If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by CWatters on August 27, 2006, 5:07 pm
> > In some countries, stone houses are common. In the U.S. most homes are
> > built with wood. Why?
> >
>
> Perhaps because their forests have long since been depleted.
> Perhaps this side of the ocean, stone masons expertise is too expensive
for
> something as large as a home. Stone quarrying is not that expensive. Ask
> your architect why he/she prefers standard wooden walls vice solid stone.
>
> Stone and concrete buildings are common where there is virtually no trees
to
> speak of.
I think the OP meant brick not stone. Here in the UK stone is used as a
cladding (over brick) in parts of the UK but most houses just use brick and
aerated cement block. Many timber frame houses frequently have an outer leaf
of brick.
My understanding of the history in the UK is as follows...
Several hundred years ago when there was still a lot of oak trees many
houses were built of oak. Softwoods like pine wern't suitable due to the
climate. When oak became expensive we switched to brick. Nowadays we have
moderm preservatives and we can build houses from softwoods and we are now
building a lot of timber framed houses.
|
 
| |
Posted by Italian Mason on August 26, 2006, 11:50 pm
The cost of stone, quarry and delivery is very exspensive in this
country much much more than it used to be why? Supply and demand that
is all it is. this is why the cultured stone or FAKE stone market has
more than doubled in the last year alone. Its lighter eaiser to lay
and has a good variety. On top of this most of stone masons in this
country have either died or retired and it really is not something that
was passed on to the next generation....supply and demand....
Just to give you an idea for real stone veneer (just on the outside of
the house) not a true stone hoouse (stone walls ) the average price per
sq' ranges from $25.00 -$35.00
beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> In some countries, stone houses are common. In the U.S. most homes are
> built with wood. Why?
|
|
Posted by housemouse.net on August 28, 2006, 1:03 am
Here is a quote from Downing from the 1850s - being old doesn't mean he
is correct -- but it is of interest to this theme:
"In this country [USA}, from the great abundance and cheapness of wood,
it has, until within a few years, been almost the only material
employed in constructing country houses: but as timber has grown
scarcer in the forest, it has also become dearer, until, in many parts
of the Atlantic States, stone or brick is equally economical.
Wood is acknowledged by all architects to be the worst material for
building, and should never be employed when it is in the power of the
builder to use any other. Its want of durability, the expense of
painting it and keeping it in repair, and its frailness and liability
to decay by the action of the weather, are all very serious objections
to it as a material for dwelling-houses.
A cottage of wood is, from the thinness of the exterior, necessarily
warmer in summer, and colder in winter, than one built of more solid
materials. Filling in with brick decreases this objection, but does not
entirely remove it.
In point of taste, a house built of wood strikes us the least
agreeably, as our pleasure in beholding a beautiful form is marred by
the idea of the frailness of the material composing that form. We are
aware that the almost universal prevalence of wooden country houses in
the United States has weakened this impression, but the strength with
which it strikes an European, accustomed to solidity and permanence in
a dwelling, is the best proof of the truth of our remark.
And even in this country, the change of feeling which is daily taking
place on this subject, shows very plainly in how little estimation wood
will be held as a building material, compared with brick or stone, by
the next generation.
Brick is the next best material to wood, and is every day coming into
more general use. The walls formed of it, if well constructed, have a
solidity and permanence appropriate for a country house, and requiring
little cost to keep it in repair. The offensive hue of red brick walls
in the country is easily removed by coloring them any agreeable tint,
which will also render them dryer and more permanent.
Brick and stucco (that is, a wall built of rough brick, and coated
exteriorly with a cement) is, when well executed, one of the best
materials for cottages or villas. It is much warmer and dryer than
wood, or even stone, and is equal to the latter in external effect,
when marked off and colored to resemble it. We have no doubt that in a
short time it will have a very general preference in most sections of
the Country.
Stone is generally conceded to be superior, on the whole, to any other
material for building. This is owing to its great durability and
solidity, both in expression and in reality; and to its requiring no
trouble to keep it in repair, as it suffers little or no injury from
the action of the elements. "
|
Page 3 of 3 << first < 1 2 3
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Installing a cultured stone wall behind wood stove question | September 2, 2006, 1:30 pm |
| Wood/Wood floor question | March 3, 2008, 2:28 am |
| Cultured Stone | August 25, 2006, 9:58 pm |
| Manufactured Stone | November 7, 2006, 11:38 am |
| cultured stone question again. | September 6, 2006, 1:07 am |
| Building outside steps with stone ?? | February 27, 2007, 6:17 pm |
| Cost of laying stone? | March 22, 2007, 5:39 pm |
| cultured stone v. brick(costs) | October 23, 2006, 12:11 pm |
| Find you stone suppliers in www.stonechina.cn! | November 30, 2006, 7:38 am |
| Compacting crushed stone foundation | November 18, 2008, 12:52 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap