European here, I recently build my home in wood-frame with thick enough elements I suppose they fall in this "mass timber" category, well... It was NOT cheaper than concrete, I choose wood for various reasons but well, cheapness was not one of them at least not in France where this tech is not much widespread.
I have some advantages:
- much more personal future changes are possible, it's far easier posing new wires/pipes and so on since all I need are small tools, I do not made much dust with them and so on;
- thinner perimeters walls (with good insulation), in some cases they are a nice thing;
and some disadvantages:
- exterior exposed wood last far less than concrete and demand more regular upkeep work (though it's relatively easy);
- eventual water spills might be more impacting;
- last but not least, noise insulation from the ground floor and the second one are far LESS good than concrete.
So well, I'm happy of my choice for various reasons, but I do agree with the author, only adding a point: homes need to change as tech change. Having homes we can "recycle" an create again after let's say 50-70 years means having a kind-of industrial home evolution path that allow for well performant and well designed homes in the long terms, a thing we can't much have with concrete. At a certain rates trees re-grow, rocks do as well, but in a sooooooo large timeframe we can't count as "renewable", so potentially a wood based civilization might be nearly circular, a concrete based one can't (at least, seen the actual known tech).
Aside while light buildings suffer more extreme weather, they suffer less some kind of hydro-geological problems like soil stability, earthquakes and so on, all demanding far simpler foundations.
I have some advantages:
- much more personal future changes are possible, it's far easier posing new wires/pipes and so on since all I need are small tools, I do not made much dust with them and so on;
- thinner perimeters walls (with good insulation), in some cases they are a nice thing;
and some disadvantages:
- exterior exposed wood last far less than concrete and demand more regular upkeep work (though it's relatively easy);
- eventual water spills might be more impacting;
- last but not least, noise insulation from the ground floor and the second one are far LESS good than concrete.
So well, I'm happy of my choice for various reasons, but I do agree with the author, only adding a point: homes need to change as tech change. Having homes we can "recycle" an create again after let's say 50-70 years means having a kind-of industrial home evolution path that allow for well performant and well designed homes in the long terms, a thing we can't much have with concrete. At a certain rates trees re-grow, rocks do as well, but in a sooooooo large timeframe we can't count as "renewable", so potentially a wood based civilization might be nearly circular, a concrete based one can't (at least, seen the actual known tech).
Aside while light buildings suffer more extreme weather, they suffer less some kind of hydro-geological problems like soil stability, earthquakes and so on, all demanding far simpler foundations.