Mixed use, 4-5 story buildings actually achieve better density, energy use, and efficient urban planning than showy skyscrapers, as counterintuitive as that is. The good news is that, that makes the use of massed timber even easier.
Indeed. Looking at cities like Chicago where skyscrapers are surrounded by 2 and even 1 story buildings is proof. One would think every train stop would average 5 stories in
Better density?! probably, if the 5-storey buildings take up the whole lot, like they do in the US... but then a 50-storey building taking up same land will still have more marketable area, will it not? I have a misfortune of living in a city with precisely the same development pattern: 1. Raze a 100-unit 5-storey block. 2. Built a 1000-unit skyscraper. 3. Profit!
Some sources state that an ideal density for urban environments is around 20k people per square km. I live in Brazil, and we have a long tradition of building lots of 15~25 stories residential buildings, and most capitals have a seemingly dense urban core. However, if you look at the actual statistics for these "dense" neighborhoods, with 15-25 story buildings in every lot, you'll find that they average around 10k~12k people per square km. Then you look at some neighborhoods in Barcelona, with much lower buildings but with triple the density. High rises can be helpful in some cases, but most times, just building contiguous 5~6 story buildings will do the trick, while also providing a much more pleasant and human scaled urban landscape.
Belinda. I worked for Seagate, the company that installed the mass timber components for Brock Commons. I didn't work on that project per se, but worked on other projects and I am now working on a 9 story tall CLT building. Mass timber is growing a lot and taller and taller buildings will be a lot more common moving forward. A enjoy a lot how you can see through the all the bs and marketing strategies. Great video. As always.
The brock commons is not a true mass timber building. It still has cast-in-place concrete foundations, ground floor, and elevator/stair cores; and steel connections and roof structure.
@@UnbreakableM1nd haha. You basically described how all mass timber buildings are buddy. Did you want wooden foundations? Wood to wood connections without any steel? It's also prevalent to have the cores to be cast-in-place as it helps to increase the building's rigidity. Especially on a tall one, like Brock Commons. If Brock Commons is not a "true mass timber building, " I don't know what a "true mass timber building" is.
@@jisharagu The Brock Commons Tallwood House is in Vancouver, which is a looooong way from the Okanagon region. Interesting that you claim special knowledge of this building but don't know where it is.
There are more low-rise apartment complexes, malls, big box stores, schools, low-rise healthcare, and office buildings built every year than there are skyscrapers built. Although overcoming the engineering challenges of high wood construction is intriguing, I think the timber building (at least with our current technology and manufacturing) is much better suited to low-rise applications. I know Matt Risinger featured a college that built a carbon-neutral biophilic building on the east coast. I believe that is the actual market for these technologies. Love your content - you always have intriguing content!
It would be very good for low-rise structures, but you are falling for an outdated view ( prejudice ) about its usefulness in higher structures. It's weakness is not structural but psychological.
@@ziggarillo Oops. My bad. I did not mean to imply that wood isn't strong enough for the job. I would much rather be in a high wood building during a 9-point earthquake in Los Angeles than in a steel and concrete building! However, this is prohibited by code. The engineering is complicated because it isn't standard - you can't just Google your specifications and find everything laid out for you on the manufacturer's website. The technology is new enough that it is difficult to source enough material in a timely and sustainable manner (although to be fair, that's true of all building materials across the board, now). I'm not worried about the structural integrity of wood buildings, I'm concerned with economic viability and code compliance. It's rather more nuanced and complicated than materials engineering would suggest. It will take years before codes are updated to allow tall wood buildings. I'm delighted to know that you read my comment - I hope this clarifies my meaning.
I love how your channel is always so skeptical and intelligent when it comes to the topics discussed. Always brings some much needed nuance I wish thos platform had more of.
I'm pleased to have found your channel and the insights you are reviewing. Some highlights to consider. One this is not "new technology" at all but has been around for over 4000 years with building codes in the Shang dynasty for "heavy timber" construction. Your point of selective harvesting is very important, yet if industrial companies start controlling our forests we will only see more GMO trees, and monoculture forests which are profitable for these companies but not ecologically sustainable which is something to watch very closely as this "industrialize timber" becomes more common.
That's a good addition to more environmentally friendly buildings. Unfortunately, most people still think that one product is a game changer. It makes for appealing headlines but in the end, I think, it discourages people when they find out that the amazing new product isn't nearly as good as advertised. We need to use all products or methods that are better for the Earth.
Exactly, and skyscrapers take more to energy to air condition, so it doesn’t even fix the core problem in regard to architectural pollution. It’s also a hazard if it sets on fire.
I fucking love this woman! She goes in depth on whatever subject with so much ease! Never hypes anything, just gives a good view of advantages and disadvantages. By far the best TH-cam follow I've done in maybe years!
Video suggestion: How do old fashioned fired clay bricks perform compared to more modern materials? They have been used for thousands of years for structural walls and foundations, but are now only used for facades. Houses that were build with them, around 50 to 100 years ago, with cavity walls, still seem to be fine places to live in. There are a couple good things about them: they provide good noise insulation, a large thermal mass and they are fire resistant.
I live in South Africa, and we have a fairly dry country. As a result wood is relatively scarce and expensive compared to places like the USA. Consequently it's always been cheaper to build walls with brick than with timber here. Basically we only use timber for roof trusses and that's about it. We still use old fashioned clay bricks for decorative exteriors, but if the brick isn't going to be visible then we use bricks made out of fly ash waste from coal-fired power stations. Fly ash mixed with cement isn't as strong or nice-looking as clay brick, but it's a lot cheaper! The bricks last indefinitely as long as they remain dry, so a good damp-proofing solution is a must.
UK and many European countries still do structural brick to preserve forests. In the US and Canada is cheaper and more lucrative to build what are essentially disposable homes.
@@jaredbaker7230 and the Canadian brick industry was pretty well destroyed in the late 1800s by the lumber barons. And the complete lack of masonry knowledge of city planners and engineers.
@@jaredbaker7230 They are only "disposable" in the sense that it's a little easier to get rid of the debris when one is demolished. I live in a brick&block house, but most of the houses around me are wood framed and some of them are quite old. The oldest wood house in my city was built by the English in 1650. The only things that shorten the life of wood structure are the vulnerability to fire, which can often be managed, the need for periodic maintenance if the exterior is wood (other claddings like brick, stucco or metal can eliminate most of this requirement), and the inability to survive with no maintenance at all, the way some stone ruins do. With the proper maintenance, a wood building can last indefinitely.
Belinda, great work, precise information without ambiguity or missing facts. The more I watch your videos the more I believe and trust in you... even though most information in this public portal is not posted by professionals.
I owned a wood manufacturing company and a degree in architecture so have a keen interest in wood. Managing forests isn't just about clear or selective cutting! Both methods have advantages. If you selective cut, eventually you end up with a forest of only the poorest trees. Clear cutting in relatively narrow bands, increases the diversity by creating open areas for a few years then natural regrowth. Allowing some forest fires also improves the forests. I don't know what the limiting factor is for laminated timber buildings but combining timber and masonry seems like a bad idea. Timber is flexy, masonry not. The face of a tall building is carried by each floor. Wood changes size with changes in moisture, quite a bit actually. The change in size is different for each direction of the structure of the tree. Least in axial, most in tangential. Thick cross laminations don't seem like a good idea. They've started building 6 stories of stick built apartments on top of concrete parking garages where I live. (Stick built = 2x4s) I live in tornado alley! Could be a lot of flying sticks! Thanks for the video.
@Morgan Allen Structural Steel starts to lose strength @ 600°F. Unprotected it will reach that temperature very quickly in a fire. So it has to be protected, commonly in the past it was asbestos. Now it is mineral fibers. Wood is self insulating including the char.
Another interesting topic would be carbon concrete. In Germany, an architectural highlight of the former DDR (Hyparschale) is currently under renovation with a relatively new carbon fibre concrete material, which allows to reduce the amount of concrete for this particular reconstruction by around 70 or 80%. One of the reasons for the savings is that there isn't any steel used in the new construction.
This is INSANE! Don't you remember the major city fires of the early 20th century? Has anyone talked about Flame or Fire Resistance for these wooden structures?
A big difference then from now is that they used open flames at a much wider scale. Mass electrification has cut the risk of fires significantly. Also, the Greenfell tower fire in London showes that it doesn't matter if the support structure of the building is concrete if the rest of the building isn't done correctly. Fire safty is much more about correct use and awareness of risks than a specific material. That said where this goes wrong is that they want skysrcapers. Skyscrapers rarly justify themselves either ecologically or economically and should just be one of those things we stop being obsessed with.
A nice video thanks. My main worry in engineered timbers are the toxic glues which may make manufacture and construction potentially more hazardous and don’t have a clear non toxic end of life solution other than incineration. A move to standardising main structural members may assist reuse at end of life. Most glues presently used are based on formaldehydes which, environmentally speaking, are a “must to avoid” and confound claims to 100% Green credentials.
Idk how long they last compared to regular skyscrapers? I've read that with proper maintenance most skyscrapers can stand for hundreds of years and I wonder how this compares to a wooden one.
The glue holding these things together is definitely a question mark. Though, I should add that "proper maintenance" for steel and concrete buildings often involves replacing them piece-by-piece. Buildings in which concrete and steel are in constant contact are particularly needy, but metal fatigue alone prompted the complete rebuilding of the Eiffel Tower.
The Cupples 9 building in St. Louis was built around 1900. before my employer occupied it, it required a lengthy retro fit to be occupied. Even so, it had issues and shook terribly anytime a truck drove by. Not fun seeing the roof just sitting on columns, move six inches and one goes and then everything goes. I can tell the stresses are occurring as the corner bricks are disintegrating. That doesn't speak well to the lifespan as anyone who has lived in an old wooden huouse knows, wood warps over time under load. Maybe its cuz im autistic but I notice it in every wooden structure Im in.
They always mention how surprisingly well mass timber does in fire, but they never talk about things that literally eat wood like termites. Imagine a 10-story wood-structured building. Then imagine discovering the first floor having 1/3 of its structure missing.
@@Curly_Maple if that's a concern in the climate where it's built, then you'd need to provide routine inspection and spraying for termites, which should be well within the budget for a tall building if the cost is spread over many tenants, but you could also just build the first few floors out of stone and steel and go mass timber higher up.
That no clear cutting for harvesting trees is not ahem exactly clear cut. At least in the USA east of the Rockies most hardwood is selectively cut like you said but most softwood is clear cut and was planted for that purpose
I'm really curious how the timber withstands compression loads. Another disadvantage I can see is that the structural members are bulkier than ones made from steel.
Live in Milwaukee ascent is a very beautiful building there was nothing like it until now and it will be interesting to see how it goings years from now ❤
Belinda probably already knows this, but when the word "skyscraper" first came into use it was referring to buildings 10 stories and more. The 10 story Home Insurance Building in Chicago was described as a "Skyscraper" in the press when it was built.
I'd say no to wooden skyscrapers, absolutely not., last thing I'd want to be in is a skyscraper that is susceptible to rot and termites. If you want a cozy interior with wood, then do wood paneling.
First time coming across your content. Instantly subscribed. Thank you for this video, we appreciate all the hard-work and research you put into your work.
I've only built structures up to 4 stories; the last one was a medical office facility. All through the design phase for these structures we constantly compare the cost of wood framing to the cost of steel framing and in some of them we used wood and some steel, depending on market prices. Right now both wood and steel are crazy expensive...
I really enjoy your straight forward reviews of building products. One thing I am struggling with is COP and SEER/EER ratings for heat pumps and how air source compares with ground source energy efficiencies and ROI and are we on the cusp of a leap forward.
I love the idea of these, however if we look at the image at 7:06 I think we can see it pretty clear to advantage as well. The mass timber does require a lot more material to get enough strength, so we have a giant diagonal member in front of a window. Now this with better architecture/engineering might be able to be resolved more nicely, But it shows that fundamentally we are using more volume of the building for structure. Which means less percentage of the building is habitable, and beams may need to be placed in less optimal locations. Still I think this is a wonderful material and I see lots of promise.
It is a design choice to have the structural members exposed internally and displayed in the windows. It would not have been difficult to design the layout to conceal them instead.
@@Barnaclebeard True, as a highlighted it can be hidden, but that’s not the real point. The point is that more space in the internal volume of the building is used for structure rather than being occupable. Ie less floor area is available to be used.
@@FreekHoekstra They're also lighter, cheaper, and go up faster. There are going to be many situations where wood construction allows you to have more floors on the same budget, for example. It seems like an advantageous tradeoff to me.
@@Barnaclebeard that’s fair. For the record I actually really like the development I just think we need to be honest about upsides and downsides. And like Linda was saying the ideal is probably a combination of both. Using some steel and concrete elements to reinforce specific sections but having the majority be timber.
Pound for pound, wood is stronger than steel! Yes, you read that correctly. A large threat to mass timber buildings is keeping the wood dry. Water is wood's biggest enemy and can lead to reduction in strength properties, dimensional changes, and decay. Keeping the wood dry during construction and adding moisture content sensors that monitor the building are simple solutions. The best thing about wood is it grows on trees! A renewable resource that performs very well in fire, earthquakes (search post-tensioned timber buildings), and people experience reduced stress levels in timber buildings. Now that we have better engineered wood products such as CLT and Mass Ply Panel and we know how to design with wood, we will see more mass timber buildings in the United States. Demand is increasing, its only a matter of time before manufacturing catches up and large corporations realize wood is good.
@@andrewalexander9492 Yes, but because wood is lighter, you wouldn’t need as big of a foundation or structural elements holding up the stories above it. The dead load is reduced.
I love your videos Belinda and prefer them over most others regardless of the topic. One thing I'd love for you (Belinda) to get into further detail about is the glues used for Mass Timber. I would like to know how environmentally friendly the glues are, can the wood be recycled and repurposed afterwards and also since rotting wood releases carbon what are some gaps in the system that need to be improved to improve wood construction further.
You seem to have a ton of knowledge about insulation, vapor barriers and such! Do you have a video, or could you make one, of how would you insulate a van (assuming you'd live in) in different climates? I've googled and watched videos and there seems to be a lot of debate about this subject! Thanks for your videos :)
Excellent point. My only counter-point is the tried and true square-set timbering in mines. It can quite literally hold up a mountain. Aside from that - I'm a big no way.
There's paint additives for wood that makes it fire proof ( oooh i said firereta....rdent. that might be why my previous comment was deleted) and there is also antimicrobial coatings for wood that basically prevents rot and termites ( kills any and all micro organisms inside the wood and keeps outer micro organisms out ) Then it also depends on what kind of wood ( see the video )
When it comes to building skyscrapers, wood is not typically used as the base material due to its inherent limitations in terms of structural strength and fire resistance. While modern lumber techniques such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) have made it possible to construct tall buildings with wood, they are generally limited to buildings with fewer than 20 stories. In terms of safety, materials such as reinforced concrete and steel are typically considered to be more reliable for use in skyscrapers due to their superior strength and durability. These materials are better able to resist the forces of wind and gravity that are exerted on tall buildings, and they are also more resistant to fire and other hazards. While CLT and other modern lumber techniques have their advantages, such as their sustainability and lower carbon footprint compared to steel and concrete, they are not yet widely accepted for use in tall buildings. More research and testing is needed to fully evaluate their safety and reliability, especially in the face of extreme weather events or other hazards. In summary, while modern lumber techniques such as CLT may have some benefits in terms of sustainability, they are generally not considered to be as safe or reliable as materials such as reinforced concrete and steel for use in skyscrapers.
Thank you for your videos. I enjoy them very much. I must challenge your assertion that the timber industry cuts "selectively" rather than clear cutting. What do you think selective cutting means? The feller-buncher you showed was clear cutting. Does selective cutting just mean a bunch of smaller clear-cuts? I'm skeptical.
I cannot believe the way our society flip-flops. In the early 90's I witnessed the push for plastic bags because they were "more environmentally friendly" than paper and we were running out of trees. Now wood is making a comeback.
Good god no. I worked ins the Cupples 9 building in st Louis. Built like a 19th century mine. I worked at the top floor. Whole bu8ilding shook anytime a big truck drove by and would fail in a horrible pancake fashion as nothing but gravity secured the columns to the floor. When I saw the giant cracks in the columns on lower floors I got pretty anxious.
I'd also add that was WITH a brick facade. One of our meeting rooms at the corner of the building had bricks just turning to dust. I also noticed the stairwells were not straight like something had shifted and tweaked them. Only time I ever saw a crooked stairwell.
The Cupples 9 building was built 120 years ago using traditional timber post and beam construction. The wood structures Belinda is talking about use completely different engineered wood structural assemblies whcih didn't exist back then, using structural design that wasn't possible back them. The only common element is the word "wood", this is nothing like the Cupples 9 building.
@@andrewalexander9492 She showed examples in her video that were exactly like the Cupples 9 building. She even stated the swaying problems in wooden sky scrapers. Even with the massive retro fit they needed before they could occupy it, with modern techniques its still the most unsound structure I've been in. Ive been in many sky scrapers, only one shook violently when a truck drove by hundreds of feet away. That building will fall unless WWT actually fixed the crumbling bricks in the corners and reinforced the cracked columns. Especially if another earth quake hits from the new Madrid fault. Also cutting down all the trees needed for this is not good at all.
The fire safety systems would be costly on these types of structures. In typical steel and concrete buildings, fire sprinklers are installed in the ceilings to protect the floor level. In these, you would need fire sprinklers above the ceilings as well as in any interstitial spaces between floors. The material and installation labor would be through the roof.
U.S. codes heavily regulate concealed space in Type IV, Heavy Timber construction. This construction is just not going to use drop in suspended ceilings. Providing sprinklers above ceiling in conventional buildings might not be as expensive as you might think. When hydraulically calculating for above, and below ceiling you are only required to assume fire in one or the other. Piping is designed for whichever is most challenging. The same piping supplies both, except some upright 1” piping to individual heads, is required to locate ceiling sprinklers at correct locations below deck.
@6:00 - love to see the data behind this claim. I live in the PNW where there is massive amount of tree harvesting and there is nowhere that is really "selectively cut". I've heard that for decades and I've never actually seen it done. I'd have no idea how they could do that in a way that doesn't increase the cost per tree by many multiples. Everywhere here (lots of it being Weyerhaeuser processed) is strip cut and then replanted so you just have slowly moving big bald spots all over the lands west of the Cascades. We have a project being proposed right next to us of up to a 250' using mass timber and it is being sold as "green - because wood!" but no data is provided. And as you showed, steel and concrete is still required so the wood parts here seem to be more of an aesthetic choice. I'm familiar with LVL's and similar in residential construction and require a lot of labor and a lot of very harmful glues and processes to make them. I'd love to see you look into providing a relative comparison of 'impact' of the different options and longevity (or lack of) relative to concrete and steel.
@@Rawstock92 Then provide a source for others to be aware of the facts instead of just "what Ted Ross Stock sees". One that shows that selectively cut softwood trees are the only ones that make up the products she is describing. And you did your "research" to be aware of how those softwood trees were cut vs just what was marketed to you right?
My guess is the best use for these new engineered wood materials would be to extend the concept of the 5-over-1 to more floors, maybe 10-over-1s. I'd still be concerned with going much higher than that with wood. Wood sways in the wind much more than steel and concrete. I discovered that with a treehouse I built. The wood itself has held up for 5 years just fine, but some deck screws have literally snapped because every 10 seconds the entire structure slightly sways in the wind, and that constant swaying is like taking a piece of metal, clamping it in a vice, and bending it back and forth ever-so-little times a million. Wood actually handles this well, but I'd be concerned about the repetitive stress of that on connection points made out of steel that are hidden/hard to see/hard to access for maintenance.
Concrete and steel sways in the wind. If the same structural specifications are met by a wood structure there is no difference. If you built you tree house out of concrete and steel to the same structural tolerances as your wooden one it too would sway.
Mass timber sounds good. I wonder about VOC pollution (from all the glue) inside the building, but that can be addressed. Also, deconstructing an out-of-date timber building is likely to be neater than explosive demolition of steel and concrete. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +2
They (skyscrapers)are also the symbol of cheap and over the top energy use. The bane of smart architecture, human sized cities. Four to max six stories. That's it.
The homeless or rent burdened paying more than 30% of their income on rent probably don't care about artificial human sized city height limits. That's a luxury. They want affordable housing ASAP, and if that means 20 story buildings so be it. If it takes more years to construct enough 5 story buildings to match the total units that's a problem.
Nice video and presentation. Timber surely has a position amongst the construction materials of the future. I also love it as a material. However, I would add that it comes with some more disadvantages up to today. One of them is that due to its much lower strength and stiffness, as compared for example to structural steel, one needs much bigger sections for the structural members of a building. This compromises architectural versatility. Secondly, to date structural timber uses fire retardants, preservatives (e.g., to prevent fungal and insect attacks) and adhesives that may pose risks to the health of people inhabiting buildings made with such materials. And in particularly, I am also not sure how good mass timber would perform against fire without those existing fire retardants that it now comes with. Moreover, we should not forget that despite the fact timber is a renewable resource, it is not recyclable. It can be downcycled, though, to some extend. In contrast, structural steel nowadays in America is recycled to an extend of about 85% and is recyclable to a degree larger than about 95% (AISC). And in fact, recycled steel has an environmental footprint much lower than even structural timber. So, thinking of construction materials, I believe we should start seeing things holistically, and not in the way we used to see back in the days. On the positive side of things, I have recently come across some information about safe adhesives for structural timber, and I am very keen to hear that timber with such adhesives would do equally well in relevant strength and stiffness experiments with mass timber with the existing/conventional adhesives. I also hope that industry and researchers would quickly come up with safe preservatives for mass timber. Closing, I believe that hybrid structures hold the future of construction - not systems purely of one sole material. Thus, the idea that mass timber by itself can be a game changer by itself, for me is not valid. Combining for example structural stainless steel with “safe for humans” mass timber or bamboo, on the other hand, can make a significant differences for the cities of the future. Have a good day and thanks for your video!
I pray that you're wrong about that title, Belinda. I love wood, but I'm more realistically thinking that the exteriors of those wooden buildings will be ignored until moisture has infiltrated and begun to rot them far sooner than a steel framed building would find damage. Ditto roofing leaks which damage the wooden structural members which are hidden from both the interior and exterior. We'll know in under 20 years, I'm betting. P.S: Oh, I love the view out that window at 7:08. (snort)
I want to make a request. I want to make a foundry/oven/kiln for metal making. And I can't get the right ratio of clay, to sand, to crushed up ceramic. Maybe my clay is of poor quality. 'Plaster of Paris' is a material mostly being used in TH-cam videos containing the fabrication of a foundry. I was wondering how it is made, and it's damage to the environment when it's made in a factory. The ability for it to resist such high temperatures and keep its' form seems like magic.
The issues really only become obvious once the demand for wood becomes high and we beging chopping down massive amounts of trees, and it's not like they can be grown in a lab or a green house setting. And also planting a baby tree is not really equivalent to cutting down a fully grown one, and that gap can never be compensated for no matter how many new ones we plant. Just my opinion.
I feel like the resonating properties of wood would have to be heavily compensated for in these constructions. Otherwise, noise would reverberate to your neighbors.
How does a wooden skyscraper compartmentalize unit fires? From what I've seen in real fires they don't. So if your neighbor's place starts on fire you better get out, you won't be sheltering in place. Good examples are a recent concrete highrise fire in Chicago where the wind spread the fire upwards but the walls contained it, and a wooden apartment complex in South Minneapolis (2020) that completely burned up.
These are very promising developments, but worth bearing in mind that the forestry industry underpinning this technology comes with major risks to biodiversity. Even if you don't get "deforestation", the forests you're left with are very different from the forests you had. This is a risk even in well-regulated countries eg. in Scandinavia.
I'm worried, wood glues have a closer expiration date, especially as humidity levels change. What's the plan for when laminated pieces start to come apart?
Depends on who was in charge to choose the materials for constructing them, the lead engineer checking if construction was done correctly ( no cutting corners) and also what was inside those condos. Polyester furniture and carpets etc...
This hybrid building would be the only option, cause it uses the positive of one material to offset the negative of the other. A good addition to mass timber is bamboo, cause it has lesser growth time so more production, toughness and water resistant, and less invironmental friendly. Combine it with hemp, also very versatile.
so I have this reoccurring dream/nightmare right? I am renting space in a building,... and its a highrise wooden building. Its infested with rot and warping. So I am on a higher level floor right? 8th floor or so, with more floors higher up. I feel constantly under threat of either falling through my own floor, a wall crumbling apart and exposing me and the neighbors to eachother, or the building just finally collapsing in and sandwiching me right in the middle. Can't take the elevator either, as its path is already in shambles. The roof of the place already caved in. Some rooms already have floors/ceilings caved and cannot be safely entered(well, I mean, the entire building would normally be condemned in such a state,... so none of its safe) Its just a nightmare right, and has no bearing on reality. But wood highrise? No... no... can't do it. I refuse!
one major disadvantage of mass timber is that it's highly vulnerable to biological growth and degradation with moisture exposure. So if it's raining, it has to be stored properly, and if it gets wet during construction, it has to be dried out, and quickly--ideally within 48h
Wood is maintenance heavy when exposed to elements and makes a good habitat for rodents. Larger wooden buildings remain relatively light and can be blown off in the strong winds like the gate of Kyoto was. I'm with the carpenter guy on that one.
@nuralianathamna8868 This is a sad reality when talking about wood and such. You may think that he doesn't understand the engineering but he does understand working with wood today. These aren't going to be Japanese design where every piece of wood is hand carved and fit perfectly along with account for expansion and compression depending on humidity and temperature. This is just goofy marketing and "engineers" who use software for simulation. People who barely touch wood outside of composite Ikea furniture. Carpenters who are worth their salt know the history of wood and how it used to be done, vs how they're done today. So you may just take his simple comment as being a simple man, but don't underestimate something because you want to make a reddit tier comment.
Question for Belinda, can you turn on the TH-cam option to allow viewers to search your videos? I would like to hear your erudite views on SIP construction panels. If you have already discussed this, please share a link.
IDK about this. My first instinct is "hard pass". I'm trying to image how a wood World Trade Center would have fared in 2001 compared to the concrete and steel versions.
How'd steel and concrete work out for them exactly...? Not saying manufactured wood would do any better, but it'd be pretty hard to it to actually do worse.
@@ChillyJack I just have the idea that no matter how surface fire resistant wood structural members might be, they would eventually burn and result in a faster collapse. I may be wrong, but that's just what I'm thinking would happen.
@@ryanlongman1537 No, but we can recycle steel. And how can you be so sure these companies that are harvesting aren't cutting every corner they legally can to maximize profits?
There is not enough lumber/timber forests to go around for the construction, packaging and every other industry that wants to use wood and fibers as a sustainable material. each industry tends to look at forest need as a solo problem.
Have you don't a video on SIP construction? Also, I have a plot of land I'd like to build on. I'd like to use Adobe bricks and lime mortar. It's a small lot so it isn't anything insane or overwhelming. Would you like to work together and see if you could make some content out of the idea? I'll pay for your time and the building. Let me know what you think.
Anything above 3 floors I would avoid wood for any structural elements. I understand it is possible to build higher as your examples reflect but when building something you need to design for worse case scenarios so the building can last over 100 years. This includes the safe assumption that water and moisture damage will occur compromising the building. If you are concerned with the environment and want to promote carbon sequestration than just build the structure out of steel and use a lot of wood furniture and flooring in these buildings
@@TechGorilla1987 Correct. I grow and build with some of the best tropical hardwood in the world and hardwood is not technically moisture or termite proof. Just resistant if you properly cure it , and properly seal/oil it, and keep it dry. As soon as any wood gets wet regularly (especially plywood ) than it starts to become compromised. These buildings look to be made with softwood which is a much bigger concern as well.
@@ziggarillo plus, no one is saying “build everything from wood,” everyone recognizes the (sometimes) necessary use of concrete and steel. Bad faith hyperbolizing, classic climate obstructionism
Does anyone else remember that time Chicago burned to the ground? Also, even the average USA house consumes something like 2 acres of trees. I’m just not seeing the upsides
"carbon footprint" and "sustainable" are buzzwords pushed around to promote mass timber, but the downsides are hidden. We are in a situation where timber is in high demand and short supply which has pushed lumber prices very high. So why would be divert a high percentage of our limited timber resource to be used in tall buildings? People in the architecture and engineering professions are bombarded with information on mass timber, there is a concentrated coordinated effort to promote it, at the sime time that the news media reports on timber shortages and rising lumber prices.
Mixed use, 4-5 story buildings actually achieve better density, energy use, and efficient urban planning than showy skyscrapers, as counterintuitive as that is. The good news is that, that makes the use of massed timber even easier.
Indeed. Looking at cities like Chicago where skyscrapers are surrounded by 2 and even 1 story buildings is proof. One would think every train stop would average 5 stories in
I think what you're talking about is the missing middle. there's someone pretty good videos about it
Better density?! probably, if the 5-storey buildings take up the whole lot, like they do in the US... but then a 50-storey building taking up same land will still have more marketable area, will it not? I have a misfortune of living in a city with precisely the same development pattern: 1. Raze a 100-unit 5-storey block. 2. Built a 1000-unit skyscraper. 3. Profit!
Some sources state that an ideal density for urban environments is around 20k people per square km. I live in Brazil, and we have a long tradition of building lots of 15~25 stories residential buildings, and most capitals have a seemingly dense urban core. However, if you look at the actual statistics for these "dense" neighborhoods, with 15-25 story buildings in every lot, you'll find that they average around 10k~12k people per square km. Then you look at some neighborhoods in Barcelona, with much lower buildings but with triple the density. High rises can be helpful in some cases, but most times, just building contiguous 5~6 story buildings will do the trick, while also providing a much more pleasant and human scaled urban landscape.
@@arccv Tends to be more practical, affordable, and even effective.
Belinda. I worked for Seagate, the company that installed the mass timber components for Brock Commons. I didn't work on that project per se, but worked on other projects and I am now working on a 9 story tall CLT building. Mass timber is growing a lot and taller and taller buildings will be a lot more common moving forward.
A enjoy a lot how you can see through the all the bs and marketing strategies.
Great video. As always.
The brock commons is not a true mass timber building. It still has cast-in-place concrete foundations, ground floor, and elevator/stair cores; and
steel connections and roof structure.
@@UnbreakableM1nd haha. You basically described how all mass timber buildings are buddy. Did you want wooden foundations? Wood to wood connections without any steel? It's also prevalent to have the cores to be cast-in-place as it helps to increase the building's rigidity. Especially on a tall one, like Brock Commons.
If Brock Commons is not a "true mass timber building, " I don't know what a "true mass timber building" is.
is it in Portland Or. Area?
@@abelardoramirez3962 Nope, it's in Canada, British Columbia, Okanagan region.
@@jisharagu The Brock Commons Tallwood House is in Vancouver, which is a looooong way from the Okanagon region. Interesting that you claim special knowledge of this building but don't know where it is.
There are more low-rise apartment complexes, malls, big box stores, schools, low-rise healthcare, and office buildings built every year than there are skyscrapers built. Although overcoming the engineering challenges of high wood construction is intriguing, I think the timber building (at least with our current technology and manufacturing) is much better suited to low-rise applications. I know Matt Risinger featured a college that built a carbon-neutral biophilic building on the east coast. I believe that is the actual market for these technologies. Love your content - you always have intriguing content!
It would be very good for low-rise structures, but you are falling for an outdated view ( prejudice ) about its usefulness in higher structures. It's weakness is not structural but psychological.
@@ziggarillo Oops. My bad. I did not mean to imply that wood isn't strong enough for the job. I would much rather be in a high wood building during a 9-point earthquake in Los Angeles than in a steel and concrete building! However, this is prohibited by code. The engineering is complicated because it isn't standard - you can't just Google your specifications and find everything laid out for you on the manufacturer's website. The technology is new enough that it is difficult to source enough material in a timely and sustainable manner (although to be fair, that's true of all building materials across the board, now). I'm not worried about the structural integrity of wood buildings, I'm concerned with economic viability and code compliance. It's rather more nuanced and complicated than materials engineering would suggest. It will take years before codes are updated to allow tall wood buildings. I'm delighted to know that you read my comment - I hope this clarifies my meaning.
I love how your channel is always so skeptical and intelligent when it comes to the topics discussed. Always brings some much needed nuance I wish thos platform had more of.
I'm pleased to have found your channel and the insights you are reviewing. Some highlights to consider. One this is not "new technology" at all but has been around for over 4000 years with building codes in the Shang dynasty for "heavy timber" construction. Your point of selective harvesting is very important, yet if industrial companies start controlling our forests we will only see more GMO trees, and monoculture forests which are profitable for these companies but not ecologically sustainable which is something to watch very closely as this "industrialize timber" becomes more common.
I love that your sponsors are often related to the industry rather than all the common ones we see on TH-cam.
That's a good addition to more environmentally friendly buildings. Unfortunately, most people still think that one product is a game changer. It makes for appealing headlines but in the end, I think, it discourages people when they find out that the amazing new product isn't nearly as good as advertised. We need to use all products or methods that are better for the Earth.
Exactly, and skyscrapers take more to energy to air condition, so it doesn’t even fix the core problem in regard to architectural pollution. It’s also a hazard if it sets on fire.
I don't think cutting down a sky scrapers worth of trees is environmentally sound.
@@jhoughjr1 it's more environmentaly sound than producing a sky scraper's worth of concrete & steel.
@@jhoughjr1 Skyscrapers are real estate investment and which can generate lots of resources.
The
I fucking love this woman! She goes in depth on whatever subject with so much ease! Never hypes anything, just gives a good view of advantages and disadvantages. By far the best TH-cam follow I've done in maybe years!
Wow, thanks a lot for your support! :)
Video suggestion: How do old fashioned fired clay bricks perform compared to more modern materials? They have been used for thousands of years for structural walls and foundations, but are now only used for facades. Houses that were build with them, around 50 to 100 years ago, with cavity walls, still seem to be fine places to live in. There are a couple good things about them: they provide good noise insulation, a large thermal mass and they are fire resistant.
I live in South Africa, and we have a fairly dry country. As a result wood is relatively scarce and expensive compared to places like the USA. Consequently it's always been cheaper to build walls with brick than with timber here. Basically we only use timber for roof trusses and that's about it.
We still use old fashioned clay bricks for decorative exteriors, but if the brick isn't going to be visible then we use bricks made out of fly ash waste from coal-fired power stations. Fly ash mixed with cement isn't as strong or nice-looking as clay brick, but it's a lot cheaper! The bricks last indefinitely as long as they remain dry, so a good damp-proofing solution is a must.
UK and many European countries still do structural brick to preserve forests. In the US and Canada is cheaper and more lucrative to build what are essentially disposable homes.
@@jaredbaker7230 and the Canadian brick industry was pretty well destroyed in the late 1800s by the lumber barons. And the complete lack of masonry knowledge of city planners and engineers.
@@jaredbaker7230 They are only "disposable" in the sense that it's a little easier to get rid of the debris when one is demolished. I live in a brick&block house, but most of the houses around me are wood framed and some of them are quite old. The oldest wood house in my city was built by the English in 1650. The only things that shorten the life of wood structure are the vulnerability to fire, which can often be managed, the need for periodic maintenance if the exterior is wood (other claddings like brick, stucco or metal can eliminate most of this requirement), and the inability to survive with no maintenance at all, the way some stone ruins do. With the proper maintenance, a wood building can last indefinitely.
Wonderful presentation! Belinda Carr's reviews and critiques are truly first-rate - in a league of their own.
So great to meet you last week Belinda. I'm currently starting to binge your channel 🙂 Outstanding quality.
Belinda, great work, precise information without ambiguity or missing facts. The more I watch your videos the more I believe and trust in you... even though most information in this public portal is not posted by professionals.
I owned a wood manufacturing company and a degree in architecture so have a keen interest in wood. Managing forests isn't just about clear or selective cutting! Both methods have advantages. If you selective cut, eventually you end up with a forest of only the poorest trees. Clear cutting in relatively narrow bands, increases the diversity by creating open areas for a few years then natural regrowth. Allowing some forest fires also improves the forests.
I don't know what the limiting factor is for laminated timber buildings but combining timber and masonry seems like a bad idea. Timber is flexy, masonry not. The face of a tall building is carried by each floor. Wood changes size with changes in moisture, quite a bit actually. The change in size is different for each direction of the structure of the tree. Least in axial, most in tangential. Thick cross laminations don't seem like a good idea.
They've started building 6 stories of stick built apartments on top of concrete parking garages where I live. (Stick built = 2x4s) I live in tornado alley! Could be a lot of flying sticks!
Thanks for the video.
@Morgan Allen Structural Steel starts to lose strength @ 600°F. Unprotected it will reach that temperature very quickly in a fire. So it has to be protected, commonly in the past it was asbestos. Now it is mineral fibers. Wood is self insulating including the char.
Another interesting topic would be carbon concrete. In Germany, an architectural highlight of the former DDR (Hyparschale) is currently under renovation with a relatively new carbon fibre concrete material, which allows to reduce the amount of concrete for this particular reconstruction by around 70 or 80%. One of the reasons for the savings is that there isn't any steel used in the new construction.
This is INSANE! Don't you remember the major city fires of the early 20th century? Has anyone talked about Flame or Fire Resistance for these wooden structures?
A big difference then from now is that they used open flames at a much wider scale. Mass electrification has cut the risk of fires significantly. Also, the Greenfell tower fire in London showes that it doesn't matter if the support structure of the building is concrete if the rest of the building isn't done correctly. Fire safty is much more about correct use and awareness of risks than a specific material. That said where this goes wrong is that they want skysrcapers. Skyscrapers rarly justify themselves either ecologically or economically and should just be one of those things we stop being obsessed with.
Wood skyscrapers give me concern especially in places with harsh weathers like New York not to mention termites
The moment I started seeing these claims pop up I thought of your channel and am happy to see a relevant video. Cheers
A nice video thanks. My main worry in engineered timbers are the toxic glues which may make manufacture and construction potentially more hazardous and don’t have a clear non toxic end of life solution other than incineration.
A move to standardising main structural members may assist reuse at end of life.
Most glues presently used are based on formaldehydes which, environmentally speaking, are a “must to avoid” and confound claims to 100% Green credentials.
No they do not use formeldahydes in wood laminates anymore, at least not in the US. It is treated as asbestos.
@@jamesdeclan7538 however they DO use chemicals not yet banned by law😄 its all a circus science, or at least the money behind it is.
Idk how long they last compared to regular skyscrapers? I've read that with proper maintenance most skyscrapers can stand for hundreds of years and I wonder how this compares to a wooden one.
The glue holding these things together is definitely a question mark. Though, I should add that "proper maintenance" for steel and concrete buildings often involves replacing them piece-by-piece. Buildings in which concrete and steel are in constant contact are particularly needy, but metal fatigue alone prompted the complete rebuilding of the Eiffel Tower.
The Cupples 9 building in St. Louis was built around 1900. before my employer occupied it, it required a lengthy retro fit to be occupied.
Even so, it had issues and shook terribly anytime a truck drove by. Not fun seeing the roof just sitting on columns, move six inches and one goes and then everything goes.
I can tell the stresses are occurring as the corner bricks are disintegrating.
That doesn't speak well to the lifespan as anyone who has lived in an old wooden huouse knows, wood warps over time under load. Maybe its cuz im autistic but I notice it in every wooden structure Im in.
@@pcno2832 The Eiffel Tower was unprotected iron I think and not expensive steel, not the same as rebar steel.
They always mention how surprisingly well mass timber does in fire, but they never talk about things that literally eat wood like termites. Imagine a 10-story wood-structured building. Then imagine discovering the first floor having 1/3 of its structure missing.
@@Curly_Maple if that's a concern in the climate where it's built, then you'd need to provide routine inspection and spraying for termites, which should be well within the budget for a tall building if the cost is spread over many tenants, but you could also just build the first few floors out of stone and steel and go mass timber higher up.
That no clear cutting for harvesting trees is not ahem exactly clear cut.
At least in the USA east of the Rockies most hardwood is selectively cut like you said but most softwood is clear cut and was planted for that purpose
Excellent summation!! Never 'board' with your reviews always educational...thank ya!!
I'm really curious how the timber withstands compression loads.
Another disadvantage I can see is that the structural members are bulkier than ones made from steel.
Live in Milwaukee ascent is a very beautiful building there was nothing like it until now and it will be interesting to see how it goings years from now ❤
the waterproofing details better be super on point with high rise timeber. freaking thing can rot out and collapse
Thank You, Belinda!
Thanks! for an education
Hi Belinda, another great presentation. International House Sydney is another great example of mass timber.
We all need to PLANT MORE TREES (and food plants, etc too)!
Belinda probably already knows this, but when the word "skyscraper" first came into use it was referring to buildings 10 stories and more. The 10 story Home Insurance Building in Chicago was described as a "Skyscraper" in the press when it was built.
tHanks. I just jumped over the the sponsor's website. tHanks for the video
I'd say no to wooden skyscrapers, absolutely not., last thing I'd want to be in is a skyscraper that is susceptible to rot and termites. If you want a cozy interior with wood, then do wood paneling.
Agree, I would say, since majorities of buildings are low-rise. Wooden buildings would only make sense for building with 10 floors or less.
@@nntflow7058 I still feel like for 10 story buildings it seems like a nice option!
And they burn sooo well
You’re amazing Belinda!!
First time coming across your content. Instantly subscribed. Thank you for this video, we appreciate all the hard-work and research you put into your work.
I've only built structures up to 4 stories; the last one was a medical office facility. All through the design phase for these structures we constantly compare the cost of wood framing to the cost of steel framing and in some of them we used wood and some steel, depending on market prices. Right now both wood and steel are crazy expensive...
I really enjoy your straight forward reviews of building products. One thing I am struggling with is COP and SEER/EER ratings for heat pumps and how air source compares with ground source energy efficiencies and ROI and are we on the cusp of a leap forward.
I love the idea of these, however if we look at the image at 7:06 I think we can see it pretty clear to advantage as well.
The mass timber does require a lot more material to get enough strength, so we have a giant diagonal member in front of a window.
Now this with better architecture/engineering might be able to be resolved more nicely, But it shows that fundamentally we are using more volume of the building for structure. Which means less percentage of the building is habitable, and beams may need to be placed in less optimal locations.
Still I think this is a wonderful material and I see lots of promise.
It is a design choice to have the structural members exposed internally and displayed in the windows. It would not have been difficult to design the layout to conceal them instead.
@@Barnaclebeard True, as a highlighted it can be hidden, but that’s not the real point. The point is that more space in the internal volume of the building is used for structure rather than being occupable. Ie less floor area is available to be used.
@@FreekHoekstra They're also lighter, cheaper, and go up faster. There are going to be many situations where wood construction allows you to have more floors on the same budget, for example. It seems like an advantageous tradeoff to me.
@@Barnaclebeard that’s fair. For the record I actually really like the development I just think we need to be honest about upsides and downsides.
And like Linda was saying the ideal is probably a combination of both. Using some steel and concrete elements to reinforce specific sections but having the majority be timber.
This video is so fascinating and informative! Thank you.
Pound for pound, wood is stronger than steel! Yes, you read that correctly. A large threat to mass timber buildings is keeping the wood dry. Water is wood's biggest enemy and can lead to reduction in strength properties, dimensional changes, and decay. Keeping the wood dry during construction and adding moisture content sensors that monitor the building are simple solutions. The best thing about wood is it grows on trees! A renewable resource that performs very well in fire, earthquakes (search post-tensioned timber buildings), and people experience reduced stress levels in timber buildings. Now that we have better engineered wood products such as CLT and Mass Ply Panel and we know how to design with wood, we will see more mass timber buildings in the United States. Demand is increasing, its only a matter of time before manufacturing catches up and large corporations realize wood is good.
uh-huh, but square inch for square inch, wood isn't even close to the strength of steel.
@@andrewalexander9492 Yes, but because wood is lighter, you wouldn’t need as big of a foundation or structural elements holding up the stories above it. The dead load is reduced.
Love your content
I would never trust a landlord to maintain the fire prevention of a wooden apartment complex
I love your videos Belinda and prefer them over most others regardless of the topic. One thing I'd love for you (Belinda) to get into further detail about is the glues used for Mass Timber. I would like to know how environmentally friendly the glues are, can the wood be recycled and repurposed afterwards and also since rotting wood releases carbon what are some gaps in the system that need to be improved to improve wood construction further.
You seem to have a ton of knowledge about insulation, vapor barriers and such! Do you have a video, or could you make one, of how would you insulate a van (assuming you'd live in) in different climates? I've googled and watched videos and there seems to be a lot of debate about this subject! Thanks for your videos :)
Fires, rot, termites?
Excellent point. My only counter-point is the tried and true square-set timbering in mines. It can quite literally hold up a mountain. Aside from that - I'm a big no way.
@@TechGorilla1987 yes and no. in the mine, the rock is still bearing some load. There is a reason they stopped building wooden framed sky scrapers.
@Narja I don’t think he did. He doesn’t seem to realize the strength of steel disappears when the fire rises temperature.
my comment was deleted... uughhh let me try again
There's paint additives for wood that makes it fire proof ( oooh i said firereta....rdent. that might be why my previous comment was deleted) and there is also antimicrobial coatings for wood that basically prevents rot and termites ( kills any and all micro organisms inside the wood and keeps outer micro organisms out )
Then it also depends on what kind of wood ( see the video )
There's not many good videos of advantages/disadvantages to glass block windows, would be awesome to see what your thoughts on them are.
When it comes to building skyscrapers, wood is not typically used as the base material due to its inherent limitations in terms of structural strength and fire resistance. While modern lumber techniques such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) have made it possible to construct tall buildings with wood, they are generally limited to buildings with fewer than 20 stories.
In terms of safety, materials such as reinforced concrete and steel are typically considered to be more reliable for use in skyscrapers due to their superior strength and durability. These materials are better able to resist the forces of wind and gravity that are exerted on tall buildings, and they are also more resistant to fire and other hazards.
While CLT and other modern lumber techniques have their advantages, such as their sustainability and lower carbon footprint compared to steel and concrete, they are not yet widely accepted for use in tall buildings. More research and testing is needed to fully evaluate their safety and reliability, especially in the face of extreme weather events or other hazards.
In summary, while modern lumber techniques such as CLT may have some benefits in terms of sustainability, they are generally not considered to be as safe or reliable as materials such as reinforced concrete and steel for use in skyscrapers.
I think Insulated Concrete Forms is the future 👍👍
Thank you for your videos. I enjoy them very much. I must challenge your assertion that the timber industry cuts "selectively" rather than clear cutting. What do you think selective cutting means? The feller-buncher you showed was clear cutting. Does selective cutting just mean a bunch of smaller clear-cuts? I'm skeptical.
🎆 QUESTION: Where do we expect to get all the wood from.
Trees
I cannot believe the way our society flip-flops. In the early 90's I witnessed the push for plastic bags because they were "more environmentally friendly" than paper and we were running out of trees. Now wood is making a comeback.
Good god no. I worked ins the Cupples 9 building in st Louis. Built like a 19th century mine. I worked at the top floor. Whole bu8ilding shook anytime a big truck drove by and would fail in a horrible pancake fashion as nothing but gravity secured the columns to the floor. When I saw the giant cracks in the columns on lower floors I got pretty anxious.
I'd also add that was WITH a brick facade. One of our meeting rooms at the corner of the building had bricks just turning to dust. I also noticed the stairwells were not straight like something had shifted and tweaked them. Only time I ever saw a crooked stairwell.
The Cupples 9 building was built 120 years ago using traditional timber post and beam construction. The wood structures Belinda is talking about use completely different engineered wood structural assemblies whcih didn't exist back then, using structural design that wasn't possible back them. The only common element is the word "wood", this is nothing like the Cupples 9 building.
@@andrewalexander9492 She showed examples in her video that were exactly like the Cupples 9 building.
She even stated the swaying problems in wooden sky scrapers.
Even with the massive retro fit they needed before they could occupy it, with modern techniques its still the most unsound structure I've been in.
Ive been in many sky scrapers, only one shook violently when a truck drove by hundreds of feet away.
That building will fall unless WWT actually fixed the crumbling bricks in the corners and reinforced the cracked columns.
Especially if another earth quake hits from the new Madrid fault.
Also cutting down all the trees needed for this is not good at all.
The fire safety systems would be costly on these types of structures. In typical steel and concrete buildings, fire sprinklers are installed in the ceilings to protect the floor level. In these, you would need fire sprinklers above the ceilings as well as in any interstitial spaces between floors. The material and installation labor would be through the roof.
U.S. codes heavily regulate concealed space in Type IV, Heavy Timber construction. This construction is just not going to use drop in suspended ceilings.
Providing sprinklers above ceiling in conventional buildings might not be as expensive as you might think. When hydraulically calculating for above, and below ceiling you are only required to assume fire in one or the other. Piping is designed for whichever is most challenging. The same piping supplies both, except some upright 1” piping to individual heads, is required to locate ceiling sprinklers at correct locations below deck.
@6:00 - love to see the data behind this claim. I live in the PNW where there is massive amount of tree harvesting and there is nowhere that is really "selectively cut". I've heard that for decades and I've never actually seen it done. I'd have no idea how they could do that in a way that doesn't increase the cost per tree by many multiples. Everywhere here (lots of it being Weyerhaeuser processed) is strip cut and then replanted so you just have slowly moving big bald spots all over the lands west of the Cascades.
We have a project being proposed right next to us of up to a 250' using mass timber and it is being sold as "green - because wood!" but no data is provided. And as you showed, steel and concrete is still required so the wood parts here seem to be more of an aesthetic choice.
I'm familiar with LVL's and similar in residential construction and require a lot of labor and a lot of very harmful glues and processes to make them. I'd love to see you look into providing a relative comparison of 'impact' of the different options and longevity (or lack of) relative to concrete and steel.
I purchased logs from selective thinnings on a daily basis. The standard is not "What Tobu Jupaki sees". Do actual research and inform your opinion.
@@Rawstock92 Then provide a source for others to be aware of the facts instead of just "what Ted Ross Stock sees". One that shows that selectively cut softwood trees are the only ones that make up the products she is describing. And you did your "research" to be aware of how those softwood trees were cut vs just what was marketed to you right?
My guess is the best use for these new engineered wood materials would be to extend the concept of the 5-over-1 to more floors, maybe 10-over-1s. I'd still be concerned with going much higher than that with wood. Wood sways in the wind much more than steel and concrete. I discovered that with a treehouse I built. The wood itself has held up for 5 years just fine, but some deck screws have literally snapped because every 10 seconds the entire structure slightly sways in the wind, and that constant swaying is like taking a piece of metal, clamping it in a vice, and bending it back and forth ever-so-little times a million. Wood actually handles this well, but I'd be concerned about the repetitive stress of that on connection points made out of steel that are hidden/hard to see/hard to access for maintenance.
Concrete and steel sways in the wind. If the same structural specifications are met by a wood structure there is no difference. If you built you tree house out of concrete and steel to the same structural tolerances as your wooden one it too would sway.
Mass timber sounds good. I wonder about VOC pollution (from all the glue) inside the building, but that can be addressed. Also, deconstructing an out-of-date timber building is likely to be neater than explosive demolition of steel and concrete. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
They (skyscrapers)are also the symbol of cheap and over the top energy use. The bane of smart architecture, human sized cities. Four to max six stories. That's it.
The homeless or rent burdened paying more than 30% of their income on rent probably don't care about artificial human sized city height limits. That's a luxury. They want affordable housing ASAP, and if that means 20 story buildings so be it. If it takes more years to construct enough 5 story buildings to match the total units that's a problem.
Hey can you do a review of the BamCore wall system it's a relatively unknown alternative to Cross Laminated Timber or Mass Timber.
Nice video and presentation. Timber surely has a position amongst the construction materials of the future. I also love it as a material. However, I would add that it comes with some more disadvantages up to today. One of them is that due to its much lower strength and stiffness, as compared for example to structural steel, one needs much bigger sections for the structural members of a building. This compromises architectural versatility. Secondly, to date structural timber uses fire retardants, preservatives (e.g., to prevent fungal and insect attacks) and adhesives that may pose risks to the health of people inhabiting buildings made with such materials. And in particularly, I am also not sure how good mass timber would perform against fire without those existing fire retardants that it now comes with. Moreover, we should not forget that despite the fact timber is a renewable resource, it is not recyclable. It can be downcycled, though, to some extend. In contrast, structural steel nowadays in America is recycled to an extend of about 85% and is recyclable to a degree larger than about 95% (AISC). And in fact, recycled steel has an environmental footprint much lower than even structural timber. So, thinking of construction materials, I believe we should start seeing things holistically, and not in the way we used to see back in the days. On the positive side of things, I have recently come across some information about safe adhesives for structural timber, and I am very keen to hear that timber with such adhesives would do equally well in relevant strength and stiffness experiments with mass timber with the existing/conventional adhesives. I also hope that industry and researchers would quickly come up with safe preservatives for mass timber. Closing, I believe that hybrid structures hold the future of construction - not systems purely of one sole material. Thus, the idea that mass timber by itself can be a game changer by itself, for me is not valid. Combining for example structural stainless steel with “safe for humans” mass timber or bamboo, on the other hand, can make a significant differences for the cities of the future. Have a good day and thanks for your video!
I pray that you're wrong about that title, Belinda. I love wood, but I'm more realistically thinking that the exteriors of those wooden buildings will be ignored until moisture has infiltrated and begun to rot them far sooner than a steel framed building would find damage. Ditto roofing leaks which damage the wooden structural members which are hidden from both the interior and exterior. We'll know in under 20 years, I'm betting. P.S: Oh, I love the view out that window at 7:08. (snort)
Thanks!
Can you make a video about why the roads in Dallas are so bad and always have construction happening?
I want to make a request.
I want to make a foundry/oven/kiln for metal making. And I can't get the right ratio of clay, to sand, to crushed up ceramic. Maybe my clay is of poor quality.
'Plaster of Paris' is a material mostly being used in TH-cam videos containing the fabrication of a foundry. I was wondering how it is made, and it's damage to the environment when it's made in a factory.
The ability for it to resist such high temperatures and keep its' form seems like magic.
The issues really only become obvious once the demand for wood becomes high and we beging chopping down massive amounts of trees, and it's not like they can be grown in a lab or a green house setting.
And also planting a baby tree is not really equivalent to cutting down a fully grown one, and that gap can never be compensated for no matter how many new ones we plant.
Just my opinion.
What about resistance to fungi and insects? Those can cause considerable damage
I feel like the resonating properties of wood would have to be heavily compensated for in these constructions. Otherwise, noise would reverberate to your neighbors.
A Cool vid with good educational content, thanks again for quality vids like these.
What fire protection is used?.. how are the termites prevented?. What about when it rains
Very cool.
the family guy clip killed me🤣
How does a wooden skyscraper compartmentalize unit fires? From what I've seen in real fires they don't. So if your neighbor's place starts on fire you better get out, you won't be sheltering in place. Good examples are a recent concrete highrise fire in Chicago where the wind spread the fire upwards but the walls contained it, and a wooden apartment complex in South Minneapolis (2020) that completely burned up.
These are very promising developments, but worth bearing in mind that the forestry industry underpinning this technology comes with major risks to biodiversity. Even if you don't get "deforestation", the forests you're left with are very different from the forests you had. This is a risk even in well-regulated countries eg. in Scandinavia.
I’m very interested in “wood”(hybrid) “Skyscraper” for our offices and one of the Universities we support from my Foundation.
I'm worried, wood glues have a closer expiration date, especially as humidity levels change. What's the plan for when laminated pieces start to come apart?
I would like all my enemies to buy units in timber condo buildings.
3 wooden condo complexes have burned down recently where I live, concrete and steel 0.
Depends on who was in charge to choose the materials for constructing them, the lead engineer checking if construction was done correctly ( no cutting corners) and also what was inside those condos. Polyester furniture and carpets etc...
This hybrid building would be the only option, cause it uses the positive of one material to offset the negative of the other. A good addition to mass timber is bamboo, cause it has lesser growth time so more production, toughness and water resistant, and less invironmental friendly. Combine it with hemp, also very versatile.
so I have this reoccurring dream/nightmare right? I am renting space in a building,... and its a highrise wooden building. Its infested with rot and warping. So I am on a higher level floor right? 8th floor or so, with more floors higher up. I feel constantly under threat of either falling through my own floor, a wall crumbling apart and exposing me and the neighbors to eachother, or the building just finally collapsing in and sandwiching me right in the middle. Can't take the elevator either, as its path is already in shambles. The roof of the place already caved in. Some rooms already have floors/ceilings caved and cannot be safely entered(well, I mean, the entire building would normally be condemned in such a state,... so none of its safe)
Its just a nightmare right, and has no bearing on reality.
But wood highrise? No... no... can't do it. I refuse!
I've seen a video explaining how wooden bridges using similar tech were not really durable... But how durable are those buildings?
Dear Belinda, could you please do a take on rammed earth? Could it be a solution in eco friendliness? Affordability?
one major disadvantage of mass timber is that it's highly vulnerable to biological growth and degradation with moisture exposure. So if it's raining, it has to be stored properly, and if it gets wet during construction, it has to be dried out, and quickly--ideally within 48h
I'm a carpenter. I wouldn't live in anything made of wood over four stories tall.
With all due respect, the fact that you a carpenter of a wooden door or window does not make you an expert in statics or civil engineering
Wood is maintenance heavy when exposed to elements and makes a good habitat for rodents. Larger wooden buildings remain relatively light and can be blown off in the strong winds like the gate of Kyoto was. I'm with the carpenter guy on that one.
@@damianborkowski7429 CLT is 3.5 to ~ 12 inches thick solid wood sheets. It’s utterly unlike stick built wood.
@nuralianathamna8868 This is a sad reality when talking about wood and such. You may think that he doesn't understand the engineering but he does understand working with wood today. These aren't going to be Japanese design where every piece of wood is hand carved and fit perfectly along with account for expansion and compression depending on humidity and temperature. This is just goofy marketing and "engineers" who use software for simulation. People who barely touch wood outside of composite Ikea furniture.
Carpenters who are worth their salt know the history of wood and how it used to be done, vs how they're done today. So you may just take his simple comment as being a simple man, but don't underestimate something because you want to make a reddit tier comment.
@@alexandrep4913
With CNC Mill you can make very precise parts
I wonder about the effects of the glues on the lungs
Question for Belinda, can you turn on the TH-cam option to allow viewers to search your videos?
I would like to hear your erudite views on SIP construction panels. If you have already discussed this, please share a link.
IDK about this. My first instinct is "hard pass". I'm trying to image how a wood World Trade Center would have fared in 2001 compared to the concrete and steel versions.
How'd steel and concrete work out for them exactly...? Not saying manufactured wood would do any better, but it'd be pretty hard to it to actually do worse.
@@ChillyJack I just have the idea that no matter how surface fire resistant wood structural members might be, they would eventually burn and result in a faster collapse. I may be wrong, but that's just what I'm thinking would happen.
I'm confused. What happened to the problem of deforestation?
Try actually watching the video.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 How does this production of mass timber not equal mass deforestation? It takes 30 years for trees to become carbon neutral
@@pk10x Watch the video nitwit.
@@pk10x It might take awhile for trees to grow but we can grow more trees, we can't grow more concrete and steel!
@@ryanlongman1537 No, but we can recycle steel. And how can you be so sure these companies that are harvesting aren't cutting every corner they legally can to maximize profits?
There is not enough lumber/timber forests to go around for the construction, packaging and every other industry that wants to use wood and fibers as a sustainable material. each industry tends to look at forest need as a solo problem.
Commenting so the algorithm will bring me back here :)
I don’t know why but this video only showed up in my alerts and can’t be found in the list of videos in my subscribed list
Where do you get all that wood???
"Lego of building materials" probably means "cheaply produced overseas yet massively overpriced" which hopefully doesn't apply to mass timber.
most clt pruduced in austria germany cand finnlad and usa
Have you don't a video on SIP construction? Also, I have a plot of land I'd like to build on. I'd like to use Adobe bricks and lime mortar. It's a small lot so it isn't anything insane or overwhelming. Would you like to work together and see if you could make some content out of the idea? I'll pay for your time and the building. Let me know what you think.
Wood is flammable
Anything above 3 floors I would avoid wood for any structural elements. I understand it is possible to build higher as your examples reflect but when building something you need to design for worse case scenarios so the building can last over 100 years. This includes the safe assumption that water and moisture damage will occur compromising the building. If you are concerned with the environment and want to promote carbon sequestration than just build the structure out of steel and use a lot of wood furniture and flooring in these buildings
Especially when you hear a phrase like "moisture RESISTANT adhesives." Nature is full of moisture as it turns out.
@@TechGorilla1987 Correct. I grow and build with some of the best tropical hardwood in the world and hardwood is not technically moisture or termite proof. Just resistant if you properly cure it , and properly seal/oil it, and keep it dry. As soon as any wood gets wet regularly (especially plywood ) than it starts to become compromised. These buildings look to be made with softwood which is a much bigger concern as well.
From "No more paper bags" to let's build everything out of wood in one generation.
Ain’t that a shame
It’s plastic bags that are banned. Paper is recyclable.
Wood, if managed properly, is a fully renewable resource. The original paper industry just ate forests, this is no longer the case.
Not exactly the same between single use paper and long lasting building.
@@ziggarillo plus, no one is saying “build everything from wood,” everyone recognizes the (sometimes) necessary use of concrete and steel. Bad faith hyperbolizing, classic climate obstructionism
but will it be fireproof?
Does anyone else remember that time Chicago burned to the ground?
Also, even the average USA house consumes something like 2 acres of trees. I’m just not seeing the upsides
LVL in your example is not stocked in the same direction Its alternating like plywood
fire on lower floors will weaken wooden supports, i don't trust it
Wood is actually very good under compression.
Just have to make sure nobody lights a match, and pay for top dollar electricians for installation
"carbon footprint" and "sustainable" are buzzwords pushed around to promote mass timber, but the downsides are hidden. We are in a situation where timber is in high demand and short supply which has pushed lumber prices very high. So why would be divert a high percentage of our limited timber resource to be used in tall buildings? People in the architecture and engineering professions are bombarded with information on mass timber, there is a concentrated coordinated effort to promote it, at the sime time that the news media reports on timber shortages and rising lumber prices.