At 11:32 PM 11/8/94, Nick O'Brien wrote: >In the US, is wood considered a luxury item in home building? If so, it >stands to reason that a wealthy community will use more luxury goods (ie >wood rather than plastic and concrete) in their homes. No, wood is a "staple" construction material used here for housing. The price of lumber has been held at artificially low prices for years because of subsidized federal timber sales. A more permanent structure (e.g. steel frame/concrete block) is considered a luxury because of higher front end cost of alternative materials. The added durability of alternative (non-wood) materials is not generally considered a major consideration in housing construction. >Consider two similar sized houses, one using wood based materials, the other >non-renewable resources such as steel, fibro, and concrete. Which is better >from an environmental perspective? I believe the wooden one is. What I am >trying to say by this is that wood consumption is not bad per se, >wasteful-consumption is. Why do you believe wood is preferable to steel frame and concrete block, for example? The non-wood structure will not rot, and won't burn either. Termites are not a problem. The added durability certainly increases the value of the structure. Steel can be cut to exact specifications, whereas dimensional lumber generates waste pieces when cut. I'm curious why you don't think this would be desirable! Thanks for your views, David Orr dgorr@ucdavis.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0