You are correct but the stereotype has a point - something like 90% of houses in the US have wood frames. What’s wrong about the stereotype is the implication that wood framing is outright worse than brick as you alluded.
The two biggest factors are speed and cost. Unlike most of the world, the US expanded wide and fast. And also unlike most of the world, the US has an insane amount of forest (even more before colonization). Wood framing has come a long way since then and a well-built house is incredibly strong.
Europe had to build out housing extremely fast after WWII, because whole cities were practically demolished by bombings.
Cities built huge blocks of apartment towers, typically from prefabricated concrete panels. These were made in a factory, trucked to the building site, and assembled into 4-20 story towers (8-10 the most typical).
The apartments are small, and typically have district heating and no AC. These buildings provided housing for lower income or middle class families, depending on the area, from Spain to Russia. In America, the closest equivalent are the projects.
The concrete walls don’t make for very comfortable living spaces. Sound travels between apartments, walls between rooms are frequently drywall. It’s a bitch to drill into if you want to hang anything. District heating means too hot inside when it’s on, and you can’t turn it on or off when you want it.
Some are slums, some are decent. It’s not irrelevant, because you specifically said the US housing is unique because it was built fast. America was not built out in a rush in 10 years while millions were without homes, it was populated gradually over 4-5 centuries. That is a long time compared to the average lifespan of a house. The availability of lumber is a much bigger factor than speed.
I also said “wide” in that same sentence. You are comparing mass housing in a small area to single family homes spread across a large area and the stereotype comes from single family homes.
The US has plenty of multifamily buildings made with prefabbed concrete, they’re just in densely-populated areas
District heating means too hot inside when it’s on, and you can’t turn it on or off when you want it.
This is just plain incorrect. Every single radiator in apartmentswjrh district heating have individual thermostats on them that control the flow through it, which directly impacts the temperature in the room and can be turned off entirely if you want.
After a while, many buildings were retrofitted with thermostats. I know from experience that in Eastern Europe until the late 90s, there were valves but no thermostats, and radiators were effectively serially connected, so if you shut a valve, everything downstream was shut off too. Some units were always hot and people were growing tropical plants and had their windows open the whole heating season. Other units were miserably cold, depending on where they were within the building.
You are correct but the stereotype has a point - something like 90% of houses in the US have wood frames. What’s wrong about the stereotype is the implication that wood framing is outright worse than brick as you alluded.
The two biggest factors are speed and cost. Unlike most of the world, the US expanded wide and fast. And also unlike most of the world, the US has an insane amount of forest (even more before colonization). Wood framing has come a long way since then and a well-built house is incredibly strong.
Europe had to build out housing extremely fast after WWII, because whole cities were practically demolished by bombings. Cities built huge blocks of apartment towers, typically from prefabricated concrete panels. These were made in a factory, trucked to the building site, and assembled into 4-20 story towers (8-10 the most typical).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-panel-system_building
The apartments are small, and typically have district heating and no AC. These buildings provided housing for lower income or middle class families, depending on the area, from Spain to Russia. In America, the closest equivalent are the projects. The concrete walls don’t make for very comfortable living spaces. Sound travels between apartments, walls between rooms are frequently drywall. It’s a bitch to drill into if you want to hang anything. District heating means too hot inside when it’s on, and you can’t turn it on or off when you want it.
deleted by creator
That’s not really relevant though, is it? The US expansion was wide, they weren’t trying to house a bunch of people in an existing city.
And like it says, those are basically slums.
Some are slums, some are decent. It’s not irrelevant, because you specifically said the US housing is unique because it was built fast. America was not built out in a rush in 10 years while millions were without homes, it was populated gradually over 4-5 centuries. That is a long time compared to the average lifespan of a house. The availability of lumber is a much bigger factor than speed.
I also said “wide” in that same sentence. You are comparing mass housing in a small area to single family homes spread across a large area and the stereotype comes from single family homes.
The US has plenty of multifamily buildings made with prefabbed concrete, they’re just in densely-populated areas
This is just plain incorrect. Every single radiator in apartmentswjrh district heating have individual thermostats on them that control the flow through it, which directly impacts the temperature in the room and can be turned off entirely if you want.
After a while, many buildings were retrofitted with thermostats. I know from experience that in Eastern Europe until the late 90s, there were valves but no thermostats, and radiators were effectively serially connected, so if you shut a valve, everything downstream was shut off too. Some units were always hot and people were growing tropical plants and had their windows open the whole heating season. Other units were miserably cold, depending on where they were within the building.
Fair enough, bimetal thermostats on parallel lines were standard in at least the 60’s here.