The same reason people don’t build wooden ovens.

Great explanation

Yep. I'm a paramedic and the same happens if your blood pressure drops (due to medication or other reasons)

My house is is 175 years old. It has a stone foundation but wood framing. We've gutted this house and there's tons of rot to the siding, windows, sill beams etc. it was very expensive to fix. But the framing itself is solid- bc they used timber pretty much raw from a tree. They are MASSIVE from natural forest grown trees that were very old which makes the material denser. Code today for modern builds are flimsy by comparison that is generally farm grown from younger trees, so the wood is softer and more porous. I'm a real estate agent have seen modern (1960s and newer) falling apart structurally. Literally.

So yes, houses built from wood 100 years ago are likely very sturdy bc the materials while wood were of much higher quality. BUT a lot of those old wood frame homes are a major fire hazard due to the framing style often popular then (balloon frame used until I think the 1930s.) you probably won't be seeing modern new builds lasting 100 years without significant and expensive maintenance. A stone or brick house generally is a lot more fire resistant so that's an added benefit

With some pizza places, the driver collects all the money and has to pay back the amount owing for the food and they keep the rest...ie they deliver 5 orders that cost $10 each, they pay the restaurant $50 and they keep any extra.

I’d say because cigarettes are toxic. Possibly due to the poison your inhaling or the poor diet you seem to have. Either way drink some water and stop smoking while your ahead.

[removed]

That is what a fascade is for....

Your answer is way better than mine

Wood frame buildings are viable because of drywall and fiberglass insulation. Drywall is cheap and essentially hangs from the wood frame, while the fiberglass insulation is lightweight, thin, and a better insulator than pretty much anything else.

Without those two things, you can't build a wood frame building - the entire building needs to be made out of wood then sealed with something like tar, which isn't a particularly good insulator. In a world without drywall or fiberglass insulation, brick is both cheaper than wood and a better insulating material.

Many European buildings date back to a time before drywall and fiberglass insulation existed. Northern and Western Europe, where you tend to see the most brick buildings, also don't suffer from natural disasters like Earthquakes or hurricanes. So even though brick buildings aren't particularly survivable in much of the world, they are survivable in certain parts of Europe.

That being said, new construction using brick more or less does not exist in wealthy countries. The vast, vast majority of "brick" is actually textured vinyl siding. It looks and feels like brick, but its basically just plastic wallpaper that's been glued to whatever is underneath. Where brick is used, its actually reinforced brickwork where a steel skeleton is what's providing structural strength and the brick is basically just decorative.

Brick is really only used as a construction material in very poor countries where the cost of labor is very low. The most expensive part of unreinforced brickwork is that its labor intensive to lay - the brick itself is cheap to make and doesn't require any sort of skilled labor at any point in the brick making/laying process. If the cost of labor in your country is extremely low, then so is the cost of brick construction.

It's because, generally speaking, there's not as much lumber available in Europe as compared to in North America... historicaly they used the available wood for things like furniture and for heating.

Wood homes are not rebuilt though. They also last incredibly long. There are neighbourhoods where I am from filled with 100 year old wood homes. Maybe because we dont have termites here as much?

Plus, in my opinion at least, brick and stone are more aesthetically pleasing.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Wood housing is more susceptible to mould and pest issues than brick, and if you live where there are termites, the eco-cost of ongoing treatment has to be added to the normal cost. It can be extremely toxic. If you live where rain is frequent, brick lasts much longer.

When considering natural disaster, flexible wood frames are excellent for areas that are earthquake prone, less so for fire. In some parts of the world, the cost associated with using a fire resistant external wood is just too high. Ironbark is fire resistant, but very expensive and difficult to shape. Insurance may refuse to cover housing in fire prone areas without specific metal or brick window surrounds.

Generally it's insect and wet damage, however.

It’s really not a reasonable amount of time. A house should last many generations and be fully repairable/maintainable outside of pretty extreme acts of God.

I'd rather make something that lasts then something easy. Passing down a property is an excellent source of generational wealth. Better to have inherited a sturdy 170 year old home made of brick or stone then a house falling to pieces at 80 years. Plus it's better for the environment to not have rebuild new homes.

Both are bad for humans in terms of the smoke generated.

For the forest environment, many forests rely on naturally occurring forest fires as part of its normal life cycle. Some trees and plants only have their seeds erupt when exposed to fire or the aftermath of fires. Fire helps clear out the underbrush regularly while older trees survive with little damage.

However, once humans start living near forests, they don't want them to catch on fire. Fires are stopped before they can clean out the forest. They also start diverting all the water elsewhere and cut down the old large trees for their own usage.

Now we have dry conditions and an overgrowth of underbrush due to a lack of fires. This makes any forest fire much larger and hotter, able to burn even the largest trees that typically survive fires.

That seems like an excessively long time. Wood frame houses last 100 years as well, and that is more than a reasonable amount of time.

I mean.. Europe has houses still standing that are hundreds of years old. Quality over speed my friend

Cheaper, faster to build, better insulative properties, easier to modify. As I understand, brick is more durable, but I dont think Europe gets much hurricanes or Tornadoes...

Why do they seem like the better choice across the board?

There are two different, competing environmental issues here:

1. Humans burning things releases carbon into the atmosphere, which has raised the average global temperature and caused issues around the world. That's why you're not supposed to burn wood, it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere and makes it worse.

2. Forests naturally have occasional fires without human intervention. There are parts of that ecosystem which rely on having a fire happen every so often (for example, some pine cones do not open up and spread their seeds unless exposed to fire). Humans however don't like forest fires because they sometimes spread to their homes and businesses, so historically they've been suppressed as far as possible. This has had a negative effect on those ecosystems that are dependent on occasional fires.

In other words: some plants and animals will die out without some forest fires. We want to stop this. It does release carbon into the atmosphere, but it's deemed an acceptable tradeoff for the forest ecosystem continuing to exist. However, humans burning wood is not necessary for them to continue to exist, and the mass burning of wood may actually harm humanity's chances of continuing to exist. So that practice is regulated.

[removed]

Lots of small forest fires are better than a few huge forest fires. Without human intervention forest fires should be frequent but small. When humans prevent all fires the fuel accumulates and eventually turns into a huge fire that cannot be controlled and does more damage than a lot of little fires combined. The idea of controlled fires deliberately set by humans is to simulate nature without allowing random fires in inhabited areas.

I don’t know the reasoning behind your local laws. But that’s the reasoning behind controlled forest fires.