• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

We only build with wood because it’s cheap

classicT said:
We only build with wood because it's cheap...

Yup, we only drive Honda/Toyota/Ford/etc. because they are cheap too. Maybe if we weren't all so cheap, we'd all drive Bugatti's.

I'd say this has been over-simplified a bit too far and gone into the ridiculous realm.
Click to expand...

Cheap and readily available. Sounds like I struck a chord here
 
jar546 said:
Cheap and readily available. Sounds like I struck a chord here
Click to expand...
I am just not sure what your point is, or if you were even really trying to make one.

"We only build with wood because it's cheap" is only a half-truth. We build with wood because it is one of the most reliable materials and because it is inexpensive.
 
A building official is not allowed to like a particular type of construction but must enforce the code.
 
Mark K said:
A building official is not allowed to like a particular type of construction but must enforce the code.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of construction types and methods that I like and dislike but I only enforce the code as written, not what I like or don't like. I can like an dislike what I want but that cannot and does not influence my very objective, code decisions.
 
classicT said:
I am just not sure what your point is, or if you were even really trying to make one.

"We only build with wood because it's cheap" is only a half-truth. We build with wood because it is one of the most reliable materials and because it is inexpensive.
Click to expand...

What I was doing was sharing a video that I found and taking an unrealistic position out of fun which ended up poking the bear with some people. I don't have a point from a technical aspect, just presenting information. The wood industry is a very active and powerful industry. Concerning the issues with earthquakes, I don't see California building hospitals or high rises out of wood. I am still of the opinion that wood is simply cheaper to build with due to the cost of the material and labor but comes at a cost for longevity. You can't compare a 200 year old structure built with heavy timber to a new home built with I-Joists and 2x4 trusses for longevity purposes. This is, of course, just my opinion.
 
California has revised the fire regulations that would allow taller and bigger CLT wood buildings

The basic constraint on high-rises is the need to resist lateral loads such as wind or earthquake. All wood systems for high rises would not have the necessary strength and stiffness. I could imagine some fairly tall buildings that used a CLT floor system but which had a fairly conventional steel or concrete lateral systems. This concern is not limited to California.

I do not see any California code provisions that de facto prevent the use of a wood structural system for hospitals. But given the need to poke holes in the floors and the many other supposedly non-structural considerations I believe that there would still be a preference for steel buildings. For similar reasons I would not recommend the use of post tensioned concrete floor systems in hospitals. This is based on experience trying to accommodate new medical equipment in an existing hospital with a PT floor system.

The point is that there are some types of buildings that are not suitable for wood construction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top