Why everywere in the world they build homes with concrete, cement, etc. but not in USA?

Question

Is it really because the earthquakes? Look in Japan. They build in concrete and the only homes that collapse during a quake are the wooden one. I think there are other reasons and I like to know the real ones.

Answer 1

Many municipalities, towns and cities have banned frame structures due to fire hazards. Frane structure are more prone to fire spread than masonary structures. This is especially in high density population areas where buildings have less than 1.2 meters (4 feet) between them.

If there is a fire in one structure in a block, it is easier to contain it by keeping water trained on the rooves of the adjoining/neighbouring structures. It can take fire 2 to 3 hours to penetrate a solid masonary wall, but only minutes to penetrate a frame wall.

Most areas that do not permit frame structures also insist that windows and doors are not directly opposite each other in adjacent structures. This is to prevent fire from jumping from one structure to the next though these openings.

Example: After the great fire in London England, a decree was made to prevent frame structures in the City of London. The fire spread quickly from structure to structure because most of them were frame.

Answer 2

First of all, you are mistaken. Most other countries have no more concrete and steel homes than we do. The rest of the world? Obviously you did not follow the tsunami very closely. Most of the millions of homes that were destroyed were not concrete. I have also lived in Britain, and although many buildings there were made out of brick, many of those were still built around a wooden frame. Second, the cost of labor is only ONE of the factors in the cost for building houses. Materials are more expensive for concrete and steel houses. Also, the cost of maintenance and utilities would be more than most people, American or not, could afford to take care of. Wood breathes. Wood is cheap. And "cheap labor from across the border" isn't going to make any difference. For one thing, most people want them kicked out of the country anyway (thought I personally disagree with this). For another thing, you still have to train them, and it is not like picking cherry tomatoes. You can't pay construction workers $2.00 an hour in the United States, regardless of where they come from. Third, if you think that a tornado cannot bust up a concrete home, you are gravely mistaken. There are examples where pieces of wood have been found imbedded in steel beams, and windows are not made out of concrete. That said, there is no question that a wooden house is potentially more of a danger, but they are actually quite safe in general. Most people who die in tornados do so because they do not take cover, or live in mobile homes. There are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. Then, the cost of rebuilding is MUCH cheaper than if you had to rebuild your concrete bunker house. Fourth, the fact is that the federal government has little to do with it, so they are not a good part of your argument. People choose to build houses in a way that they can afford. Hardly anyone in the country would trade their nice house for a bunker. Hardly anyone would trade a wooden house for NO house, which is the alternative for most people, who could never afford the houses you are talking about. Finally, steel is made from iron. That is a finite material. If EVERYTHING were made from it, then we would have iron shortages. At least you can grow more trees. That said, I think your concern with recycling is spot on. Concrete is a good substance for use, due to the ability to recycle it and the fact that it is made from very common material. Global warming is a concern, for sure, and I appreciate your concern for the deforestation issue. Unfortunately, that does not cancel out everything I've listed above, and that is why houses are not made out of concrete or metal.

Answer 3

First: Wood is an abundant, strong, building material. In many cases it is preferable to masonry. It can flex, bow, and bend in winds, and earthquakes. Masonry is brittle, and can not.
Second: Wood has been used as a building material for the ages. I once lived in a wood building in Germany, that was 1300 years old. They last.

Answer 4

In California, homes are usually built out of wood because it's more flexible than cement/brick/etc. -- especially during earthquakes. However, in parts of the U.S. like back east, homes are made from brick. It all depends on what part of the U.S. you're talking about.

Answer 5

They Build them with Wood in Sweden. Finland, Norway,
U.S.A. is very popular place to use Stucco. Close cousin to Concrete.

Answer 6

Many of the areas get earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes, more chances to get out alive if the structure is not so heavy.

Answer 7

Good question. I don't know the answer but really good question. I noticed that myself too.

Answer 8

Other world areas dont have the resources that we do in the US.

Answer 9

It looks too industrial. I want my home to look homey.

Answer 10

Cement is expensive. We have other materials that we use as well.