I mean there is no reason wooden structures shouldn't last over 100 years if not double or triple that except for lack of maintenance, usually involving leaking roof or a negligent design that traps water. I grew up in a house that was 150 years old and the only thing not wooden on it was the roofing material, although when it was first built it likely was cedar shake. The walls were wood, the floors were wood, the siding was wood, and any interior plaster was backed with wood. We never had to question any of the woods condition despite the majority of it being completely original.
Let’s add a lack of termites, no lightning strikes, and great care about open fires to the list of requirements. While I personally like the idea (and smell!) of pure wood houses, I would not want to live in one permanently. Wood is a great material for sure, but why not mix it with other materials to make things safer and more sturdy.
I've lived in wood houses all my life, all of them built between 1920 and 1950.
Balloon construction has, generally speaking, been great. The frames are strong and light, easy to run cabling/utilities, easy to modify/remove/renovate (You know what else I've done in every house I've owned? Moved at least one wall - in my current house we just completely modified the layout of the upstairs. Moving the walls cost on the order of a few hundred dollars each, since they weren't structural supports, and it's just wood and drywall)
Basically - They're cheaper, better for the environment, and when cared for last a LONG time. Do they have some specific downsides? Sure. But overall they work fantastically well.
Also - if you think concrete is sturdier than wood frames... in most cases I suspect you're wrong for residential homes. I live in a temperate rain forest (Atlanta, GA) the pine trees are HUGE, and they fall constantly - they hit houses a lot. Most take damage, but it's usually easy to repair, and honestly, the wood frame alone usually keeps people inside safe. Hundreds of houses a year take tree hits, and having someone die is rare enough it usually makes the news. Wood is tough. I've seen a 100ft pine literally bounce off a house.
IMO this is the kind of stuff people worry about who don't really have any knowledge about wood structures. In some ways they're the safest and sturdiest choice, especially if you get any earthquakes in your region.
FWIW, if you are concerned about fire, you should be aware that it's really the contents of the house that pose the greatest risk. You can get to flashover temperatures in a matter of minutes before any of the wood structure is burning.
> The material used in this type of wood can go up in flames much faster than traditional lumber does, meaning in a house fire, new homes will be more susceptible to something like a floor or roof collapse. Firefighters say it will happen quicker, too.
The no termites thing is a big deal. I would not build with wood in the jungles of Panama. At best some solid wood beams, hardwood, properly treated. For aesthetics.
Termites are a constant battle for my parents there in their concrete home. I can't imagine the carnage with a wood frame home.
It's fine. They still invade the home through any opening they can find, build nests in the ceiling, eat cardboard boxes, exposed wood and trim, and furniture. They don't eat concrete, thankfully.
I lost a piece of furniture there living in a condo, downtown in the city. The termites are industrious.
Well if you take into account that the roof framing that caught fire was made out of timber I think that highlights that even just using wood as part of the building is a massive fire hazard.
Well, technically, the roof was lead/tin shingles. The support beams for the roof (and a good many parts of the church, like the bell supports) were wood.
My point is that building of brick/concrete doesn't guarantee you're rid of flammable infrastructure.
One other drawback of wooden houses is that wood absorbs moisture so in winter you have to run a humidifier because the air moisture is basically non-existent and that will irritate your nose and throat.
I'll take a typical drywall panels on a wooden frame over wooden walls.
Wood can't continually absorb moisture, at some point it would become saturated.
I always thought that the reason that winter air is dry is because warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, so as you heat it, relative humidity decreases. So, for example, if it's 5C outside with 50% relative humidity, if you heat that air to 22C, then it will have only 17% relative humidity.
But modern houses (even wood ones) are so well sealed that even in winter you could end up with too much humidity inside just from normal activities (cooking, bathing, breathing).
