American Home Building, let's go concrete!
Last night, NBCNews was reporting live from Waveland, Mississipi, a small town almost completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.In the background, you could see downtown Waveland truned into rubbles and as always, you could tell that all those houses and two-storey buildings had been built with wood (that is re-built after Camille in 1969). Now my question is, why in the world, don't they build stronger stuctures with concrete or bricks?
In France, where there is neither hurricane nor tornado, everything is made of concrete and yet it would be more sensible to build wooden houses - at least in many regions. Wood does make sense environmentally and even economically in most of Europe.
So I tend to think that it has to do with cultural perceptions. My hypothesis is that concrete or brick buildings give a sense of permanence quite reassuring to the French, and maybe the proposition could be reversed for the Americans. Permanence is not something valued in American culture.
[Besides, historically, in Europe, the poor lived in wooden houses when the rich lived in stronger building made of stones - and 'concrete' is the closest thing resembling stones. That was obviosuly not the case in the U.S.]
Granted that concrete is not necessarily extremely visually appealing at first (especially during the building phase) but it depends on the finishing of the building, on what you do with the exterior walls and on the architectural design. Besides, concret is not very expensive either.
These are just quick ideas thrown out in the open... so I may completely off (and I am open for suggestion on the issue)
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me it would make a LOT more sense to build structures of concrete in areas known for their risks of hurricanes (in the south) and tornadoes (in the Midwest) , wouldn't it? I find it surprising that this is not an issue at all, especially now that reconstruction is being talked about. Any idea, anyone?
In France, where there is neither hurricane nor tornado, everything is made of concrete and yet it would be more sensible to build wooden houses - at least in many regions. Wood does make sense environmentally and even economically in most of Europe.
So I tend to think that it has to do with cultural perceptions. My hypothesis is that concrete or brick buildings give a sense of permanence quite reassuring to the French, and maybe the proposition could be reversed for the Americans. Permanence is not something valued in American culture.
[Besides, historically, in Europe, the poor lived in wooden houses when the rich lived in stronger building made of stones - and 'concrete' is the closest thing resembling stones. That was obviosuly not the case in the U.S.]
Granted that concrete is not necessarily extremely visually appealing at first (especially during the building phase) but it depends on the finishing of the building, on what you do with the exterior walls and on the architectural design. Besides, concret is not very expensive either.
These are just quick ideas thrown out in the open... so I may completely off (and I am open for suggestion on the issue)
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me it would make a LOT more sense to build structures of concrete in areas known for their risks of hurricanes (in the south) and tornadoes (in the Midwest) , wouldn't it? I find it surprising that this is not an issue at all, especially now that reconstruction is being talked about. Any idea, anyone?
posted by Joker & Thief @ 8:48 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Ahh the French and béton. I must say that one encounters a fair amount of concrete in France - not just buildings and sidewalks, but telephone poles, fence posts, and anything that can take a molding to pour. My sense is that because France is so wet during the winter, wood structures would simply rot too quickly. Look at the sidewalks by springtime; they're covered in green mold or moss. A wooden telephone pole would simply disintegrate within a few years. Concrete, on the other hand, is cheap and can put up with the wet spells. I'm not calling it pretty; it's normally anything but. In fact, in a country known for its art and beautiful architecture, it only reminds you of some faceless State bureaucracy.
Just some thoughts...
This mus be a joke, right? You're not actually saying that France is more humid than the southern United-states. Even in Europe, Norway is for instance(so long as you consider it to be European) more humid and has more rain (and snow) than northen France, yet all their buildings are made of wood. So that does not cut it.
Moreover, it is not true that concrete buildings are necessarily ugly. The buildings you're referring too were most likely designed that way - i.e. any architecture from the 70s is darn ugly! That's why they're hosting the administration. Nobody else would like to live in them! That has nothing to do with concrete though. There have been some really nice-looking concrete buildings in the last 10 years. In fact, one is being built right across the street. ;-)
Last but not least, this still does not address the problem of knowing why plywood houses are built in areas where hurricanes and tornadoes are a major risk. It just does not make sense to me. Does it to you?
Yes it does, at least in the US - cost. There are few homes being made of poured concrete, especially in the US. The brick or stone you see covers a wood frame, which in turn may sit on a poured concrete foundation, but that's about it. Poured concrete is just too expensive in the US. With forests of straight pine, wood is far cheaper to use.
Few buildings today show the beauty of concrete simply because it isn't beautiful. The apartments or buildings you describe across your street will inevitably be covered by some more beautiful (most likely faux) surface.
And no, it's no joke. The winters of France are far more wet than the winters of Norway. Norway is not humid. Its winters are actually quite dry. France and the US South is a better comparison, but I'll bet that France still comes out ahead with overall moisture in the air. At any rate, the US has chosen not to use wood because it has cheap lumber. It seems to me that France's investment in concrete is reaping its benefits by lower cost overall through improved techniques and materials. Even the railway ties are now concrete.
But who knows, perhaps we'll see some of that improved technology in the rebuilding of our storm-ravaged coasts. Would the French like the first crack at the French quarter?
Ask "Bouygues". ;-)
If I may add, it is perception that matters, so yes "the concrete apartments or buildings in France are covered by some more beautiful surface." so in the end they do look good. Who cares what is underneath as long is it is strong and does the trick and as long as the outside surface is of good quality and esthetically pleasing... How French, isn't it?
Concerning telephone poles : There has been wooden poles long before concrete was invented, and there still is, even in areas renowned for their humidity (Bretagne comes to mind).
To my knowledge, they do resist a fair number of years wihout "simply disintégrating". if only because they are treated against biologic invasion.
A reference here , for America
Post a Comment
<< Home