The other day we were having a thread on /int/ about why Americans and Canadians build homes out of wood...

>northerners have always had those wooden-frame houses
what?

no. just no.

mountain houses perhaps, but here in belgium houses have been stone since 200 bc

You are welcome.
As you may already read she states that stone building returned with strenght around the XI Century with the Romanesque.
That does not mean that we can´t found older Medieval buldings made of stone but they seem to bloom with the economic expansion of the High-Full Middle Ages that have been linked with the so called "Feudal Revolution".

Because home building is a business in America. The people building these houses don't live in them, they mass produce entire neighborhoods so they can sell the houses off to people looking for a property in the suburbs of some big city. They use the cheapest flimsiest materials they can get away with because they are trying to maximize profit. If you care at all about the quality of your home you shouldn't buy one of those mass produced suburb homes, you should just buy the property then hire the contractors yourself and splurge on decent building materials. I learned this the hard way.

wrong pic, here have 14th century nordic house. as you can see people were very civilized and picked up the latest fashion from France, the Gothic style.

>Because home building is a business in America. The people building these houses don't live in them, they mass produce entire neighborhoods so they can sell the houses off to people looking for a property
So is it in Europe bro.

>It's not as southern Europe was ever lacking in wood, or the north lacking in stone. What happened?

Local availability, fashion, and heating that's mostly it. Pennsylvania is covered in stone farmhouses because there's plenty of stone around the state and it was in style. Earlier German homes would've been half-timbered framing, probably with brick infill. English built in several styles, brick, stone, or clapboard covered timber frame.

I think you're evaluating this through broad conceptions you seem to have that aren't necessarily accurate

OP probably refer to something like pic related, which you rarely found in south Europe, its not 'uncivilized' or anything, just different

T.brainlet

Go read a book, you dont have a basic knowledge

And yet you are unironically THE biggest brainlet on the entire board.

Yes but timber framed, brick walled, stone foundations houses are pretty solid, they just look skewed because they are like 600 years old.

there are many nordic houses of stone or brick
and some houses are wooden in the south

>clapboard covered timber frame
this became standard at some time, no?

No I'm not, I'm the smartest person on the board.

around the 16th century, but I think it's also regional, in East Anglia, where the Puritans generally came from, there is plenty of homes covered in clapboard.

True, but at least most euro countries aren't ideologically opposed to any form of building regulation. In fact, most european countries are downright autistic about the degree of safety/quality/efficiency required to house builders. The average McMansion would be downright illegal in many places.

>settle in a place called "Tornado Alley"
>build wooden houses anyway
Fucking fatties I swear. At least I can have a good laugh every year.

There are basically no wooden houses in Britain or Ireland

Alpine, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe used mainly wood for construction, but those houses are solid log constructions and are more suitable for cold weather.

The smart people build in concrete.

You only hear about the trailer parks that get shrekt

>An area that has been inhabited for a long time, with a deficiency of straight timber but with an abundance of softer stone uses stone to build houses
>An area that has been inhabited for a shorter time, with a deficiency in softer stone but with with an abundance of straight timber uses straight timber to build houses

K Y S

Pre Great fire of London, London is primarily built out of wood
Hell, the whole accident is the reason we primarly build with brick afterwards

Huge forests full of giant thick straight trees.

vs. Huge jungles full of twisted skinny trees, or no forests at all.

I wonder...

anyone got a link to the wood house thread?

A lot of you are wrong. Early Italic and Celtic (Italo-Celtic?) dwellings look quite similar.
Mud brick insulates heat more in winter and keeps the inside cool from the sun during the summer. It's probably why ceramic vessels are better for the storage of food more than anything. Maybe Germanics were the ones to deviate more from this. In any case the construction of stone structures would be due to greater wealth and construction knowledge and capabilities.

Early spanish settlers had the backing of the Spanish Empire and the Catholic Church so they probably had access to more elaborate developments initially than what Puritan exiles had.

Don't forget the settlement structure in america.
>Local company relocates
>House suddenly worthless
Does not happen that much here. Both because of "industry policy" and a general lack of space.
>Niggers move in
>House suddenly worthless
The french at least keep theirs holed up in the banlieues. The refugees will possibly cause a similar thing in germany, but building plots are a bit more scarce here than in the US.

I take it you've never been to northern europe then.

This also happens in capital cities in Australia, where I'm from. I'm a carpenter and have seen things on the job which supports my idea that we're in the decline of advanced civilisation

Actually it's not north vs south it's poor vs. rich. Historically southern Europe had a strong economy while many regions in northern Europe had been piss poor. In the south almost everybody was wealthy enough to own a house made of stone. In the north only church, nobles and merchants could afford masonry. Today northern Europe is rich and most new houses are made of stone.
Same with north and south America. Historically south America was more wealthy then north America. Also you see more stone buildings in rich cities while wood is used in poor rural areas.

>tfw you will never live in colonial Havana

A lot of that has to do with the English of the era liked wood framed house. Other reasons are a phase were settling was mostly a single family only venture thus only simple design were really made in the first generation of a area, and later on mail order houses. Place a order and get every thing you need to build your house via railway.

Pic is of a dog run cabin. A design very popular from the 1820s to the 1850s in the western parts of the US.

Itt, Euros post about American homes from their mother's apartment

what's the point of the open area in the middle?

Kek
At least their 3x3s have that beautiful moldy brick look

More like Meds and Latinos splerging at Nordics/Germanics and America as usual

thems where the doors go

>Historically south America was more wealthy
Lol

Wrong, it has doors to either side of the opening on the inside.

It creates a wind tunnel to cool you down. In a age before ac it is a great idea.

Doesn't wood rot a lot faster in tropical climates (like much of Latin America)?

This

Good quality post.

its not just europe though, natives in north america built longhouses whilst south americans built stone temples? obviously its a resource thing as well but still

...

Thank god, fuck that

yfw you will never live in a comfy stone house in Teotihuacan

in pre Columbian times south America was certainly economic stronger then north America.
North American colonies remained insignificant until independence , even after this it took decades to become as wealthy as South America.