>>1530073Without fail, properly built buildings trigger the American. Funny.
>That's not REALLY the building you're living in, so it doesn't count.>W…w…we're also using those techniques invented in the 18th century, I swear! No, the fact that it's not used in 90% of suburbia doesn't count!>I…I…could do the same too, if I wanted to (and if the HOA would let me…)If we're talking about coulda/woulda, then I'm also the proud owner of some rotten POS in Bumfuck nowhere, that I could buy cash, with leftovers to spare.
But besides fishing for burgers, there's actually two points I gotta adress seriously:
>Obsolete, would be wasteful to construct en masse with that today>Not to mention that the history of construction is filled with examples of people being killed by fires in 'fireproof' (non-timber) buildings.I never claimed wood would be fireproof. I just said it takes quite some time to become unstable, so that you've got time to get out and/or extinguish it. Apparently the question comes up that often that google even gives you an "answer" snippet for it. Besides industry results (who obviously are somewhat biased) there's also a lot of scientific literature on the subject.
However, for the whole deal to work, you need somewhat massive wood (no pun intended), so no, large wood isn't obsolete or wasteful.
