Re:"Americans sense that something is wrong with the places ...
by anigbrowl on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:53AM
(#2011415)
Well, I did point this out - and having rebuilt a few houses in the city when I was younger, I admit the wood frame approach is economical and affordable too. On the other hand, concrete and steel are equally viable but seem relatively unpopular for residential buildings.
Re:"Americans sense that something is wrong with the places ...
by billswift on Thursday December 16, 2010 @12:22PM
(#2012778)
The problem with concrete and structural steel is that they don't scale downward well. For a single family home, or even a small commercial building, they are much more expensive than masonry or wood frame construction.
Re:"Americans sense that something is wrong with the places ...
by anigbrowl on Thursday December 16, 2010 @12:57PM
(#2012934)
Sure. That's why I was saying 'minimum 6 floors'. Single family homes in San Francisco are mostly a terrible use of the limited available space. Since we're bounded on 3 sides by water, I feel we should be building up to a much greater extent.
Houses in California are going to look less "solid" than houses elsewhere because houses elsewhere are often built out of brick or stone, materials that are vastly more likely to fail in an earthquake. Wood-frame, wood- or stucco-sided homes are common in California because they are much more likely to withstand earthquakes.