>>
>> I have heard (though am no expert) that concrete is far more energy
>> intensive than wood.
>>
>It might be, but it endures much more than wood, and does not need ALL
>THOSE PRESERVATIVES that wood needs.
Regarding the relative endurance of wood and concrete, our university
(which trains architects!!) has decided to tear down and re-build its 60
year old concrete building in Tokyo, because it is falling apart, and there
are doubts about its safety in an earthquake.
On the other hand, there is a temple in Nara which is over one thousand
years old, and is totally made of wood, even the nails being wooden. It
was built in an earthquake zone, it is still standing and is in no danger
of falling down. Japanese wooden houses used to be made with intricate
joints that would twist in an earthquake, but not break. After the
earthquake, the householders would attach ropes to parts of the roof, and
give a good pull. The house sould then twist back into shape.
Now I am not an architect, but it seems to me as if we could learn from
these old builders and make wooden structures that might last into the 4th
millenium.
Michael
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|