Why are houses built with wooden frame works, covered with cladding or brick, while we need to keep trees?

Question

There is no need for wooden frame works. Double brick walls are a far better option to keep a house cool or warm with the opportunity to put insulation in between as well. Double brick walls give a sound construction. This would save millions of trees!

Answer 1

When a tree matures its rate of growth slows.
It is then less capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
When it dies and rots, and that carbon is re-released back into the environment.
We are far better off harvesting mature trees and using them for other purposes which can permanently store the carbon and prevent its release back into the environment.
Replace the old trees with new trees that grow quickly and thus, remove more CO2 from the atmosphere.
The manufacturing process used to make concrete and mortar creates tremendous amounts of CO2, therefore we should avoid their use as much as possible.
I know this is contrary to the answer you wanted, but check it out. You'll find out I am correct.

Answer 2

In Mexico we do not use wooden frameworks to build houses, we use cement, therefore Cemex, the Mexican cement and concrete giant does good business here, in fact, we buy our cement at a higher price than you do in the USA. But the point is they know we do not have enough trees for housebuilding because we are destroying our forests and care little about it, so the construction business resorts to cement and concrete. Construction standards in Mexico are pretty bad, bricks are more expensive than cement and concrete and do not even think of insulation between two walls. Here the houses are like sieves, hot in summer and cold in winter. Also, brick houses are hot, at least where I live the climate is hot most of the year and really cold only a few months. You should see what we spend on electricity and gas just to keep cool or warm, but the funny thing is that all houses in Mexico, whether the climate is hot or cold, are built the same. The houses radiate heat at night, a real inferno after a hot day, and on really cold days without a heater, the inside is colder than the outside. Wood has seemed to be a better option, you can remodel in a snap, here we have to destroy thick walls. I can relate to your point of view, but the unrestrained construction of houses has made the climate in my city much hotter. There are solutions to both problems, but neither your government or mine seem to be very interested in working towards finding the right one.

Answer 3

Wooden houses are quicker and cheaper to build. To build a wooden house in the UK would be high maintainance because of the more frequent rainfall and wood would have to be imported to build houses in sufficient quantities. I think wooden houses look good if kept in good condition and I like the cozy feeling on being inside one. My in-laws in the States live in wooden houses and I like their homes - all snug. Myself wouldn't mind a wooden house in the UK if it was half the cost of brick built one. The brick house prices in UK are well over inflated to the point of robbery that it would take a life time of work laden drudgery to pay off for a modest small home. The USA are way better.

Answer 4

Well, first of all, double brick walls are poor insulation, though you could put some between, if you want 1 foot think walls.

Secondly, they would cost far more.

Third, it would take far more energy I believe.

Fouth, the trees grow back when the forest industry plants them and the house is excellent "carbon capture."

I think the 2nd reason is by far the biggest reason.

Answer 5

the best reason for timber frame is here http://www.permaculture.co.uk/PP/Grand_Designs2.html
Ben Law's Woodland house, self built from his own sustainable managed woodland.

Timber frame houses consume far less energy in construction than brick and the trees should be replanted.
Timber frame can also have lighter foundations, and use less concrete generally.
Timber is easy for untrained people to self-build without the need for powered construction equipment, as in the Walter Segal method.

Other low-energy building options such as rammed earth, can be found at http://www.cat.org.uk.

Answer 6

The energy required to manufacture and dry the bricks, then the additional energy needed to ship them around the country because they are so much heavier than wood and the poor insulation qualities they have make that option not energy efficient. Most energy efficient alternatives are the cheapest because the cost of energy is priced in.

Answer 7

we'll agree full brick built for furnace or ancient buildings.
Using the wood materials, we can easily make on suitable length and feel it better than brick. We like the nature as trees , I think. I am sorry for my self-considering.

Answer 8

Because that is what people are used to. We also use metal frames for homes and businesses. Consumers need to put more pressure on FOX AND JACOBS AND CENTEX to build more green homes. Another good option is straw bale construction.

Answer 9

Brick and mortar houses last longer and are safer in the case of tornadoes, fires, floods, burglar.

Answer 10

I have considered all the answers above. In the meantime I have experienced that my house was burnt down too. Nevertheless I takes ages for young trees to replace old trees. In regards to the cost of brick; mud bricks might be an option. However because of the fire I looked in it all even more than before. Steel/aluminium/metal and plastic melt. A single brick wall falls over due to the pressure/heat explosives.
At the moment I would love to have a log cabin since wood burns slowly and one has more chance to get out and to hose down. But the loss of trees are a worry for me. I still reckon double brick with insulation between the walls and ceiling/roof and double glazing is the best.