean brick? Most homes in Europe are built out of bricks, even the cheaper new builds. It blows my mind to see bits of 2 x 4 thrown up on new housing developments over here and then the for sale sign saying ‘starting at the low 900’s’ !! As if I’m paying $900k for a house made out of wood. No f-ing way.

A properly built and maintained wood house lasts essentially forever. There are wood houses in Europe that are a thousand years old.

Modern wood homes don't use anywhere near the same quality of wood anymore. Modern wood is garbage quality and constantly rots, gets easily eaten by termites, and just isn't as strong as what people used to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is expensive. It has terrible ecological impact. It's not very insulating, so you'd still have to insulate it, so the walls would have to be very thick.

A properly built wood house has few problems.

Not true at all. Concrete homes are way better insulated than homes built with wood and walls. You will save as much as 30% in energy in a concrete home.

So tell us, oh building science master, what is the typical wall r-value for a concrete house? And what is code minimum in the US?

Tell me you’ve never heard about ICF without telling me you’ve never heard about ICF.

Oh, I know all about ICF. Or as they say in the building science biz, the "now-discredited ICF."
Go ahead, answer my questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you say concrete, do you mean brick? Most homes in Europe are built out of bricks, even the cheaper new builds. It blows my mind to see bits of 2 x 4 thrown up on new housing developments over here and then the for sale sign saying ‘starting at the low 900’s’ !! As if I’m paying $900k for a house made out of wood. No f-ing way.

A properly built and maintained wood house lasts essentially forever. There are wood houses in Europe that are a thousand years old.

Modern wood homes don't use anywhere near the same quality of wood anymore. Modern wood is garbage quality and constantly rots, gets easily eaten by termites, and just isn't as strong as what people used to use.

Tell me you know nothing about construction without telling me you know nothing about construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is terrible for the environment.

https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth

https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/concrete

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/concrete-climate-change-environmental-injustice/

https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/environmental-impacts-of-concrete/

Maybe the initial cost upfront is more to the environment, but concrete structures use a lot less heating and cooling over the lifetime of the structure. How much environmentally better is building a home with cheaper materials if you have to constantly fix it or even knock them down and build new again when they've reached their end of life? Concrete can last for way longer.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the r-value numbers that show that a concrete building is better-insulated.

[Anonymous]

Go ask this question at GreenBuildingAdvisor.com. They'll laugh you out of the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you say concrete, do you mean brick? Most homes in Europe are built out of bricks, even the cheaper new builds. It blows my mind to see bits of 2 x 4 thrown up on new housing developments over here and then the for sale sign saying ‘starting at the low 900’s’ !! As if I’m paying $900k for a house made out of wood. No f-ing way.

A properly built and maintained wood house lasts essentially forever. There are wood houses in Europe that are a thousand years old.

Modern wood homes don't use anywhere near the same quality of wood anymore. Modern wood is garbage quality and constantly rots, gets easily eaten by termites, and just isn't as strong as what people used to use.

A floor built with I-joists and Advantech is stronger, flatter, quieter than any wooden floor in human history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:concrete walls have an r value of around .1 per inch, so basically a thermal conductive highway.

You use insulated concrete. Typical modern concrete structures are extremely efficient. Pools built with ICF need much less heating, for another example.

Are pools normally built out of wood?

[Anonymous]

Concrete is porous and holds/wicks moisture. In a place like DC it would make a home even more humid. Not to mention over time the concrete will crack and shift as the ground expands and contracts allowing bugs and other creatures in. It is expensive to repair and expensive to cut into, so it would cost more for basic maintenance because trades would require heavy concrete saws/special tools just to connect utilities, etc. It takes a lot longer to do than traditional stick framing, so it costs more. It would increase costs for nearly every aspect of construction and maintenance because it would require a different type of roofing, doors would be harder to install than traditional framing, cabinets harder to install,
plumbing harder to move, etc. Drywall or other wall finishes would require additional stick framing/furring strips outside of the concrete to attach drywall. Dirt would be a problem.

Concrete can last longer but rebar can still rust and concrete can still spall and deteriorate and needs to be repaired. Same is true of bricks/masonry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is expensive. It has terrible ecological impact. It's not very insulating, so you'd still have to insulate it, so the walls would have to be very thick.

A properly built wood house has few problems.

Not true at all. Concrete homes are way better insulated than homes built with wood and walls. You will save as much as 30% in energy in a concrete home. Traditional homes have to be constantly repaired due to rot, insects, and from weathering. How ecologically green is having to replace a traditional roof multiple times over the life of a home, vs a concrete home that may never need a new roof? There are just a lot of problems with traditional homes you don’t have with concrete.

You're revealing your lack of knowledge with the bolded. With a wood-framed house, you can have as much insulation as you want, you just make the walls thicker. When people decide to stop adding insulation it's because of diminishing returns, not because of any fundamental limit to wood frame construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is terrible for the environment.

https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth

https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/concrete

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/concrete-climate-change-environmental-injustice/

https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/environmental-impacts-of-concrete/

Maybe the initial cost upfront is more to the environment, but concrete structures use a lot less heating and cooling over the lifetime of the structure. How much environmentally better is building a home with cheaper materials if you have to constantly fix it or even knock them down and build new again when they've reached their end of life? Concrete can last for way longer.

So here's the thing about building that you don't understand: for the most part, houses don't get torn down because they are structurally deficient and unrepairable. They get torn down because they are functionally obsolete. The low ceilings, small rooms and steep stairs that were the norm a century ago just don't appeal to people any more, and it ends up being more cost-effective to start over than to rework an old house into a modern design.

Which brings up a major disadvantage of concrete houses: they're hard to modify. With wood-frame construction, if you want to add an addition or another floor it's pretty straightforward, there are literally millions of carpenters who are up to the job. And when it's time to tear down that concrete house -- not because it's in danger of falling down, but because it no longer serves its purpose and modifying it would be too expensive -- you'll be sending a lot more waste to the landfill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is expensive. It has terrible ecological impact. It's not very insulating, so you'd still have to insulate it, so the walls would have to be very thick.

A properly built wood house has few problems.

Not true at all. Concrete homes are way better insulated than homes built with wood and walls. You will save as much as 30% in energy in a concrete home.

So tell us, oh building science master, what is the typical wall r-value for a concrete house? And what is code minimum in the US?

Tell me you’ve never heard about ICF without telling me you’ve never heard about ICF.

Termites, ants, carpenter bees, mice and rats all love to tunnel into the foam insulation in ICF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concrete is terrible for the environment.

https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth

https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/concrete

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/concrete-climate-change-environmental-injustice/

https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/environmental-impacts-of-concrete/

Maybe the initial cost upfront is more to the environment, but concrete structures use a lot less heating and cooling over the lifetime of the structure. How much environmentally better is building a home with cheaper materials if you have to constantly fix it or even knock them down and build new again when they've reached their end of life? Concrete can last for way longer.

For the same level of insulation the wood-frame house will use the same energy over its life, but it will cost less and use less energy to build, have thinner walls and generate less waste when it reaches the end of its life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you say concrete, do you mean brick? Most homes in Europe are built out of bricks, even the cheaper new builds. It blows my mind to see bits of 2 x 4 thrown up on new housing developments over here and then the for sale sign saying ‘starting at the low 900’s’ !! As if I’m paying $900k for a house made out of wood. No f-ing way.

A properly built and maintained wood house lasts essentially forever. There are wood houses in Europe that are a thousand years old.

Modern wood homes don't use anywhere near the same quality of wood anymore. Modern wood is garbage quality and constantly rots, gets easily eaten by termites, and just isn't as strong as what people used to use.

Tell me you know nothing about construction without telling me you know nothing about construction.

Triggered builder is posting.

[Anonymous]

I want a straw bale house.