this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
835 points (98.6% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7612 readers
744 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 6 points 7 hours ago (5 children)
  • Gun culture
  • Making houses out of wood. To me, someone from a country where houses are made of brick, this is like living in a shed. Also, the USA is the hotspot of tornadoes, so it makes even less sense
  • One of the richest countries in the world, and universal healthcare isn't a thing
[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Making houses out of wood.

This is fine. Lumber was historically plentiful in North America, and lumber houses last just as long as stone or brick.

Lumber has several advantages over stone/concrete/brick:

  • Less CO2 impact from construction activities. Concrete production is a huge contributor to atmospheric CO2.
  • Greater sustainability in general. Concrete is approaching a global sand shortage, because most sand in the world doesn't have the right qualities to be included in concrete.
  • Better energy efficiency and insulation properties. Brick homes need double walls in order to compete with the insulation properties of a wood framed house that naturally has voids that can be filled with insulation.
  • Better resilience against seismic events and vibrations (including nearby construction). The west coast has frequent earthquakes, and complying with seismic building code with stone/masonry requires it to be reinforced with steel. The state of Utah, where trees and lumber are not as plentiful as most other parts of North America, and where seismic activity happens, has been replacing unreinforced masonry for 50+ years now.
  • Easier repair. If a concrete foundation cracks, that's easier to contain and mitigate in a wood-framed house than a building with load-bearing concrete or masonry.

Some Northern European and North American builders are developing large scale timber buildings, including timber skyscrapers. The structural engineers and safety engineers have mostly figured out how to engineer those buildings to be safe against fire and tornadoes.

It's not inherently better or worse. It's just different.

[–] deur -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You should know that this is the most batshit insane, america-centric, absolutely wrong thing I've ever seen someone pull off in a context like this.

and lumber houses last just as long as stone or brick.

Just because you say it like it's true doesn't mean it's true! That must be hard for you to understand, though. Do you think other countries are just casting their houses wholesale out of concrete? I love this way you see the world, it's super simple and avoids learning anything useful.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago

A brick home wouldn’t withstand a tornado either. Like if a tree hits a brick house it would do significant damage to the house. And most brick houses still have a timber roof under the roof tiles so even a small tornado could lift the roof off the house.

Here is a brick house hit by a small tornado in England

Reinforced concrete is a much better material for a hurricane and tornado resistant building. Also shape of the house is important. A dome would be the best.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Living here, I will tell you that the insistence on building houses in a neo-colonial style in tornado alley, hurricane prone areas, or in a middle of a yearly flood plane, baffles me. We should have completely different architectural styles adpated to withstand the elements at this point. You know, what housing is supposed to be for in the first place? /rant

[–] Patches@ttrpg.network 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

As always it comes down to $$$.

I live in Florida, our building codes didn't tighten up until hurricanes cost everyone everything, and now Miami Dade in particular has some of the strictest building code in the US.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Well, that's at least some improvement. Still, I hate that situation for you guys - nobody should have their life swept away like that.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

A wood-framed house isn't necessarily weaker than a brick house.

Wood is pliable and doesn't suddenly crumble and collapse when it's stressed. And it weighs WAY less when it does fail.

If you're in a tornado or earthquake, would you rather be trapped beneath 120 pounds of sheetrock, insulation, and shingles or a 2 tons of broken, jagged rock?

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

I've heard ICF (insulated concrete foam) construction is pretty durable.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, as I live in a very geologically active area, I'd rather not be crushed by 3 tons of brick falling in on me from the slightest earthquake. I'll take my wobbly wooden house.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

1 ton of tree feels a lot like 3 tons of brick.

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 hours ago

Next week on Mythbusters, we crush Jamie with tons of various materials. You won't want to miss it!