I am a BSc Hons student in Construction Management in Pretoria, South Africa.
I am doing my paper on the buildingtypes, methods and materials such as wood frequently used in USA and other countries. In SA, as a rule, we only build brickhouses and want therefore to do my research on why we don’t use the other methods/materials and need therefore information on these methods/types/materials
I can not get very much information here in SA – can u please help and recommend books, article and websites.
Replies
Different regions/countries vary in the products they manufacture/import/export etc... trade laws play a big part in this. This would have great effect on what you now know to be the "rule" or the "norm". Where I live in the USA (Conn.) wood seems to be the most popular building material for homes. This is mainly because of it's abundance/workability/cost. For commercial buildings, we use metal/masonry. If we want to build a very large building, we use blocks (not bricks) for strength and if we want to construct something where weight is an issue we use metal because it's very lightweight (ie - we might use metal to cantilever where there is no interior load)
Maybe your region has more of the raw materials needed to make bricks, like clay, which in turn has made bricks less expensive to buy/make verses wood.
Good luck with the paper....
Mike
What Mike saidAnd, I'm generalizing some but in a good part of Africa the termites would rapidly destroy a wood framed house.
It is less easy for me to say why you do not build with wood than to say why we do commonly use it here in America and prognosticate in reverse for you.
When America was settled by Europeans spreading across the continent, they found it much covered with trees which needed to be removed in order todevelope farms. So there was an abundance of wood. Originally log homes were built, but later when mills were built using wter power and then steam as it came along about 1830, frame houses with milled lumber was more and more common.
Out in the plains, there were no trees and no easy transport to have lumber so sod houses were built, and in the southwest arid regions, adobe bricks were made and used, because that was a commonly available material.
Modern transportation has now made it possible to have almost any material for a home in almost any part of the country.
So, I would assume that your country has had for much of its building history, a lack of a regular supply of wood suitable for home construction.
I'd welcome you to spend more time here at Breaktime. I'm sure we can all learn plenty from each other.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
A website called http://www.buildingscience.com may explain a little about techniques and reasons fordifferent construction methods, but if I recall correctly, it's more about insulation and vapor barriers (maybe that's just becasue that's what I went to the site to look at). I think there is a site called http://www.forestproducts.com or forestresearchlaboratories or something like that that talks about building with wood. Any good book on framing or timber frame construction would present techniques for wood construction. Taunton should have some books on those subjects.
An interesting thing to note, sort of along the same lines as another post that talked about people building with the materials close at hand, timber framing and log cabins were made when there were lots of big trees available. When "modern" manufacturing came into the picture a little more, people began "balloon" framing because it involved less careful joinery like a timber frame required and the frame could be nailed together. Mills could produce more "dimensional" lumber (like 2 by 4's) in quantity. There were still big trees and so a two story house could be framed with the vertical boards (studs) going the full two stories (16-24 feet or more). The floor joists were either nailed to the studs, or a ledger board was first nailed on or "let in" to the studs and the joists were set on that and nailed.
Later "platform" framing became popular. That is where each story is more independent of the others--the floors become platforms that sit on top of the walls and the stories are sort of stacked on one another. There are several advantages to this method--can use shorter studs, the floors act as fire stops so fire can't go up the stud bays between floors, and the floor platforms make a nice flat place where the walls can be built one at a time and tipped into position.
That's it in a very simplified summary. Facts about balloon framing may not be exactly right (as far as how floor joists are attached to walls) but pretty close.
Isn't there one called the canadian wood council or some such also?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Not sure--mkes sense though. Maybe some of the Canadian posters could help out--though most of them seem to be involved more in the Tavern discussions than anyplace else.
Danno,
Speaking as a Canadian BT poster, you're right.
Ron
Yeah that's it. Lots of illustrations and easy to understand. Metric though.
I heard an interesting story about their representatives travelling in the Former Soviet Union after the brake-up. Many state run mills were left with no customers, and the Wood Council was asked for suggestions. They suggested the two by four, which the Russians had never heard of. This lead to the construction of a model house using North American stick framing techniques, but local building inspectors were reluctant to approve it, simply because they were not familiar with wood frame and couldn't evaluate it. The Canadians took a chainsaw to every second stud in the exterior walls to illustrate the structural redundancy, and the Russians later ended up rewriting their building codes based on the Canadian National Building Code.
Hey joined, Welcome!
As the other posters have told you, the two most obvious reasons for particular types of houses in any region used to be availability of materials and Mother Nature's reaction to materials. Of course local designers and tradespeople were brought up using those materials so that perpetuated their use.
However, newer materials such as plastic, metal, rubber, foams, etc. and the migration of work forces have somewhat changed the local traditions. The ability to move materials and even modular structures long distances has also had an effect.
Then there is style. Americans seem as concerned with the image of their homes as they do with their personal appearance. Looks will usually trump logic. Right now the fad is to build the largest home with the most windows money will allow. In ten years it might be small, efficient houses - a few architects have started that movement. We choose our automobiles the same way.
Because of the mobility of jobs, resale of a house is also a consideration for many buyers, which translates to "build something that 'fits in' and will sell easily when I change jobs".
My town on the coast of Maine is famous for having architecture from all over the world due to the influence of ship captains who saw structures in foreign lands and had them copied here. (Showing off one's wealth is not a new concept.)
Poke around Google and try to get into some Architectural schools or schools with construction offerings. You might get lucky and connect with some students in the US who are doing the same type paper. It's a common assignment. Google is your friend!
Good luck!
These links may help you get started on your research.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7155
http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/rwoodus.asp
It really is a fascinating topic that we sort of take for granted here. Most cultures don't use wood the way we do. But when you consider the whole industry, how they calculate the linear boards that can be sawn from a log cross section, peeling layers for veneers and plywood, using the waste chips for strand board, figuring the maximum benefits with less material for trusses, manufactured joists, laminated beams, pressure-treated lumber for exterior use, etc., it becomes an expansive topic.
You might want to narrow down your search a little. There's lots of sources, but you might be overwhelmed with the information.
Welcome;
Here is the site for the Canadian Wood Council. www.wood-works.org/
Lots of information there. good luck, ; )
I think the primary reason is cost, instead of availability of materials here in the US. We have plenty of clay with which to make bricks, but wood framing is faster and cheaper becaue of labor cost.
There are localized areas in the US where brick has been the primary material, but that usually goes along with affluence and the ability to pay tradespeople for a better product. For instance I drove through Alexandria, Virginia recently, and most homes there built roughly between 1900-1970 are brick. Same with sections of Philidelphia and I'm sure many urban centers which have pockets of affluence.
I believe even in the US, masonry construction is valued as being longer lasting and less maintenance over time, but the low initial cost of wood framing is what allowed our large middle class to become home owners.
I love wood. However, I'd rather my house was made out of brick than the 2X4 and clapboard siding I have....Ithaca, NY "10 square miles, surrounded by reality"
What you said about brick reminded me that several cities, Chicago and San Francisco, most notably, were destroyed by fire in their early years. Perhaps this led to a trend for more use of masonry?
San Francisco doesn't have a lot of masonry because it is in an earthquake region. The 1906 quake started the fire that burned much of the city. In the aftermath city decided to leave space between buildings and stop insulating with newspaper scraps.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The house where I grew up in Montreal was brick with oak floors, stairs, cabinets, wainscoting - all beautifully done by hand in the early part of the last century. The whole district of similar houses was constructed to be bought by middle class people like teachers, and even in the early '60s sold for just $18,000, or about one year of their salary. The only way this was possible was to have a large pool of very poorly paid labourers and trades. When the work was over, they went back to their homes below the tracks. You could say much of the apparent decline in the quality of houses over the years comes from the trades making a decent living.
"You could say much of the apparent decline in the quality of houses over the years comes from the trades making a decent living."
A depressing thought, but I think there is truth in that.
You can build even nicer masonry structures with FREE, slave labor...look at the pyramids!
I wonder if the original poster could compare masonry labor rates in south Africa to what they are in the States. I pay union rates of $65/hr for a mason. Granted that's commercial work, residential might be a bit less.
At that rate I wonder if it would be more economical for S.A. to import Canadian wood and start stick framing?!?
It's good that a mason can make a decent living. It's hard work.Ithaca, NY "10 square miles, surrounded by reality"
“[Deleted]”