Quick note. Firstly, I wanted to clarify a statement in the video about the skill of framers. That was a product of bad writing on my part. I absolutely believe that rough carpentry is a skilled profession. I was trying to take the position of someone in the late 1800s appreciating the efficiency of the new technology. I had a quote in there, but ended up taking it out. Apologies for the way it comes across now. Secondly, thanks for the comments about the hamburger metaphor, I will take that into future advisement!
You also might want to fix you Chicago references. When on the east cost of the mid Atlantic states and New England there are home built well before those dates.
I'm glad you posted this comment. I am a framer and a trim carpenter in the remodel industry. There is a going mentality, even within the field itself, that it is not rocket science. But the concepts of putting together a sound structure really are deceptively simple. And it takes years to hone the skills to make someone a lead/foreman framer. Especially when hand cutting roofs. It is a dying art and only the toughest will do this for decades. I will freely admit, I am not cut out to frame full time. I can't hack working all year round in the elements. The few men I worked with who had decades of experience are amazing tradesmen. And there aren't many of those types around anymore.
I was about to say something about that. Construction is literally considered skilled labor. Sure building walls isn't too hard this way, but putting together a whole structure that won't fail for decades is not.
Thank you for taking the time to make that correction. Not because I was insulted having passed journeyman 30 years ago. Because I have had to fix way too many structurally unsound DIY builds that always started with "How hard can it be to nail up boards? I can do it cheaper!" More math than you realize and it's always more expensive to fix your mistakes.
I think it’s important to consider the importance of nails as well as wood. Originally, nails were handcrafted, one at a time, by a blacksmith. They were labor-intensive and extremely expensive (hence the importance of joinery techniques in old furniture - it reduced the need for nails). Around 1800 (in the US), the first factory-made nails came about, greatly reducing the cost. This was modernized into the wire nail we all know today around 1860. These dirt-cheap nails, even more than the 2x4, were responsible for the rise of 2x4 framing. Constructing a building from small boards fastened together went from mind-bogglingly expensive to the cheapest and lowest-skilled approach, because boards could just be nailed together, rather than needing elaborate carved joints.
The story of standardisation is the story of mechanisation, and without standardisation you can’t have complexity with efficiency. Sure you can have complexity, like a hand crafted 19th century chronometer, but you can’t have millions of them.
My grandfather was a lifelong carpenter in New England. When they bid a house they always asked if there were any feature they wanted in the future but couldn’t afford now, like bay windows or garage in the basement of a ranch house They would frame them in, which didn’t cost much more, so that when the day came, the headers and supports were already there Just cut out the outer and inner areas and the bay window or garage door could be installed He also, by default, ran 3 instead of 2 carrier beam 2x12’s to insure the house wouldn’t settle My uncles house was built this way almost 40 years ago and no door has stuck in the winter and has never settled My grandfather always promoted 4’ entry doors to facilitate furniture moving, etc Costs spent up front save headaches in 20 years
I really enjoyed this video. I spent my whole life in the homebuilding business starting in 1973. I retired in 2012, but came out of retirement 5 or 6 times to do interior trimwork for my son the homebuilder. This is my 50th year in the business. I retired for good this year and miss it so much. It's sad that time goes by so fast.
Just turned 28 today, and realized I've spent half my life in the skilled trades (finish carpentry & glazing). My grandpa was a finish carpenter and I grew up helping him sometimes when he really needed it, but he refused to teach me much outside of that because he didn't like the job much and was forced to do it for the sake of the family. Oh well, I guess 😂 but I ended up getting into trouble quite a few times as a kid from hanging out in half built residential construction sites trying to take in everything around me
@@saeedhossain6099 when designed correctly, 24 OC is a better way to build a house. When you can transfer load in a straight line directly from the trusses into the floor, there's no reason to not save money on materials
the reason for the development of light wood framing was the reduced cost and increased availability of nails... particularly wire nails. These are essential to this type of construction, different than the cut joinery used with timber framing. This is a good example of how the innovation of one product can completely change an industry.
Cheap wire nails and industrial sawmills allowed light wood framing's other numerous benefits to come to the fore. Without these two innovations, light wood framing is not viable. If timbers must be sourced and finished locally, there is no advantage to using many more small ones. Likewise, without cheap wire nails it is not feasible to efficiently (cost and time) connect many small members. These two innovations allowed the rapidly-expanding US to build all sorts of buildings cheaply and easily. By setting up a relatively local sawing operation, the only industrial import would be nails and fixtures which are much smaller and lighter. The lumber itself is also much lighter and easier to transport than timbers, brick, or stone. Source timber could be found nearby across most of the expanding US. The same cannot be said for masonry source materials and they are simply too expensive to transport. While the postwar boom created most of the housing stock and cemented light wood for the home, light wood had been in typical use since the earliest days of the colonies and through the western expansion for exactly these reasons.
@@haphazard1342 What the hell are you talking about, Masonry Source Materials are EVERYWHERE, it's the literal thing you walk on. the Ground. You need clay, and the only places without clay are the ocean and stone beds, most of the US consists of neither. And sure there are few regions with sand, but you can still make bricks out of clay sand, which is what those regions are made up of. There is no place on Earth that isn't covered with way too much water, that can't utilize clay to build buildings. And in the few ones where you can't use clay, you can use silt or sand or god forbid STONE. And sure making Stone Bricks is way too much work, but using stone and crushed stone mortar, is a viable way to construct buildings. And especially in a lot of parts of the US, Stone buildings would've been preferable to keep Cool, I'm looking at you Southern Texas and your egg fryingly hot weather.
@@livedandletdie Bricks are a poor choice for wall construction in seismic areas, like most of the western USA. Also, masonry walls must get very thick if walls are tall or roof spans are large. Unless you are talking about reinforced masonry and steel isn't just found on the ground but is a very specialized industry, sorta like nails. Most homes that are made out of brick then have wood framed walls inside of them so that electrical wiring, plumbing and HVAC can be run inside them. All things considered, wood is a better building material than masonry. So in your ideal masonry homes; what exactly is your roofing system made out of?
That's not quite true. Stick frame construction was made possible by sawmills that were cheap and efficient. In the early days of stick frame construction each 2x4 stud was mortised into both the base and top plates. This style didn't last long because shortly after modern stick frame construction was popularised cut nails and then wire nails came along. However having said that their are variations of stick frame construction that go back hundreds of years. They are associated with regions that had water and wind powered sawmills. Netherlands and Germany in particular.
@Hellequin Maskharat I'm not arguing quantity over quality. Wood framed walls are better than masonry walls for residential construction. Is your argument really that since some old stone building s are still standing then that is the best way to build? So since there are some old Mercedes still on the road that means they are better than the modern Mercedes? No, of course not.
I've always had a soft spot for "scribe rule" timber framing. We didn't use it much in the USA because we had a healthy supply of straight timber, but it was used a lot in Europe when it became underforested. It allows you to timber frame with crooked, twisted, or otherwise irregular timber, by lining laying them out and lining them up where they will join. As long as a timber is joined at the ends, you don't care how much it waves or meanders in between the joints, and can actually use these irregularities to your advantage. In the hands of a skilled framer, the results can be quite beautiful.
" As long as a timber is joined at the ends, you don't care how much it waves or meanders in between the joints" um no. you absolutely do, because a beam thats twisting and contorting in its place dosent provide any structural support.
That's what I do. And yes it's beautifull. A few craftsmen from the old world built over here early on. i've worked on a few , including the project I'm on now. It's been modified and moved at least once. Started as an English threashing barn.
As someone who’s worked in framing for 2 decades I found this vid very informative and awesome. However, it must be said that framing carpenters are very much skilled tradesmen much like their colleges who do Timber/clear span/ pole barn framing. Tho they are different, there are many commonalities and real tradesman can do all equally as well.
I agree and that implication in the video is a product of bad writing on my part. I think it very much is a skilled profession. I was mostly trying to capture the sentiment at the time, there are many quotes of people saying how much easier it is from like 1850 to build a house than it use to be. I completely respect the work of framers and rough carpenters and regret how it comes across in this video.
As someone who's built framing as a hobbyist off and on for 3 decades, I completely agree with that sentiment! However, I do think once you get above a fairly low baseline, a lot of that skill ends up being useful much like skill in housepainting is useful. As one professional housepainter said in a how-to video I saw, most people with a little practice can do as good a job as he could at painting a room -- it's just that he can do it a whole lot faster.
My house was a horse barn or something timber framed and then added onto over the years. I think it's origin is 1935 or something like that. It had the old wiring with the porcelain insulators. Anyway I'm remodeling it and the other day just taking off a piece of trim about 2 ft long and it took me an hour with flat bars, hammer and a sawzall haha. The "trim" nails they used are 2 3/4 long. That's damn near a framing nail. It's crazy how different building is now. Nothing even remotely square or plumb haha. Different priorities then.
@@BrooksMoses i wouldn’t go that far.. i feel like with that logic you could infer that any trade is possible for absolutely anybody to do with enough practice, but the truth is maybe 6/10 people would paint their own house (mostly due to not wanting to go through the hassle of it) but less than 1/100 people would attempt framing their own house (almost entirely due to lack of knowledge/skill to actually be able to do it).
If only more builders would demand more skill in their framers instead of hiring the cheapest idiot around. Also, if they would pay a small amount extra for better quality lumber, they could reduce labor costs. With all the whining from idiots about the supposed problems with our version of capitalism, the biggest problem is the way it supports a flight from quality.
Great video. I’ve been selling lumber for new home construction for 20+ years. The part that still blows me away is how understood the entire process is by the people involved. I produce a list of material based off a blueprint. The load pullers gather the materials and load them in a manner that makes sense to the framers on the job site. The truck drivers know where to put the material on site so not to block access to the other tradesman. Finally the framing crew builds the structure. In 7-10 days a house is under roof. It all happens so fast! Good framers are awesome. This is all done with the no written instructions. IKEA furniture has more direction than the construction of your home. It’s just dimensions and a picture on a 2D blueprint.
My goodness I wish we had more guys on the logistics side of things like yourself here. All of the guys who understood these things have quickly been replaced by temporary foreign workers who pack lifts in whatever order they find the lumber in the yard and then smash the ends of half of it it by dumping it off the flatbed... eastern Canada.
My house was originally built in 1916 and utilizes balloon framing. I’m actually in the middle of a complete bathroom renovation and you can see from the second floor to the basement in the wall space. I was already aware of this style, but that is because my father is a retired carpenter. Great video by the way. I really enjoyed it!
@@kupokraft3685 I do! The majority of the houses in the area I live in are of the same or similar design. I’m very thorough with my renovations and take care of all the code issues while I have the walls and floor open.
My father (the architect) had a favorite story about his grandfather (the carpenter). A point of pride for him was showing off a wood frame building he'd built solo. With just a hammer, hand saw and a framing square he built a building 120' on one side. You could sight down that side and see no board out of line. "Sa fin som snus".
@@ChrisPadillaAZ what makes you assume that? Other than a lack of knowledge on the topic? Hand saws were the norm back in Grandpa days. Same as hand driving nails. Correct hand nailing goes set, sink, counter sink, next for 16p. nails. Doing this is about half the speed of a nail gun. Not having a board out of line is done through correct plumb and line of building and latter straight edging
Great argument and very thorough. When it comes to the genius of light wood framing, you can't ignore the network effect created by all the downstream commodities that perfectly integrate into the resulting structure. For instance, drywall comes in 4x8 sheets that exactly span three 2x4 stud bays, and reach an 8' ceiling. Lap siding comes in 12' lengths, again exactly spanning multiple stud bays. Insulation comes in 14-1/2" widths, which nest precisely between 2 studs. Breaker boxes also come in widths that slot neatly into a single stud bay. If all of these things had to be specially sized on site, the value of light wood framing would diminish greatly.
Standardization and commoditization drive efficiency. Building a structure is already expensive enough as it is; just imagine how expensive it would be if it was all custom, all the time.
@@fishhuntadventureyeah true, us dutchies used/are using baked clay bricks to build with, yes it is heavier and not as many can build houses with it compared to usas wooden frames, but allmost all other solutions the usa solved are also solved by bricks, u just need bigger pieces of wood to support floors or ceilings, but usually most walls cover that
So where I live we use 6x2 framing (more space for insulation) and our stud spacing is two foot. But our dry wall is 4 foot wide, but in almost any length, and then we run them horizontally, rather than vertically. Then when you're plastering you only have two joins (usually, depending on ceiling height), and they're at a much more comfortable working height.
this video is wonderful, it is very interesting to know how the US build their houses. Here in Brazil, we use clay or cement bricks a lot. I would love to see a video of you talking about the different types of buildings around the world and why they are used! Keep up the GREAT work.
I would be particularly interested in adobe and rammed earth construction. I know their utility is limited outside of the American west, with its dry climate, but they still seem to be the preferred building material in desert environments.
I am from Germany, where most buildings are also build with cement bricks and seeing these light wooden homes seems sort of unstable and also not very well insulated?
Sawdust also makes particle board which self-destructs if it *hears* that it might rain... The ONLY use that I've ever found for particle board is as a sacrificial cutting surface on my radial arm saw and even then, I need to remember not to sit a cold can of beer on it because we're so humid that water will condense on the cold can.
Another important difference between balloon framing and platform framing is the way platform framing transfers loads down onto structure below whereas balloon framing often times relied on the nails themselves to hold the load to the wall.
This is especially true when your Mom is in my bed, you know because she's SO DAMN FAT! OHHHHHHHHHHH BURNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My friend's old chicken coop barn is an example of your point about balloon framing. The second floor is nailed to the studs with nothing underneath the joists. I never looked that closely at the construction until we added a new 8' door. While it has issues that need correcting still, we are amazed the barn is still standing after a century.
Most have a 1x6 ledger board notched into the studs that sits under you joists for support and the nails just hold the joist yo the side of the stud with becomes worthless after every membership as floors is tied together in the house
@@metaldetectingnmore8763 this. On all the baloon framed houses I’ve worked on, joists hanging directly off studs has never been a point of failure, save for instances where a joist twisted and pulled it’s nails loose. Those 1x4” ledgers notched into the studs do an amazing job keeping things in place, even 140+ years later
You should put a word in a see if they can may purchase 2×'s that are somewhere near straight. It takes as long to purchase lumber from home depot just digging through the pile trying to find something usable as it does to frame the damn house. Maybe even have it half sheathed.
@@arnold8746I’ve been a carpenter building homes since 1897 and I just came here to let you know the reason they’re all crooked is because every single guy that gets lumber from Home Depot is a mf like you that thinks he’s the only one in the world that ever thought to sight lumber and take it too seriously and refuse to take even one bent one… therefore that’s all that’s ever left is bent shit. You weekend warriors need to learn where and when it’s possible to use bent or crowned material ie blocking bottom plates things like that . 😏 now you know why there’s only dog shit in that pile . The real boys would rarely ever shop for material there anyway. Not enough selection or stock.
light wood framing is also up near the top for building styles that are easy to modify and change after the fact to suit the needs of the people living there. adding more power or networking into the walls, dividing or combining rooms, and adding extensions is all very accessible to the homeowner to do themselves
imagine how incredible that city could be if 90% of it wasn't a trashed ghetto. I can't even imagine how cool it would be there. There would be literally 10x as much stuff like this
@@ChadDidNothingWrong of all the respectful, coherent, and meaningful things you could’ve thought to say, you decided to share a bigoted cliche that does no real work at looking at the positives of this place. You’re right, you can’t even imagine how cool it would be there, because you choose not to see how wonderful it is now.
Because Chicago exploded from a population of 300 in 1830 to 3 million in 1930, it was a hothouse and a showcase for virtually every construction type developed between the Black Hawk War and the Second World War. Chicago spent most of a century needing to double its housing stock immediately, and its status as the transport and industrial hub of the West during that period made the materials available to do it as quickly and cheaply as possible.
All in all very well done. Being a retired Architecture Drafting (yes, pencil and paper before computers) and CAD instructor, I would have liked it, if you had shown how a second floor or platform is supported in platform framing graphically, since the physical model you were showing was a single story.
It’s claimed that if you read The NY Times front to back for a full yr you are acquiring the factual info equivalent to a 4 yr college degree. Your videos feel like I’m getting the architectural theory course work I missed out on. I originally wavered between pursuing architecture and product design in college and opted for the later but had always wondered what it would have been like had I gone the other way. Thank you for your very stimulating and informational videos which inspire me to learn more and with your in-depth (and sometimes overlooked) insights.
@@GoingtoHecq "Just gonna say that the NYT is probably not gonna give the knowledge of any four year degree." I would have agreed with you ten years ago, Hex, but for old fogies like me who went to college long before the current social theories gained traction, I have to say that I find reading the Times (I am a subscriber) gives me more exposure to the stuff they're shoveling into kids' brains these days than anything else I can imagine.
Great video and so well done. One thing, although some do, I don’t think it is that Americans prefer standardization over variety, I believe it is that they put cost and convenience over most other factors.
What does independence have to do with anything in this comment? Also, this kind of house is cheap to build but will not last. I get the impression (from word choice in online discourse) that it is relatively unusual to buy a house from a previous owner.
@@rikwisselink-bijker I live in a cookie cutter wood framed house which sold for 10k in the fifties. It is now valued at 1.3 million. I am the third owner. The previous owners and I have made many modifications to this house and and it did not cost us an arm and a leg to to do so. I can tell you from having stayed in very old houses in Europe that my wood framed house is much more comfortable and livable.
@@rikwisselink-bijker There are thousands of 19th century balloon frame houses still extant in Chicago that are 100-150 years old. It is virtually unheard of for such a building to only last a single generation. Constantly wrecking and replacing such structures would eliminate the cost savings factor.
I’m sure all are factors, but I think standardization is a big one. People will eat at a place they know will suck like Chili’s when they could go to an equidistant restaurant because while Chili’s is consistently bad, it’s not as bad as some of the really bad local restaurants that used to be more common.
Balloon framing used to be confusing to me because in many ways its more difficult than platform framing...until you remove the tape measure. You don't have to guess or measure where lower support structures are with balloon framing.
Fascinating! So many issues! The light-weight framing system was indeed exported: in wood-rich Finland it ended up, in the 1940s, replacing the traditional log-building technique (a square-profile log structure clad in timber siding). The traditional Finnish log houses were built by 2 people using just axes and no nails. The thick-walled houses provided excellent insulation. With the import of light-wood framing in the late 40s, the houses were cheaper but notably colder. The old traditional log-framed houses have lasted hundreds of years, while the light-wood framing houses are already decaying, despite the addition of insulation.
@@GWHAWK87 Interesting thought! By "resilient" I guess you mean longer-lasting. The well-maintained ones have already lasted up to a couple of hundred years (as seen in the Seurasaari Open Air Musuem in Helsinki). These days log is more often being replaced by glulam, which is not as ecological as log. But back in the day, labor was cheap, and so building a log was not a great labor expense. The skill still exist, but admittedly it comes at relative higher cost. The biggest advantage of "stick" was always cost.
In terms of that resiliency, there was a historical dip in building quality caused by the entry of the insulation era where insulation was retrofitted into older buildings before good water management was really understood. Air carrying water condenses whilst passing through insulation, dumping water in the walls, which then gets trapped in there leading to rot. Nowadays the modern focus towards insulation, airtightness and barrier technology results in a stick wall which can last for centuries and be very efficient whilst doing so too. It's also particularly great that it can do that whilst looking like almost any other kind of wall - brick, log, render or regular timber sidings for example.
@@hijackstudios Intriguing! The building industry is naturally in search of cheap and durable solutions. The traditional log houses didn't need insualtion (NB: in Finland logs have always been sawn/axed to a square shape, unlike the round log system of North Ameica, which had a weakness at the joint of two round logs). It was the cold stick houses to which the insulation was so disastrously added. With sufficient depth, wood has the ability to absorb and release moisture, not requiring the tightness of, say, steel and glass. Do you have any model examples in mind of the wooden structures that hopefully will last for hundreds of years?
@@garethgriffiths1674 Building to the strictest goals of the "Passivhaus" standards, particularly with the very high airtightness bar, is the likely best candidate. There are example wall structures in the standard which have been age tested as well. In building science it's essentially known that if a timber structure can dry out then it is able to last incredibly long times - there's an 800 year old church where I live with some original timber features. The strict airtightness requirements essentially block water from entering the wall in the first place, as well as clever one directional barriers which allow any water that does get inside to easily escape. The actual structure used depends on your climate zone as it comes down to which side of the wall the larger quantity of moisture is. In our cooler climates like here in the UK or there in Finland, the vapour barrier is on the internal side of the wall for example.
I don't live in the USA any more and so, I get a chance to view your videos through the eyes of someone who was in that world and knew it, but am now gone from it in a significant way. Here, where I live, wood frame homes of any type, other than than most crude, are not built. We build with concrete and rebar. And we do it for the same reason that you cite for stick built: access to common materials; easy manufacture and portage; plasticity of end product design with the same materials, and; relatively lower skilled workmen for the basic construction. In point of fact, all you said, works for the building techniques here. All you need to do is switch the materials. I designed my own home here and was my own general contractor. Then did the same things with a boardhouse I built. So as I watched along with you, I saw how a different culture, different skills and different materials ended up telling the same story.
Our perspective on this from Europe is different. This is almost unused in Europe, most buildings are built from concrete, bricks or silica bricks. It is perceived as very weak, and correlated often with houses demolished by hurricanes in US. In West, Timber-Lam is somewhat popular as a cheaper way, but it is engineered glued wood which is way stronger. Finland and northern countries have tradition in wood buildings, but it is different a bit. It is very interesting technique, I love it for it standarization and ease of use, but I have my reservations when I consider it for my own building technique. Thanks for material!
@@BS-vx8dg That was not my thinking, it is somewhat common opinion in general population. This type of houses is perceived as not really strong, and reality is obvious as you say.
When up for sale in UK they’re much cheaper and listed with “non traditional construction” label so you know it’s probably gonna mould and be uninhabitable within 100 years. Viewed as very poor quality and temporary in Europe
One reason why its so popular in the us has to do with the temperature swings we get in a year. In tennessee we have to build to temperatures as low as -12c on a winter night all the way to 40c on a summer day. Light framing allows more robust practices with insulation to adapt to all of that. A concrete house not only would be expensive and complicated to build in appalachia but it would soak in heat and distribute it into the home all night when we already need ac to regulate the temperature in the first place. And with modern building science practices we're able to fix the sins of our predecessors and build long lasting well detailed homes that don't mold, don't fall apart, and stand the test of time. The homes of the 70s and 80s with vented attics poor air sealing and bad water shedding are quickly becoming obsolete, we know now they were built wrong, we know now they were unsafe. And we're working to change the culture of "I've always done it that way" that excuses lazy building practices.
it's really striking to compare this to how houses are built in Japan: they haven't entirely given up on timber framing, but the joinery is machine carved in the factory, and the posts and beams are often glulam. there are still a lot of studs, like you see in this video, though, so it really does seem to be a hybrid.
Japanese carpentry in architecture is amazing, works with engineered wood wonderfully, and allows movement like stick-built with nails. I wish it were a real option in America. Most people still want the aesthetic of fine timbers with it, and even with engineered wood, would still cost noticeably more. However, it is something built from wood that is meant to last. Often it is cheaper to tear down a house a stick built house here than to fully renovate it.
@@CleverAccountName303 sad, but true. one of my friends had her house demolished and built a new one on the same lot, and the builder explicitly told her that the house should have a lifespan of 40 years. she immediately had concrete cracking and probably some other nonsense. it's just sad. I think this is a feature of building _after_ WW2, though. I'm not sure about temples, but shrines were rebuilt periodically as a matter of course-in the inner shrine, they have two houses for the god so that they can move it into the spare house while they rebuild the other one. a lot of shrines are listed historical sites, now, so they can't rebuild anymore. my impression is that this rebuilding is a feature of Shinto, rather than cultural, beliefs. I saw the rebuild of a temple in Nikko a few years ago-they had built a protective cover around the whole building that included a walkway so that you could see the work progressing from above. they were, at least for the part that I saw, reusing the original timbers. I'm sure they had to use new material for some things, but a lot of it was the same materials. this, again, is probably because of its historical status, but these do seem to have been built to last. I saw my neighbor, now retired, but at the time working in the building trades, partly demolish his house after his mother passed. mostly, houses are demolished with heavy machinery, and the timbers are torn apart in the process. perhaps since he was planning to use and renovate part of the house, he did it the old way, taking the house apart piece by piece. houses like that are incredibly modular-iirc, the main joinery being carved at the sawmill goes back more than a hundred years-so I think the more traditional approach is to dismantle the house and reuse most of the timbers when major work is required, or to just pound in new foundation stones and add on when you decide you need more house. *_those_* houses *_were_* built to last a lot longer, but there are very few people doing that kind of work anymore.
@@captainobvious9188 What really chaps people's hides here in the USA is watching a crew demo an old house with QUALITY, DENSE, FULL SIZED studs. Why? Because they want to sell you more wood. Greed. Same reason when they tear down a metal structure with excellent condition components they specifically WRECK THEM and throw them in scrap metal piles to China. People would love to reuse the corrugated metal that is still in 20-40 year lifespan remaining. The I-beams and sundry again, have 40+ years left in them. As for timber built homes. Vastly superior construction. Same with fitted stone or in more dry climates, CEB, made on site. Thermal mass really helps keep cooling and heating costs controlled. Stick built homes are chosen for the low skill level needed and for the ability to cut corners and costs while still charging premiums to customers. Wasteful consumerist society locked into materialism and self destruction.
@@captainobvious9188 In one video on "flimsy American houses" I saw it mentioned that in Japan houses tend to be even "flimsier" than in the US and last a shorter amount of time.
@@mattoska Took some time to talk to the ancients in the area. The local mill here was getting its logs from Northern MN, and pulling them off the Mississippi river to bring them here. As old of growth as one could hope for
Nice to have a video that praises something that's common and inexpensive. Too many videos, would look at this and find a way to have a snob reaction to something that makes housing and food affordable.
Except that it is not affordable. European way to build houses (brick and mortar or concrete) is cheaper and gives better quality. Tissue paper and toothpick construction is only "cheap" because wood logging is subsidized industry and because it does not have to adhere to environmental concerns.
Great stuff. I know NOTHING about house building or architecture but the sign of a good channel is the ability to snag interest from the passer by. As a Chicagoan, just another reason to watch. Good work!
Enjoyed the video! Two things: First, I have been doing framing and carpentry for 45 yrs and hamburgers are my favorite food… coincidence? I think not! 😉 Second, and I know I’m being picky, but you mention early in the video that studs are 16” apart. Technically they are 16” on center which makes them 14 1/2” apart. And it’s not uncommon for 24” on center especially with the price of lumber. Many advantages to that (that I won’t go into) but has to be done properly (like studs under roof trusses or floor joists)
You carpentry inclined folks are such artists with your hands and mind. I’ve the utmost respect for you, and the mechanically and architecturally gifted.
the burger is a great analogy and certainly lands on the factor of convenience, flexibility, cost effectiveness etc. as is the case with the prevalence of the wood framing in the US. but as a metaphor it only goes so far and i think there's a good portion of the ground left to cover that you didn't get really into. in a way automobiles as a mode of transport are also small, nimble, give individuals the freedom and the precision do get to their exact destinations on their own schedule etc. and I'm sure one would be able to draw interesting parallels between cars and burgers and wood framing. their inherent qualities take majority of the credit in their rise and subsequent dominance as a mode of transport in the US. but a significant part of that story are the oil, tire, car manufacturers and their lobbies that discouraged competing modes of transportation, so they can sell more gas and cars etc. tied into this is the fact that the north American continent happens to have this natural resource readily available - had it not been the case, I doubt that the car would be as dominant as it turned out to be. another side to the story is the cultural momentum of the post WWII generation and the ensuing baby boom which lead to suburbization, low density planning, lack of infrastructure etc. which made the use of a car pretty much the only viable option for most people. another side is the cultural context, the traditional American ethos that values independence, individualism, the ability to control your own destiny etc. which has made a reinforcing feedback loop with the car that became a cultural symbol as well as a product. my point is that there are a lot of the sides to the story of the wood frame, why it out-competed brick and other materials, where it hasn't and why etc., that seem to be skipped over. I get that the form factor you chose doesn't allow for all that level of detail or the time it would take to delve into it, but as a non-American, I'd really be interested to learn more about these things which seem really interesting and quirky about the US. I think this is a topic deserving of a more in depth explanation, more nuance and it would be great if you found a way of revisiting it sometimes. thanks.
He referred to the Sears catalogue in the video. They sold a lot of flat pack wooden houses. A limited number of styles and sizes that could be put together by the average handyman. It kept the costs down too, as the buyer supplied construction labour. The company had factories producing standard components. This wasn't at the level used today for SIPs with all the utilities literally built into panels that clipped together. It was on the level of build your own model aeroplane kits. All the parts are there and you have to put them together in the right order.
I thought the burger was a great analogy, but I definitely think a third or more of the burger callbacks could have been cut. Every time I got invested in the timber he said, “and burger.” Is this a framing video or a burger video? Burger
Contrarily to hamburgers or cars, wood framing hasn't conquered the rest of the world. So there must be other factors. The cost of energy is certainly one. I guess history is part of it too: US colons (from first pilgrims to late gold rushers) had to build fast, with whatever they could find around them.
you should look into the rise of cars in the US too, it's quite interesting. There are reasons why north american levels of car dependency aren't found in europe, such as being able to build wide roads... but a fascinating number of reasons can be tracked back to car companies doing their very best to destroy public transportation, and push cars on everyone.
As to the invention of the hamburger, it depends on how you define it. There was supposedly a ground meat patty type product served with bread outside the Colosseum in ancient Rome, fast food style.
In college I was working on a degree in geology, and the subject of light-wood framing came up. There is an unexpected upside to the way it's usually done, and that is houses built this way come with a degree of earthquake resistance. There are three reasons for this. First, the way the frames are built is resistant to collapse, because there are so many supports, so many connections, the force from the earthquake doesn't have a weak point to focus on. Second, the buildings built with this method can sway, which is important for riding out an earthquake. And third, if a collapse does occur, it tends to be a collapse that creates pockets where people can still breathe and potentially crawl out. This is actually very important for American housing, as the New Madrid Fault Zone in the eastern half of the country famously rocked the nation with three major quakes back in the 1810s. Though the fault zone is in Missouri, it rang church bells on the East Coast and cracked sidewalks in DC. If the same quakes happened today, half of the entire US population would be in the danger zone. That means making all our houses in this way will help save lots of lives if those earthquakes happen again.
This is something I think about with regards to masonry housing in that area. It's undeniably better at insulating against extreme heat and cold, and will also survive powerful wind storms and tornadoes for longer than a stick-built house will. But in an earthquake, they just turn into heaps of bricks...
It's miraculous really. I'm not much of a builder. Only scratch built a few sheds. The amazing this is how they become rock solid and absolutely unmovable once the siding is installed. You can join the studs with only two nails at each joint and the whole thing seems wobbly until siding is applied, then rock solid. It's a great application of physics and economics as well. If you've never tried it, give it a go. Build a shed or even a dog house. It's a great learning experience and not difficult at all.
Thank You! In Florida most homes are block in my neighborhood. For hurricanes that's good. Earth Quakes is another ball game. Wood construction is the safer method. Thanks I never thought about it. I keep my wood home. My Florida home will be sold and the house that my father in law had constructed is made of wood. 73
My Father was French Canadian (Acadian and Cree) He had an ability to make the simplest things into complex atrocities 😂 Anywhere 1 nail was required in 2x4 framing, he used 12 (most bent and an assortment of sizes) "just to make sure" and where 2 were required, he used 1 or none 🤣 He taught me what not to do in many aspects of life, and motivated me to learn the right way to do things. I am grateful for his "Frenchness"
Great anecdote. My Grandfather was Italian, and lived during WWII. He saved everything and anything that could be of use down the road. I certainly got his genes, because I'm a pack rat. On the commercial construction sites I work on, I'll walk around, and pick up dropped, or discarded, nails, screws, or items tossed in the 40 yard trash bins. It's amazing the things that get thrown away, because shipping it back, costs too much. I wish I'd have had a warehouse to store so many things that I just didn't have room for, that was worth a mint. I remember on one job, they were throwing out the laminated header beams that were very large, and long. I estimate they were 5"x20"×20', and there were several. An entire pallet of commercial steel doors (my work as a door mechanic) was tossed, because they were accidentally lost in a warehouse, then reordered, and both delivered to me. I did take one home to my neighbor, and installed it on his music studio, with all the proper trim. He loved it. My selection of screws, nails, and hardware is impressive by any measure. I just have to look long enough to find what I need.
@@davidgraham2673 my brother in law was Italian (the only one of his siblings born in the US) He had 40 years worth of extra screws, nuts, bolts, twisty ties etc.. In that number of years of collecting, I'd say maybe 10 times it actually paid off And one of those times was for a screw I needed 🤣 And he was so proud, "I've got the exact screw you need...." Sadly he passed away quite young recently, and my sister ended up having to deal with what to do with all of his various collections, it was extremely difficult on her.
@@warthogA10 , It might be an Italian thing......LOL. (I was born in Vicenza) I like your Brother-in-law already. In my case, I've actually had the exact screw(s) I needed many, many times. I apparently also got my grandfathers gift of knowing exactly where to look to find my needed screw, or do-dad. The funny thing is: I kind of hate using My Precious'es......because they've kinda become my treasure now. (No wonder my Grandfather didn't like anyone touching his items. I finally understand....I see the light.) Thanks for the comment. You made my day. A salute to your Brother in law, and my condolences. He and I are simpatico.
Awesome video. Oriented strand board is not made from sawdust but rather shredded strips of wood usually from Aspen trees. Practical board is made from sawdust though but is rarely used in the home construction industry today. Particle board is often used as a substrate for cabinetry and laminate countertops.
They are bothering not made from waste products but rather the trees get chopped to a specific particle size exclusively for the purpose of making those boards, at least here in Germany at Egger, a major manufacturer of MDF, OSB an particle board in Europe. The particle size and uniformity are extremely important so regular sawdust wouldn’t cut it…
I'm a fan of standardization. Many people believe creativity is born of infinite choices, but when you can do anything you usualy end up doing nothing. Having constraints is actually quite beneficial for creativity. once you have a box you can think outside of it. Standardization also helps to contrast the unique, making custom works stand out. I'm hoping 3d printed concrete becomes standardized soon so we can start exploring all the custom cast options that can make something bland something grand.
“The limited amount of training and expertise to put up wood framing means that so many more people can build a house than would be possible otherwise.” I believe that the opposite happened. The limited training and expertise required let the labor force stop passing along their advanced and expertise skills. Now it’s incredibly expensive to hire anyone truly skilled because so few of them remain. This means that anything other than 2x4 construction comes at a premium beyond the cost effectiveness of the material. Maybe this isn’t exactly it, but there has to be some reason why construction quality has tanked. My colleagues always describe how specific our documents must be to get any level of quality out of the construction crew.
That's not the opposite, that's something that happened concurrently. Thinking that over all more expensive and less spacious housing is desirable just because it preserved a way of doing things is flawed thinking. We have a ten thousand year history of moving beyond previously required skills, but you only lament what just passed away, not the fact that the average person doesn't tan their own hides after scraping the fat and viscera away while living on some arid plain.
@@DrewLSsix there are many meticulously crafted giant stone buildings still standing, imagine if we focused on making things last and be timeless, it's less waste, less time spent (relative to how long it lasts, not up front of course) and so you can decrease the work needed to *maintain* a quality of life, as opposed to merely obtain it (which is going backwards rapidly anyways)
I wouldn't assume that we ever had a great deal of high skill people. Just because construction required higher skill in the past, doesn't mean that everyone doing it actually possessed that skill. We have ample evidence that a vast number of historic construction was done very poorly. Though it's easy to overlook this because of how fantastically those that were made well survived. It's a survivorship bias, which causes us to judge the average, or even the worst, of today's construction against the very best of yesteryear's.
Great look at something we Americans pretty much take for granted. With energy efficiency, building costs, and mandatory requirements increasingly impacting construction, it will be interesting to see how standard framing will change, or if it is replaced altogether (as in prebuilt panelized construction).
2x6 standard instead of 2x4, and 24 in on center instead of 16 in. Also sealed air envelope with continuous flow energy recovery ventilation systems. This is the way we should have been building for at least 20 years. We are just to cheap to make actually good houses, people want size not quality, just like the big mac in the example. Cheap garbage that fills you up in the case of the big mac and large cheap house that makes you feel successful in the case of housing. Both lead to poor outcomes for the one who partakes.
I love how their models have all the trusses and studs in perfect stacks. It is the correct way, but it’s not the way we build them in America. Your Trusses or rafters, depending on what you’re using are typically on 24 OC and your studs are typically on 16 OC.
Even in the snowy north, a properly pitched roof never bears enough weight to require 16 OC, and if you think about it, that would increase the load on all the lower frames, too.
@@michaelmcmeel914 engineering specifications on a house in the Northwest is engineered to 40 lb per square foot of that is typical engineering for the United States that translates to a 2X 4 trust at 24 oc
This was a great video and will inform how I teach American history for my high school students. "Perfect adequacy", however, was an incredible turn of phrase that I will probably try to fit into my parlance whenever I need to express that exact idea...which as a public high school teacher, is more often than you might think.
I've pretty much built my tiny house that way even though i live in europe. It's such an easy, cheap, ecological and light weight way to make a building. In my case i managed to make almost the whole building out of natural materials (mostly solid wood and hemp insulation).
Interesting. As I am also finishing a tiny house, I actually came to the same conclusion as this video: that 2x4 framing is genius! Mainly because the regular cavities between the studs are so convenient for accommodating insulation [which isn't or wasn't so common throughout the world] as well as wiring and piping [the regularity of the studs holds the wires and pipes up nicely]. I think 2x4 framing's modern success can be partially attributed to its ability to accommodate the modern conveniences of insulation, wiring, and plumbing.
@@danteinferno175 I'm in Europe though and i didn't use 2x4s. My tiny house is very tiny and i wanted it to be light. So i just used the technique, but used thinner pieces of wood.
@Phillip Banes I never wrote or implied that europe is a country. Odd comment. Want to be a good troll and double down on the stupidity of your comment now?
On the building channels I follow, there's an inordinate number of Europeans deriding light wood framing. It's almost comically predictable at this point. The beauty of the US system, as it admittedly teeters on the edge of becoming a govt directed central planning nightmare, is the choice and flexibility it offers. In the end, that gives a good balance between speed, cost, and quality. With plenty of choices to tweak whichever factor one wants. Europe, conversely, is a top down, rigid building industry. They pride themselves on high quality, and that isn't incorrect. But at the expense of so much. Most importantly, freedom of choice. Good video. Lot of interesting tidbits. Sub'd.
The exhibit on wood frame construction, featuring the small-scale models was very cool! It seems to me that structures that are built with a combination of wood and stone (not veneer) not only has character, but they tend to last a long time. Great video! Thanks for sharing.
“Ordinary” (brick and light joist) construction is indeed much less maintenance intensive than frame structures, but there is a steep premium paid for the convenience, especially with modern labor costs. Brick veneer is a pretty good compromise.
The problem with light-wood framing is that much of it's benefits are also it's shortfalls. The Northeast and it's lack of natural disasters provides a vast array of different architecture and building styles as long as the roofs manage the snow. Also just enough weather to give a good window into what holds up over time and what doesn't. That being said the earlier light-wood frame houses with brick nogging in between the framing are really idyllic. The roofing standards at the time really sucked so they had a fair share of issues but with a good roof or at least a well maintained one they are extremely durable and manage temps fairly well. More modern light frame houses, like last 50-60yrs or so, aren't nearly as durable. The benefits of how efficiently they're built just causes builders to abuse that in the chase of profits and timely construction which leads to so many small issues building up over time. The excessive us of the wood framing, typical insulation between the framing, and the sheetrock walls are great until they aren't and problems like mold/moisture tend to snowball or things like cold spots negate the rest of the insulation
Alot of that has to do with methods and construction science. The 70s thru the 90s was a dark age for construction science especially with light framed housing. People didn't care about dew points, heat transfer, air dealing or water shedding. That's why you see vented attics paper water membranes and poor insulation. That's changing slowly but we still need to get past the "I've been doing this 20 years and we've never done that" crowd of contractors that are still building shit homes. (Cough cough dr horton)
@@paulblichmann2791 yes that's exactly what were saying in the building science community. Those home's vapor varrier is desinigrated, the vented attic allows a fuck ton of air into the home. That included with poor water sealing means you will experience water leakage, mold, and super inefficient heating and cooling.
@@paulblichmann2791 1972 was 50 years ago. So maybe i exaggerated a little on the timing but yes the quality of light frame housing dropped like a rock about mid-late 70s. And late 60s to early 70s materials did as well. Old growth pine ran out and this new growth stuff doesn't compare and has only gone down hill since. Especially compared to the american chestnut and really old growth pine seen on early stuff like victorian balloon frame houses. Throw in fiberglass insulation, plastic siding to replace asbestos, and so on. Like i said much of that stuff works great until it doesn't, such as trapping moisture, and the problems only get worse and worse. Windows and doors have seen the biggest improvements since, and even then it's normal to see them repaired or replaced after 15 years because the wood that the sills and frames are built with get weak or rot so fast. I do agree there's not tons of homes on the brink of disaster, but there are very many getting much more maintenance done than they should after 40 years. All while 100+ year old homes hold up fine with relatively low maintenance
Wood framing is great. Putting OSB sheets directly on the outside and the panels without an air gap is insane and one of the reasons US houses last for such a short time. In the Nordic countries we have wooden houses several hundred years old but they all have an air gap behind the outer panel to allow moisture to dry up.
I'm not planning on being here 100 years Otto. If my house lasts another 20 or so it's all good by me. Do you know why they call real estate property? Because that's what has real value. It don't matter what's on it. There's only three things that matter in real estate and that's location, location, location!
@@mariacheebandidos7183 Thank you for the feedback. My comment was directed towards those with construction competence who might want input from more than local sources. They understand that it is the opposite of ignorance to have knowledge about alternative building methods. May I also inform that UA-cam is a social media with opportunities for global interaction which is favored by those not inbred. Best Regards.
Unfortunately, a lot of houses being built in the US are designed to be virtually disposable. A ten year structural warranty is something they *brag* about.
the trend for a lot of post framing is to use laminated members in the same capacity as their unitary counterparts, and to utilize fabricated stamped steel brackets attached with bolts or lag screws where ever possible to avoid having to do any joinery. very large overhead doors still require hand joinery, but most of the structures that use those are built from steel beams now.
I appreciate this video, and I also feel like the "cheapness" of a 2X4 frame house is no longer the norm. The actual cost of a home is WAY over the cost of materials and time to build the home. Many of us will never own a home unless something changes
The materials cost of a home is becoming an increasingly smaller piece of the pie with regards to the overall sale price. If you have the misfortune of trying to buy a house in a highly desirable and built-up area the cost of the land itself will comically exceed whatever the value of the dwelling itself is.
@@danielr. Yeah, it's because the climate it's hot in summer (up to 42°C, normally a daily max of 36°C ) and somewhat cold in winter (minimum -5°C, normally a min of -1°C). And there are A LOT of earthquakes, and once in a pair of decades a big one. Besides that, as the summer is so dry there are fires easily too.
@@amermeleitor Bacán! En que parte? Viví un año en Valparaiso, era una experiencia única. Si te interesa, tengo buenos videos de todas las partes de este hermoso país en mi canal :)
Fantastic video, glad this came up on my recommendations. One thing I would mention is that although a lot of the building industry has come a long way since 2x4 framing, the framing hasn't really kept pace, particularly with regard to accommodating high insulation standards. 2x6 framing is a quick way to get more room for insulation but the timber's still a thermal bridge. Would be good to maybe see a video on how people are trying to evolve framing to meet those challenges.
SIPS (structural insulated panel systems) are a modern innovation to get around the problem of thermal bridging in lightwood framing. They are similarly standardized, though, so they retain the same benefits of 2x4 framing.
@@catherinesearle9596 I prefer double 2x4 framing over SIPS. The basics are the same as a standard 2x construction which allows you to use just about any contractor with minimal workforce training. I also like the end product better with a full 7 1/4” of insulation with thermal bridging only at the plates and openings.
You can use a 2x6 plates with 2x4 studs and alternate lining up from I interior to exterior so there is no thermal bridge. You can do double 2x4 off set walls. You can do 2x4 framing with a second strap and rigid foam on the exterior. And there are numerous other options that have already existed for decades
I will tell you that wood framing is getting bigger in Europe. Right now my cousin in Poland has started building them after visiting us a decade ago. They are called "Domy Kanadyjskie" or Canadian houses.
Here in New Zealand, we have the exact same building history with light frame construction. The only difference here is that we use a 50x75mm (2x3) size as our standard.
I always found it fascinating how thin the 2x4 walls seem, do you get a lot of sound travel through them? In the UK most external walls built now are brick and block cavity walls, with mineral wool or PIR insulation. About 30cm (~12 inches) thick.
Sound travels right through it like its barely there, but you can easily redo a floorplan just like that by knocking out some flimsy walls. I assume it takes alot of time to move a wall, buildings in Europe are so sturdy that they can be repurposed into fortifications.
Some sounds travel straight through, e.g. sounds of heavy vehicles, or someone slamming a car door, or dogs barking. But voices, music etc. less so. American homes also have noisy appliances like the furnace, dehumidifiers etc., even the fridges are louder. It takes some getting used to compared to the quiet in a UK brick house. For context I live in a well built 1970s light framed house in a quiet neighbourhood in the US and I used to live in an 1870s brick house on a busy road. I really like US style houses, I just wish they had thicker, well-insulated outer walls. Also everyone round here seem to hate houses built since the 80s and thinks they wont last 50 years, but I don't know whether that has any basis in fact.
Noise transmission is less of an issue in older houses that still have lath and plaster walls. Plaster’s also a much better thermal insulator than drywall. We’ve been getting some scorchers here recently, and my balloon framed, plastered house holds the cool night air wonderfully. I suspect the constant updraft from balloon framing also helps to cool the walls of the house.
Another factor that should be mentioned: this flexible and well breathing style of construction is especially effective in climates with huge temperature and moisture variations. Other than indoor plumbing and electricity, fiberglass insulation, wind and vapour barriers are the largest contributors to health and comfort in homes since the middle ages.
Great video! I work in constructions in Europe. Because of our environmental problems, Europe is rediscovering building with wood. I love working with wood. Much more sustainable and much nicer to work with than concrete.
@@phillipbanes5484No...he's speaking of Europe as if it's a place, which it is. Just as we say "Here in America" when we speak in broad strokes. Relax, man.
Another great video! I wish you had been one of my architecture professors. I'd be curious to see a similar deep dive into gypsum wallboard, the pros & cons and is it here to stay? It's such a mess and time consuming to construct with, make changes with, and repair... there must be a better way!
@@sixtomidnight1492 i would argue the free market prioritizes cost efficiency over effectiveness. So much of capitalism is getting "good enough" on the lowest margin possible, rather than being the most effective, which has led to products that can be cheaply made but need to be replaced often.
If you think gypsum board is a bad material try plaster and lathe which preceded it. While renovating my 1920s vintage house with new wiring and insulation I pulled all the plaster out and replaced it with drywall. IMO drywall is a breeze compared to what it replaced.
The most time consuming parts of gypsum board construction are all aesthetic - the mud and joint compound that is used to cover screws and create flat surfaces for paint. Drywall goes up fast and easy - you can cut it to size with a sharp knife and make cutouts with a hand saw! If you're looking for improvements it's not going to be in the wallboard - it's going to be the finishing process.
Great video, though I personally hate 2x4 wood framing with a passion :) Yes, good houses, even passive houses, can be built out of it that can last for centuries, but most new houses built in USA are NOT that, and are built to code minimums. Much better options, in my opinions - Insulating Concrete Forms, Metal, Porous ceramic insulated blocks (apparently Europe only), SIP, Mass timber (CLT) etc. All of those will give people more disaster resistant, low maintenance, more comfortable, more energy efficient to live in houses.
@@hhiippiittyy True, but a good portion of the cost is because of a lack of widespread use. ICF is catching up in that regard, and is barely more expensive to build with compared to stick, especially recently. The more some tech is used, the cheaper it is. So as an obvious example, dual pane windows are standard in USA, but triple pane is standard in Europe. As result, the triple pane windows in USA cost way too much, and it's sometimes cheaper to import them from Europe because of the economy of scale that they achieved.
@@rafflesmaos So... £'m gunna sound like a contrarian, but I promise that is not my intent. The example is missing a key element. For manufactured products like windows Europe will certainly be extremely proficient. Things that NA would do well to adopt. But for a product like wood, it might be a generation before there is a serious price competitor. Kinda like how bamboo scaffolding is regional. At least where I'm at, where there is a mill around the corner, ICF can compete in the foundation market, but the rest of the frame in wood is probably much less than half the cost to the nearest competitor. 2x4 walls are also excellent for cheap insulation framing. That it is pretty much the worst option I cannot deny. But it's cheap.
@@hhiippiittyy No worries at all, and wood certainly is cheap. It did spike severely in 2021, but is back to relatively reasonable levels but still double pre-pandemic. Of course, EPS foam went up in price as well. I'm no expert in where other cost differences come from exactly, but surely at least some of them are based on economies of scale for production of ICF forms as well as the EPS foam itself. There was a paper done back in 2001 on cost differences between a 2x4 and ICF house, and the total cost difference for the entire house was about 4%. That's even though at the time the cost of an ICF wall was roughly double that of a 2x4. But as a portion of the overall house cost, it's really not much considering the long term energy savings and other benefits. I wish I had data to back it up, but I would expect since 2001 the price difference to narrow further, as ICF houses are being built in greater amounts (but still tiny in comparison to wood framing). In places where disaster resistant construction is required (which IMO should be everywhere at this point), the price difference is probably even less.
Thank you for the ‘why‘ in a ubiquitous thing. I always wonder why we do things the way we do when there are so many other ways. Also, thank you for including yourself in the videos. It’s nice to know who is speaking to me.
I live in western Oregon. Virtually all of the old growth Douglas fir here is gone. It exists in a few protected places but what you see driving around is a patchwork of recently clear-cut and second, and third growth Douglass fir monoculture patches. Same with other trees used for construction such as ponderosa pine. Timber here is grown as a crop, just like corn or soybeans. The forest as it naturally was is gone, just as the prairies in the Midwest are gone. So far there has been no insect pest or disease that has been a major threat to Douglass firs. There may never be. On the other hand we should remember what happened to the American chestnut, several American and European elms, and currently ashes. Should something catastrophic like that happen to Douglass fir, the price of construction in North America might become prohibitive. Here in Oregon, the endemic and valuable Port Orford cedar was infected with a root disease Phytophthora lateralis in 1952. It has slowly spread through the tree's range and will probably drive it to extinction.
In a lot of places, "natural" forests haven't existed for many centuries. In England for example, most forests have been heavily managed since the middle ages. Even in lots of North America, the pre-Columbian native people did a lot of forest management shaping it to their needs. Tons of the "virgin" forests European settlers cut down and made into farmland was actually old managed forest which had gone feral when the native population crashed. Oh, and even lots of the jungles of Central America are surprisingly recent. The Mayans (and doubtlessly some other cultures) did a ton of clear cutting. An ecologist I knew did a survey of species numbers and you could still see a drop in places where the Mayans had settled even though it looks to the eye just like the rest of the jungle.
Thanks for your comment. In the South Slash Pine and others are the fourth successive forest from the pre-colonial Longleaf forest that densely covered more than half of what is now America until it was decimated. Live in an area of the last Longleaf. Pine beetles didn't help any.
Although the burger metaphor could be taken as an insult to the more cynical stereotypes of American life, I actually like how you made it here. Because after all, a cheeseburger is only really bad for you depending on the ingredients, and the QUALITY of the ingredients (and the skill/knowledge of how it was put together.) Which fits perfectly with 2x4 framing: sure it's much simpler and so opens it up for less skilled/knowledgeable people to do something productive/adequate with it (albeit sometimes at a regrettably low bar), it also still has a high "skill ceiling," where those who are very skilled can use the exact same pieces and create something truly impressive, and extremely functional.
@@Bioshockaholic it's relevant because you claim your analogy based on the "fact" that "a cheeseburger is only really bad for you depending on the ingredients" when the core ingredients are bad for most people most of the time
Excellent video. The importance of standard building sizes and components is underestimated. As a suggested follow-up: Insights into the history of "true" 2x4s (pre-1966) and modern day dimensional lumber (11/2 x 3 1/2 ...ish) would be great.
From what I know it’s not that much if a mystery and not insightful. Lumberyards used to try to squeeze more profits by making them a bit smaller and smaller and there wasn’t a standardized size. Until either a law or agreement made them pick a size.
Also, 2x4's are never exactly 2x4 inches. Somebody is shorting me on every board I buy, and making bank off of it and I want this investigated:-) The 2x4 stick built home is so ingrained in our construction that building codes are really protective of it - when you try to build with any other kind of system or scheme, it's always an uphill battle to deal with code enforcement.
A 2x4 is 3.5”x1.5”. I researched this once as I renovate houses, and some have nominal lumber, meaning a 2x4 is actually a 2x4. My findings ultimately lead to that structurally they’re basically the same, and that at saw mills they’re first rough cut to 2x4, then due to size changes via humidity and such, they’re eventually milled down to the 3.5”x1.5” so that things are more consistent.
@@calvinjohannsen6519 Any good explanation of why a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 requires a second good explanation of why older houses have 2x4s that measure 2x4. They really are cheating IMHO. I'd prefer a 2x4 with a rough edge vs a smooth 1.5x3.5, especially when using 16d nails which seem to just fit a real 2x4 better. Finally now with power nailers we use thinner and shorter nails that don't seem so oversized compared to the wood.
The framing lumber in my 100 year old house is wider than a modern 2 by 4, but not as deep. This proved to be a total PITA when trying to add insulation because the cavities on 16 inch centers are narrower than a bat of insulation and not as deep.
@@p39483 it had to do with curves of saws and the difference between planed and rough lumber. Consistent is better than big. Rough surfaces are fracture instigators, stress risers.
I see a lot of hate thrown at woodframe construction. I'm a framing carpenter (wanted to be one since I was a kid) who is working in a different field at the moment, but I still think that this system is the best for building houses that is commercially available today. I would like to see a new system take over, yes, but when compared to the methods used in other regions, 2×4 framing construction is the most technologically advanced and reasonable method, by far. It basically uses the same concept as a skyscraper/ the human body/ etc. where a semi-ridgid frame is held together with an outer skin. This makes it lighter, more flexible, and cheaper to construct. Adding in the insulation now available on the market and U.S. homes are efficent while still being larger than homes in other countries.
Totally. I used to look down on US 2x4 frame housing as "stick housing." But then, even before seeing this video, the conclusion that 2x4 framing is genius came naturally to me while working on my tiny house. For me, I was impressed by how the regularity of the cavities between the studs accommodate the modern conveniences of insulation [efficiently sandwiched between studs] and wiring/piping: the studs - or the holes drilled through the studs - hold up the wiring/piping nicely as it runs along the walls hidden out of sight. So maybe 2x4 housing's *modern* success lies partly in its ability to accommodate - out of sight - the *modern* conveniences of insulation, wiring, and plumbing.
The advent of powered lumber mills and cheap steel nails changed the economics of wood construction. Prior to power mills, turning a log into a square timber required handwork, so the cost of the product was primarily in the labor, NOT in the material itself. Trees were plentiful and cheap. Dressed lumber was expensive because men had to either hew them, or saw them by hand. After sawmills became powered by steam, or electricity, the cost to cut a log into many smaller planks dropped drastically. The value switched over to the material, and away from the labor costs. Timber frame construction required greater skill from the workers, but it also used more wood because the mortise and tenon joints removed wood at the very locations that carried the greatest loads. That meant the timbers were sized for what was needed at the joints, and a lot of extra girth was put into the building that didn't need to be there because removing that extra wood cost too much money in manual labor.
It's fascinating how much common there is between fast food and 2x4 framing. Both even have similarly major downsides that are very often strongly downplayed by certain parties. Interesting all in all!
@@cruss9064 from European perspective? It has way worse acoustic properties than plenty other technologies. Hanging heavy objects on the walls is more problematic, or even something as simple as per sockets. Durability is lower than many other technologies. Woods is flammable, and can be damaged by mold. Just to name a few.
@@cruss9064 thermal bridging, leaks air like a sieve, requires more tradesmen and contractors to finish the job which opens you up to a host of ill-installed practices that are usually seen after the homeowner has moved in, etc etc.
@@cruss9064it's structurally inferior to timber framing too. Not to mention how similar stick framing is to a McDonald's burger....they both use super processed "ingredients" for building that object.
The ubiquity of materials drives so much of construction. Earlier 20th century homes in St. Louis, even working class single bedroom homes, were brick. Lots of variation in patterns between houses. The entire region is a giant bowl of clay, and supplied much of the country with brick.
I remember 10+ years ago when a friend from the Netherlands came to visit. We happened to walk by the construction new neighborhood and they were confused as to why we were making houses out of wood. I had never really thought of a different construction method before, besides a few brick and mortar houses that were 100+ years old. Also they asked what those "weird metal boxes sticking out the windows" we're, they also never seen an air conditioner before. (at least window units)
Because both are pretty stupid, you won't find light wood framing in europe because it's crap that doesn't last, and windows AC unit are extremely inefficient and it block a windows
@@Uryendel Not particularly, they're products of a different set of circumstances. In America, land is plentiful (by and large). In most of Europe, land is extremely expensive. Well over half of the cost of constructing a new build house is in land purchase, which means when people build houses they build houses as an investment. People buy houses expecting them to still be useful and valuable when they die and pass them on to their children, or when their children do the same thing, practically in perpetuity. I suspect that in America that sentiment isn't anywhere near as strong. This has benefits and drawbacks. On the American side, houses are far less expensive than in Europe. You still have housing crises, but they're nowhere near as acute. Timber houses also act as a carbon sink, and the housing stock is more readily upgraded as technology advances (e.g. with insulation). On the European side our houses will (mostly) still be standing long after we're dead which makes them a source for family wealth if you can get on the ladder, although the high initial price drives wealth inequality by locking a proportion of the population out of that wealth. Maintenance and upkeep over the long term is lower, and there's less wastage as houses don't need to be rebuilt every 70-100 years (or sooner depending on climate and quality of construction).
@@BiTurbo228 Land in the countryside in europe is not expensive at all, the only places that are expensives are the city because unlike the US people live in the city, they don't just go their to work. And yes, people build house in europe to last, that's the point, they don't want crappy house
@Phillip Banes No it's not a country, but no country in europe build house like in the US. Yes scandinavian countries build wooden house (you also find a lot of wooden house around the alps), but they are not made with light wood framing. And yes window mounted air conidtioner are way less efficient, just make a research about it
Excellent video, and I really like that museum! Although you touch on it briefly, I think it's worth emphasizing that light-wood framing led directly to tremendous innovations in house design in the 19th century. Victorian houses, with their turrets, barge boards, projecting bays, extensive porches, and newly organized floor plans would have been impossible or prohibitively expensive with masonry and timber-frame construction, as would the great stick-style and shingle-style houses found here in coastal New England. These buildings led directly to the houses of architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and Greene and Greene (although, typically, Frank Lloyd Wright insisted that his buildings owed nothing to anybody who came before). I love a good old-fashioned timber-frame house (I currently live in one) but they tend to be very limited in the form they take. There's a lot more to light-wood framing than "Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes all the same."
Used to sell building packages and this video gave verbiage to a lot of the appreciation I had for the product I sold. I will strongly contest one throwaway line though. You absolutely need a degree of skilled labor to build a free standing structure. I have seen too many Home Owner Specials that needed to be fixed or knocked down to be dissuaded from this LOL.
Also should mention I sold these just outside of Chicago, so it gave me a degree of civic pride too! Would love to see a video on pole-barn construction as a derivative (or alternative maybe? Not sure what the correct relation would be) of light-wood framing. Polebarns were EXTREMELY popular when I was working this job.
I agree, that line was going to be followed up by a quote from the 1800s about how 'a man and a boy could build a house in 40 days' using light wood framing. Without that context, the line sounds snarky. Framing today does take a lot of skill. Maybe in 1850 less so...
@@stewarthicks its also probable that the basic skills of an "unskilled person" have changes significantly from the 1800s to be significantly less suited to house building. In modern times being able to use conputers is more relevant to an "unskilled person" than being able to build a house with just yourself and your family.
I think there's also the question of whether that 1850 house was necessarily better than the unskilled "homeowner special" done today. Most of the circa-1850 houses we see today aren't the ones built by "a man and a boy".
This video was fascinating! Thank you. I majored in Architecture in Brooklyn Technical High School in NYC. We had a 2 story building construction classroom, where every year, students would dismantle and rebuild an a-frame 2X4 frame. In any case, I wonder what your perspectives are on Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) versus 2X4. You certainly make a good arguement for 2X4s, especially in terms of available knowledge and familiarity with them, but SIPs seem like a better way forward from what I've been reading. What are your thoughts?
As soon as you compared framing to burgers, I thought of a concept called McDonaldization which was a concept thought of by sociologist George Ritzer. It is interesting that you happened to have come across the same connections that Ritzer made almost thirty years later, specifically ideas about standardization and efficiency.
Really good. PBS should give you a series. I wonder if with modern materials, Eichler like post and beam framing, maybe using 2 x 4's would be more material efficient than 16 inch on center framing? Not necessarily with lots of glass walls, but maybe foam core panels.
So my Brothers first house was one from Levittown, Pa. I didnt hear you mention the main reason that type of housing was built in that area....The war was over and you had the baby boom and soldiers looking for a place to raise their families. They were built under an initiative to make lots of economically cheap houses to accommodate the soldiers. Even today most are still there and while they obviously have needed some work over the years they are actually decent houses for the asking price (today all housing prices are nuts but 15 years ago we are talking 150k max...my Brother got his for 120k if I remember correctly....it really is a great first/starter house.
While everything in this video is true about the comparative ease of 2x4 construction, there are still a lot of info that requires skilled and experienced laborers. Because it is pretty much certain that a lot of the lumber in any project will be warped and have imperfections. So there are a lot of tricks to make the redundancy in construction methods overcome imperfections in the base material. This I learned building houses while volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.
As an European/Italian is always been crazy for me how in the USA little house are made of wood, and not even thick, with all the kind of natural disaster there are like tornado or earthquake! Here in Italy and most of Europe all the building and even small single family house are in armed concrete. I see the use of cheap wood in America as a sign of the culture, best return in profit ( capitalism ) and best way to get rid of the house to keep building and don't look back to the past, also maybe the fact that most of the people want a single home so to made them all in concrete would be difficult, but still would be really that expensive? I also see recently here in Europe the use of big timber beams in structures, but they seams different.
All good observations, Snap. I would suggest that another issue is that Americans, until the past decade or two, also grew up with an expectation that they would not stay in a particular home for long. Most Americans until the 21st century assumed that they would be moving, sometimes across the country, for new work, and so they may have not wanted to invest as much in a home.
@@hhiippiittyy Yep. As immense as the forests were when the Europeans arrived, there are actually *more* trees in the United States today than there were 400 years ago, because 90% of the wood used for products like lumber and paper is from tree farms.
If a tornado hits your concrete house it is getting demolished just like a wood frame house. We have houses from the 1800 that are wood frame construction and they are still good. We build over 10 and 20 million dollar mansions with the same technique. Are your roof systems made of concrete as well?
Concrete and masonry may look strong, but they're no more durable than wood for a home. The key is in how they're built. Modern wood framed homes built in accordance with local building codes are safe, strong, and durable. With proper maintenance, they can last indefinitely. Old houses use thick walls and heavy materials because their builders didn't know how to make a strong structure any other way. Modern engineering provides us with the materials and knowledge to produce resilient, durable structures with less resources. That's the whole point of this video.
@@phillipbanes5484 For those that need to know, I grew up in the UK and now live in France. However, when I wrote "Europe" I meant Europe - it's shorthand for France, UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, etc. and my understanding is that brick, stone and concrete are widely used across European countries, but timber is not used how it is in the USA. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
I kinda have a gripe with the idea that light framing is supposedly unskilled, or at least relative to timber framing. I've done a little bit of timber so I'm certainly no expert, but the speed and accuracy required for light framing takes a considerable amount of effort and practice. Not a single worker on my crew were as good as the boss needed us to be and they had all been doing it longer than I had. Then again that's always the case, isn't it? Technology makes things easier and cheaper, the value drives up demand, and suddenly it isn't easy anymore, but people still think it's "unskilled."
Yeah, it’s an extremely out-of-touch and borderline insulting statement. It’s incredible for an architect to brush off carpentry as unskilled labor, you’d think they would have a little more respect for the people who make their designs a reality.
It is unskilled, habitat for humanity frames houses with volunteers that’s have zero experience. It requires no formal training to begin learning and very little time to become proficient in.
I don't think he meant any disrespect, but we are talking about two different worlds here. And no question, timber framing requires more skills than light framing (I've worked on timber framing in the French and Italian alps, and on stick framing in Ohio and Western PA). One of the great strengths of light framing is precisely that it's is easier to do, with "lesser" materials. The hamburger analogy is good. Pretty much everyone can make one, even if some are faster than others at assembling them. I would also like to point out that light framing is found in Europe, and resembles its North American counterpart, but generally with a higher standard of construction. For example, I have never cared for the way stud walls are drilled to allow passage for a drain pipe in the North America. In my experience, I have never seen it done in Europe. Fasteners are also quite different. Another thing to keep in mind is that energy is a lot more expensive in Europe, which is why insulation standards are also higher, which means that whenever light framing is used, the studs are closer to 2x6 or even 2x8.
Quick note. Firstly, I wanted to clarify a statement in the video about the skill of framers. That was a product of bad writing on my part. I absolutely believe that rough carpentry is a skilled profession. I was trying to take the position of someone in the late 1800s appreciating the efficiency of the new technology. I had a quote in there, but ended up taking it out. Apologies for the way it comes across now. Secondly, thanks for the comments about the hamburger metaphor, I will take that into future advisement!
You also might want to fix you Chicago references. When on the east cost of the mid Atlantic states and New England there are home built well before those dates.
I'm glad you posted this comment. I am a framer and a trim carpenter in the remodel industry. There is a going mentality, even within the field itself, that it is not rocket science. But the concepts of putting together a sound structure really are deceptively simple. And it takes years to hone the skills to make someone a lead/foreman framer. Especially when hand cutting roofs. It is a dying art and only the toughest will do this for decades. I will freely admit, I am not cut out to frame full time. I can't hack working all year round in the elements. The few men I worked with who had decades of experience are amazing tradesmen. And there aren't many of those types around anymore.
Talikg about 2x4 being whatever while shouwing a 2x6 framed house is the quintessential stupidity of you talking at less then 2 minutes.
I was about to say something about that. Construction is literally considered skilled labor. Sure building walls isn't too hard this way, but putting together a whole structure that won't fail for decades is not.
Thank you for taking the time to make that correction. Not because I was insulted having passed journeyman 30 years ago. Because I have had to fix way too many structurally unsound DIY builds that always started with "How hard can it be to nail up boards? I can do it cheaper!" More math than you realize and it's always more expensive to fix your mistakes.
I think it’s important to consider the importance of nails as well as wood. Originally, nails were handcrafted, one at a time, by a blacksmith. They were labor-intensive and extremely expensive (hence the importance of joinery techniques in old furniture - it reduced the need for nails). Around 1800 (in the US), the first factory-made nails came about, greatly reducing the cost. This was modernized into the wire nail we all know today around 1860. These dirt-cheap nails, even more than the 2x4, were responsible for the rise of 2x4 framing. Constructing a building from small boards fastened together went from mind-bogglingly expensive to the cheapest and lowest-skilled approach, because boards could just be nailed together, rather than needing elaborate carved joints.
I read this in Stewart's voice.
You nailed it
The story of standardisation is the story of mechanisation, and without standardisation you can’t have complexity with efficiency. Sure you can have complexity, like a hand crafted 19th century chronometer, but you can’t have millions of them.
And nails are like French fries…
@@ShaheenGhiassy Great suggestion! Beautiful channel to watch, very calm and informative.
My grandfather was a lifelong carpenter in New England. When they bid a house they always asked if there were any feature they wanted in the future but couldn’t afford now, like bay windows or garage in the basement of a ranch house
They would frame them in, which didn’t cost much more, so that when the day came, the headers and supports were already there
Just cut out the outer and inner areas and the bay window or garage door could be installed
He also, by default, ran 3 instead of 2 carrier beam 2x12’s to insure the house wouldn’t settle
My uncles house was built this way almost 40 years ago and no door has stuck in the winter and has never settled
My grandfather always promoted 4’ entry doors to facilitate furniture moving, etc
Costs spent up front save headaches in 20 years
The world needs more builders like your grandfather
Facts
Anyone who has ever moved a couch would kill for 4' entry doors.
Granddad was righteous.
Nothing but respect and admiration for your grandfather.
I really enjoyed this video. I spent my whole life in the homebuilding business starting in 1973. I retired in 2012, but came out of retirement 5 or 6 times to do interior trimwork for my son the homebuilder. This is my 50th year in the business. I retired for good this year and miss it so much. It's sad that time goes by so fast.
Just turned 28 today, and realized I've spent half my life in the skilled trades (finish carpentry & glazing). My grandpa was a finish carpenter and I grew up helping him sometimes when he really needed it, but he refused to teach me much outside of that because he didn't like the job much and was forced to do it for the sake of the family.
Oh well, I guess 😂 but I ended up getting into trouble quite a few times as a kid from hanging out in half built residential construction sites trying to take in everything around me
I have NEVER seen studs that straight on a jobsite. That's an impressive exhibition!
that and anything new with 16 on center is a luxury home.... 24in is just about "normal" now...
@@saeedhossain6099 24 inch is for 6inch studs or one story with 4inch.
Luckily for me, the studs I know are usually gay 🤤
they are not stamped (making them illegal to use in building is some states) so they were probably milled just for this exhibit
@@saeedhossain6099 when designed correctly, 24 OC is a better way to build a house. When you can transfer load in a straight line directly from the trusses into the floor, there's no reason to not save money on materials
the reason for the development of light wood framing was the reduced cost and increased availability of nails... particularly wire nails. These are essential to this type of construction, different than the cut joinery used with timber framing. This is a good example of how the innovation of one product can completely change an industry.
Cheap wire nails and industrial sawmills allowed light wood framing's other numerous benefits to come to the fore. Without these two innovations, light wood framing is not viable. If timbers must be sourced and finished locally, there is no advantage to using many more small ones. Likewise, without cheap wire nails it is not feasible to efficiently (cost and time) connect many small members.
These two innovations allowed the rapidly-expanding US to build all sorts of buildings cheaply and easily. By setting up a relatively local sawing operation, the only industrial import would be nails and fixtures which are much smaller and lighter. The lumber itself is also much lighter and easier to transport than timbers, brick, or stone.
Source timber could be found nearby across most of the expanding US. The same cannot be said for masonry source materials and they are simply too expensive to transport.
While the postwar boom created most of the housing stock and cemented light wood for the home, light wood had been in typical use since the earliest days of the colonies and through the western expansion for exactly these reasons.
@@haphazard1342 What the hell are you talking about, Masonry Source Materials are EVERYWHERE, it's the literal thing you walk on. the Ground. You need clay, and the only places without clay are the ocean and stone beds, most of the US consists of neither. And sure there are few regions with sand, but you can still make bricks out of clay sand, which is what those regions are made up of. There is no place on Earth that isn't covered with way too much water, that can't utilize clay to build buildings.
And in the few ones where you can't use clay, you can use silt or sand or god forbid STONE. And sure making Stone Bricks is way too much work, but using stone and crushed stone mortar, is a viable way to construct buildings. And especially in a lot of parts of the US, Stone buildings would've been preferable to keep Cool, I'm looking at you Southern Texas and your egg fryingly hot weather.
@@livedandletdie Bricks are a poor choice for wall construction in seismic areas, like most of the western USA. Also, masonry walls must get very thick if walls are tall or roof spans are large. Unless you are talking about reinforced masonry and steel isn't just found on the ground but is a very specialized industry, sorta like nails. Most homes that are made out of brick then have wood framed walls inside of them so that electrical wiring, plumbing and HVAC can be run inside them. All things considered, wood is a better building material than masonry. So in your ideal masonry homes; what exactly is your roofing system made out of?
That's not quite true. Stick frame construction was made possible by sawmills that were cheap and efficient. In the early days of stick frame construction each 2x4 stud was mortised into both the base and top plates. This style didn't last long because shortly after modern stick frame construction was popularised cut nails and then wire nails came along.
However having said that their are variations of stick frame construction that go back hundreds of years. They are associated with regions that had water and wind powered sawmills. Netherlands and Germany in particular.
@Hellequin Maskharat I'm not arguing quantity over quality. Wood framed walls are better than masonry walls for residential construction. Is your argument really that since some old stone building s are still standing then that is the best way to build? So since there are some old Mercedes still on the road that means they are better than the modern Mercedes? No, of course not.
I've always had a soft spot for "scribe rule" timber framing. We didn't use it much in the USA because we had a healthy supply of straight timber, but it was used a lot in Europe when it became underforested. It allows you to timber frame with crooked, twisted, or otherwise irregular timber, by lining laying them out and lining them up where they will join. As long as a timber is joined at the ends, you don't care how much it waves or meanders in between the joints, and can actually use these irregularities to your advantage. In the hands of a skilled framer, the results can be quite beautiful.
@@LTNetjak”deforest the entire continent”.
Have you ever looked at a map before? Europe has a lot of forests.
@@Kyuriumhave you ever read a history book before?
You're coming off like a dick, the US deforested massive areas of old growth and Europe was worse.
Suddenly a curve in a beam creates a stronger low arch than straight 2x4s
" As long as a timber is joined at the ends, you don't care how much it waves or meanders in between the joints" um no. you absolutely do, because a beam thats twisting and contorting in its place dosent provide any structural support.
That's what I do. And yes it's beautifull. A few craftsmen from the old world built over here early on. i've worked on a few , including the project I'm on now. It's been modified and moved at least once. Started as an English threashing barn.
Great burger video, I really loved the framing metaphors.
that was funny
😋
Your joke is way better than mine. And more on point.
Yeah, I'm finding myself hungry now.
TBH, a macdonalds burger is not delicious, it's just mushy.
As someone who’s worked in framing for 2 decades I found this vid very informative and awesome. However, it must be said that framing carpenters are very much skilled tradesmen much like their colleges who do Timber/clear span/ pole barn framing. Tho they are different, there are many commonalities and real tradesman can do all equally as well.
I agree and that implication in the video is a product of bad writing on my part. I think it very much is a skilled profession. I was mostly trying to capture the sentiment at the time, there are many quotes of people saying how much easier it is from like 1850 to build a house than it use to be. I completely respect the work of framers and rough carpenters and regret how it comes across in this video.
As someone who's built framing as a hobbyist off and on for 3 decades, I completely agree with that sentiment! However, I do think once you get above a fairly low baseline, a lot of that skill ends up being useful much like skill in housepainting is useful. As one professional housepainter said in a how-to video I saw, most people with a little practice can do as good a job as he could at painting a room -- it's just that he can do it a whole lot faster.
My house was a horse barn or something timber framed and then added onto over the years. I think it's origin is 1935 or something like that. It had the old wiring with the porcelain insulators. Anyway I'm remodeling it and the other day just taking off a piece of trim about 2 ft long and it took me an hour with flat bars, hammer and a sawzall haha. The "trim" nails they used are 2 3/4 long. That's damn near a framing nail. It's crazy how different building is now. Nothing even remotely square or plumb haha. Different priorities then.
@@BrooksMoses i wouldn’t go that far.. i feel like with that logic you could infer that any trade is possible for absolutely anybody to do with enough practice, but the truth is maybe 6/10 people would paint their own house (mostly due to not wanting to go through the hassle of it) but less than 1/100 people would attempt framing their own house (almost entirely due to lack of knowledge/skill to actually be able to do it).
If only more builders would demand more skill in their framers instead of hiring the cheapest idiot around. Also, if they would pay a small amount extra for better quality lumber, they could reduce labor costs.
With all the whining from idiots about the supposed problems with our version of capitalism, the biggest problem is the way it supports a flight from quality.
Great video. I’ve been selling lumber for new home construction for 20+ years. The part that still blows me away is how understood the entire process is by the people involved. I produce a list of material based off a blueprint. The load pullers gather the materials and load them in a manner that makes sense to the framers on the job site. The truck drivers know where to put the material on site so not to block access to the other tradesman. Finally the framing crew builds the structure. In 7-10 days a house is under roof. It all happens so fast! Good framers are awesome.
This is all done with the no written instructions. IKEA furniture has more direction than the construction of your home. It’s just dimensions and a picture on a 2D blueprint.
Working with a pair of carpenters, it amazes me how fast we are able to build and how from nothing we get to something.
My goodness I wish we had more guys on the logistics side of things like yourself here. All of the guys who understood these things have quickly been replaced by temporary foreign workers who pack lifts in whatever order they find the lumber in the yard and then smash the ends of half of it it by dumping it off the flatbed... eastern Canada.
My house was originally built in 1916 and utilizes balloon framing. I’m actually in the middle of a complete bathroom renovation and you can see from the second floor to the basement in the wall space. I was already aware of this style, but that is because my father is a retired carpenter. Great video by the way. I really enjoyed it!
Hope you have plenty of smoke alarms!
@@kupokraft3685 I do! The majority of the houses in the area I live in are of the same or similar design. I’m very thorough with my renovations and take care of all the code issues while I have the walls and floor open.
My condolences
Balloon framing is actually more energy efficient, as there are fewer framing members.
@@mjw9928 yea... exactly, quality < economy
My father (the architect) had a favorite story about his grandfather (the carpenter). A point of pride for him was showing off a wood frame building he'd built solo. With just a hammer, hand saw and a framing square he built a building 120' on one side. You could sight down that side and see no board out of line. "Sa fin som snus".
Yer Great grandpa were Swedish then... seeing that quote of yours.
And it took him a long time. But, this is about building communities not a family home. I appreciate the story though.
@@ChrisPadillaAZ what makes you assume that? Other than a lack of knowledge on the topic?
Hand saws were the norm back in Grandpa days. Same as hand driving nails. Correct hand nailing goes set, sink, counter sink, next for 16p. nails. Doing this is about half the speed of a nail gun.
Not having a board out of line is done through correct plumb and line of building and latter straight edging
Great argument and very thorough. When it comes to the genius of light wood framing, you can't ignore the network effect created by all the downstream commodities that perfectly integrate into the resulting structure. For instance, drywall comes in 4x8 sheets that exactly span three 2x4 stud bays, and reach an 8' ceiling. Lap siding comes in 12' lengths, again exactly spanning multiple stud bays. Insulation comes in 14-1/2" widths, which nest precisely between 2 studs. Breaker boxes also come in widths that slot neatly into a single stud bay. If all of these things had to be specially sized on site, the value of light wood framing would diminish greatly.
Standardization and commoditization drive efficiency. Building a structure is already expensive enough as it is; just imagine how expensive it would be if it was all custom, all the time.
That things fit other standardized materials is NOT amazing and wonderful- it’s necessary and expected.
@@fishhuntadventureyeah true, us dutchies used/are using baked clay bricks to build with, yes it is heavier and not as many can build houses with it compared to usas wooden frames, but allmost all other solutions the usa solved are also solved by bricks, u just need bigger pieces of wood to support floors or ceilings, but usually most walls cover that
Or use steal beams iso large wooden ones, but idk for how long that really has been a thing
So where I live we use 6x2 framing (more space for insulation) and our stud spacing is two foot. But our dry wall is 4 foot wide, but in almost any length, and then we run them horizontally, rather than vertically. Then when you're plastering you only have two joins (usually, depending on ceiling height), and they're at a much more comfortable working height.
this video is wonderful, it is very interesting to know how the US build their houses.
Here in Brazil, we use clay or cement bricks a lot. I would love to see a video of you talking about the different types of buildings around the world and why they are used! Keep up the GREAT work.
Great suggestion.
I would be particularly interested in adobe and rammed earth construction. I know their utility is limited outside of the American west, with its dry climate, but they still seem to be the preferred building material in desert environments.
I'm also from South America and had the same exact thought. Thank you for posting this suggestion and I do hope Stewart makes a video about it.
In Argentina too : )
I am from Germany, where most buildings are also build with cement bricks and seeing these light wooden homes seems sort of unstable and also not very well insulated?
Very nice insights. Sawdust doesn't make OSB it makes MDF. It takes a chipping process to turn wood into the right type of material for OSB.
Correct. OSB=Oriented Strand Board MDF=Medium Density Fiberboard
Sawdust also makes particle board which self-destructs if it *hears* that it might rain... The ONLY use that I've ever found for particle board is as a sacrificial cutting surface on my radial arm saw and even then, I need to remember not to sit a cold can of beer on it because we're so humid that water will condense on the cold can.
that's true rejected boards and cut offs feed the chipping process
Another important difference between balloon framing and platform framing is the way platform framing transfers loads down onto structure below whereas balloon framing often times relied on the nails themselves to hold the load to the wall.
This is especially true when your Mom is in my bed, you know because she's SO DAMN FAT! OHHHHHHHHHHH BURNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My friend's old chicken coop barn is an example of your point about balloon framing. The second floor is nailed to the studs with nothing underneath the joists. I never looked that closely at the construction until we added a new 8' door. While it has issues that need correcting still, we are amazed the barn is still standing after a century.
Most have a 1x6 ledger board notched into the studs that sits under you joists for support and the nails just hold the joist yo the side of the stud with becomes worthless after every membership as floors is tied together in the house
@@metaldetectingnmore8763 this. On all the baloon framed houses I’ve worked on, joists hanging directly off studs has never been a point of failure, save for instances where a joist twisted and pulled it’s nails loose. Those 1x4” ledgers notched into the studs do an amazing job keeping things in place, even 140+ years later
As a lumber associate at Home Depot, I found this very informative. Definitely glad it popped up in my feed
You should put a word in a see if they can may purchase 2×'s that are somewhere near straight. It takes as long to purchase lumber from home depot just digging through the pile trying to find something usable as it does to frame the damn house. Maybe even have it half sheathed.
@@arnold8746 I’ll see what I can do lol
Thank you.
@@arnold8746I’ve been a carpenter building homes since 1897 and I just came here to let you know the reason they’re all crooked is because every single guy that gets lumber from Home Depot is a mf like you that thinks he’s the only one in the world that ever thought to sight lumber and take it too seriously and refuse to take even one bent one… therefore that’s all that’s ever left is bent shit. You weekend warriors need to learn where and when it’s possible to use bent or crowned material ie blocking bottom plates things like that . 😏 now you know why there’s only dog shit in that pile . The real boys would rarely ever shop for material there anyway. Not enough selection or stock.
light wood framing is also up near the top for building styles that are easy to modify and change after the fact to suit the needs of the people living there. adding more power or networking into the walls, dividing or combining rooms, and adding extensions is all very accessible to the homeowner to do themselves
Absolutely marvelled by how many useful museum/visual examples you pull from video after video in the Chicago area.
imagine how incredible that city could be if 90% of it wasn't a trashed ghetto. I can't even imagine how cool it would be there.
There would be literally 10x as much stuff like this
@@ChadDidNothingWrong of all the respectful, coherent, and meaningful things you could’ve thought to say, you decided to share a bigoted cliche that does no real work at looking at the positives of this place.
You’re right, you can’t even imagine how cool it would be there, because you choose not to see how wonderful it is now.
Yeah I never heard of Google before this video either!
Because Chicago exploded from a population of 300 in 1830 to 3 million in 1930, it was a hothouse and a showcase for virtually every construction type developed between the Black Hawk War and the Second World War. Chicago spent most of a century needing to double its housing stock immediately, and its status as the transport and industrial hub of the West during that period made the materials available to do it as quickly and cheaply as possible.
@@ryanleethomas Your mayor looks like Beetlejuice
All in all very well done.
Being a retired Architecture Drafting (yes, pencil and paper before computers) and CAD instructor, I would have liked it, if you had shown how a second floor or platform is supported in platform framing graphically, since the physical model you were showing was a single story.
Let me Google that for you…
@@BAW310 I'm pretty sure they know how a floor is supported
@@BAW310 did you ever google it? I keep waiting on your response but I’m thinking maybe you couldn’t find it? Let me know thanks!
@@jakegooden8567 i think he's still working on it, guess we'll just to keep checking back in!
Did he find it yet lolol@@sweeeetteeeeth
And from the modest 2x4 came the ability to build trusses which is an amazing tech all by itself.
It’s claimed that if you read The NY Times front to back for a full yr you are acquiring the factual info equivalent to a 4 yr college degree. Your videos feel like I’m getting the architectural theory course work I missed out on. I originally wavered between pursuing architecture and product design in college and opted for the later but had always wondered what it would have been like had I gone the other way. Thank you for your very stimulating and informational videos which inspire me to learn more and with your in-depth (and sometimes overlooked) insights.
Just gonna say that the NYT is probably not gonna give the knowledge of any four year degree.
Personally I think Stewart is better.
Omg, you're too kind!
@@GoingtoHecq "Just gonna say that the NYT is probably not gonna give the knowledge of any four year degree." I would have agreed with you ten years ago, Hex, but for old fogies like me who went to college long before the current social theories gained traction, I have to say that I find reading the Times (I am a subscriber) gives me more exposure to the stuff they're shoveling into kids' brains these days than anything else I can imagine.
Biased, slanted and censored...yep, sounds like current university curriculum.
This is a not very clever and not very well disguised paid advertisement for the NYT.
Great video and so well done. One thing, although some do, I don’t think it is that Americans prefer standardization over variety, I believe it is that they put cost and convenience over most other factors.
We’re plenty different, but independence is important and if standardized timber framing is effective at a good price, that’s what we’ll utilize.
What does independence have to do with anything in this comment?
Also, this kind of house is cheap to build but will not last. I get the impression (from word choice in online discourse) that it is relatively unusual to buy a house from a previous owner.
@@rikwisselink-bijker I live in a cookie cutter wood framed house which sold for 10k in the fifties. It is now valued at 1.3 million. I am the third owner. The previous owners and I have made many modifications to this house and and it did not cost us an arm and a leg to to do so. I can tell you from having stayed in very old houses in Europe that my wood framed house is much more comfortable and livable.
@@rikwisselink-bijker There are thousands of 19th century balloon frame houses still extant in Chicago that are 100-150 years old. It is virtually unheard of for such a building to only last a single generation. Constantly wrecking and replacing such structures would eliminate the cost savings factor.
I’m sure all are factors, but I think standardization is a big one. People will eat at a place they know will suck like Chili’s when they could go to an equidistant restaurant because while Chili’s is consistently bad, it’s not as bad as some of the really bad local restaurants that used to be more common.
Balloon framing used to be confusing to me because in many ways its more difficult than platform framing...until you remove the tape measure. You don't have to guess or measure where lower support structures are with balloon framing.
Fascinating! So many issues! The light-weight framing system was indeed exported: in wood-rich Finland it ended up, in the 1940s, replacing the traditional log-building technique (a square-profile log structure clad in timber siding). The traditional Finnish log houses were built by 2 people using just axes and no nails. The thick-walled houses provided excellent insulation. With the import of light-wood framing in the late 40s, the houses were cheaper but notably colder. The old traditional log-framed houses have lasted hundreds of years, while the light-wood framing houses are already decaying, despite the addition of insulation.
New tech could make modern stick built houses more resilient than those log built ones.
@@GWHAWK87 Interesting thought! By "resilient" I guess you mean longer-lasting. The well-maintained ones have already lasted up to a couple of hundred years (as seen in the Seurasaari Open Air Musuem in Helsinki). These days log is more often being replaced by glulam, which is not as ecological as log. But back in the day, labor was cheap, and so building a log was not a great labor expense. The skill still exist, but admittedly it comes at relative higher cost. The biggest advantage of "stick" was always cost.
In terms of that resiliency, there was a historical dip in building quality caused by the entry of the insulation era where insulation was retrofitted into older buildings before good water management was really understood. Air carrying water condenses whilst passing through insulation, dumping water in the walls, which then gets trapped in there leading to rot. Nowadays the modern focus towards insulation, airtightness and barrier technology results in a stick wall which can last for centuries and be very efficient whilst doing so too. It's also particularly great that it can do that whilst looking like almost any other kind of wall - brick, log, render or regular timber sidings for example.
@@hijackstudios Intriguing! The building industry is naturally in search of cheap and durable solutions. The traditional log houses didn't need insualtion (NB: in Finland logs have always been sawn/axed to a square shape, unlike the round log system of North Ameica, which had a weakness at the joint of two round logs). It was the cold stick houses to which the insulation was so disastrously added. With sufficient depth, wood has the ability to absorb and release moisture, not requiring the tightness of, say, steel and glass. Do you have any model examples in mind of the wooden structures that hopefully will last for hundreds of years?
@@garethgriffiths1674 Building to the strictest goals of the "Passivhaus" standards, particularly with the very high airtightness bar, is the likely best candidate. There are example wall structures in the standard which have been age tested as well. In building science it's essentially known that if a timber structure can dry out then it is able to last incredibly long times - there's an 800 year old church where I live with some original timber features. The strict airtightness requirements essentially block water from entering the wall in the first place, as well as clever one directional barriers which allow any water that does get inside to easily escape. The actual structure used depends on your climate zone as it comes down to which side of the wall the larger quantity of moisture is. In our cooler climates like here in the UK or there in Finland, the vapour barrier is on the internal side of the wall for example.
I don't live in the USA any more and so, I get a chance to view your videos through the eyes of someone who was in that world and knew it, but am now gone from it in a significant way. Here, where I live, wood frame homes of any type, other than than most crude, are not built. We build with concrete and rebar. And we do it for the same reason that you cite for stick built: access to common materials; easy manufacture and portage; plasticity of end product design with the same materials, and; relatively lower skilled workmen for the basic construction. In point of fact, all you said, works for the building techniques here. All you need to do is switch the materials. I designed my own home here and was my own general contractor. Then did the same things with a boardhouse I built. So as I watched along with you, I saw how a different culture, different skills and different materials ended up telling the same story.
Explaining construction practices to an American: Ok, so imagine a hamburger
Our perspective on this from Europe is different. This is almost unused in Europe, most buildings are built from concrete, bricks or silica bricks. It is perceived as very weak, and correlated often with houses demolished by hurricanes in US. In West, Timber-Lam is somewhat popular as a cheaper way, but it is engineered glued wood which is way stronger. Finland and northern countries have tradition in wood buildings, but it is different a bit. It is very interesting technique, I love it for it standarization and ease of use, but I have my reservations when I consider it for my own building technique. Thanks for material!
I might be able to think of other reasons why windstorms demolish more homes in the US than in Europe, but I think it's already pretty obvious.
@@BS-vx8dg That was not my thinking, it is somewhat common opinion in general population. This type of houses is perceived as not really strong, and reality is obvious as you say.
When up for sale in UK they’re much cheaper and listed with “non traditional construction” label so you know it’s probably gonna mould and be uninhabitable within 100 years. Viewed as very poor quality and temporary in Europe
It’s like an IKEA house. In other words, temporary and disposable.
One reason why its so popular in the us has to do with the temperature swings we get in a year. In tennessee we have to build to temperatures as low as -12c on a winter night all the way to 40c on a summer day. Light framing allows more robust practices with insulation to adapt to all of that. A concrete house not only would be expensive and complicated to build in appalachia but it would soak in heat and distribute it into the home all night when we already need ac to regulate the temperature in the first place. And with modern building science practices we're able to fix the sins of our predecessors and build long lasting well detailed homes that don't mold, don't fall apart, and stand the test of time. The homes of the 70s and 80s with vented attics poor air sealing and bad water shedding are quickly becoming obsolete, we know now they were built wrong, we know now they were unsafe. And we're working to change the culture of "I've always done it that way" that excuses lazy building practices.
it's really striking to compare this to how houses are built in Japan: they haven't entirely given up on timber framing, but the joinery is machine carved in the factory, and the posts and beams are often glulam.
there are still a lot of studs, like you see in this video, though, so it really does seem to be a hybrid.
Japanese carpentry in architecture is amazing, works with engineered wood wonderfully, and allows movement like stick-built with nails. I wish it were a real option in America. Most people still want the aesthetic of fine timbers with it, and even with engineered wood, would still cost noticeably more. However, it is something built from wood that is meant to last. Often it is cheaper to tear down a house a stick built house here than to fully renovate it.
Japanese homes are built for a much shorter lifespan than North American homes.
@@CleverAccountName303
sad, but true. one of my friends had her house demolished and built a new one on the same lot, and the builder explicitly told her that the house should have a lifespan of 40 years.
she immediately had concrete cracking and probably some other nonsense.
it's just sad.
I think this is a feature of building _after_ WW2, though.
I'm not sure about temples, but shrines were rebuilt periodically as a matter of course-in the inner shrine, they have two houses for the god so that they can move it into the spare house while they rebuild the other one. a lot of shrines are listed historical sites, now, so they can't rebuild anymore. my impression is that this rebuilding is a feature of Shinto, rather than cultural, beliefs.
I saw the rebuild of a temple in Nikko a few years ago-they had built a protective cover around the whole building that included a walkway so that you could see the work progressing from above. they were, at least for the part that I saw, reusing the original timbers. I'm sure they had to use new material for some things, but a lot of it was the same materials. this, again, is probably because of its historical status, but these do seem to have been built to last.
I saw my neighbor, now retired, but at the time working in the building trades, partly demolish his house after his mother passed.
mostly, houses are demolished with heavy machinery, and the timbers are torn apart in the process. perhaps since he was planning to use and renovate part of the house, he did it the old way, taking the house apart piece by piece.
houses like that are incredibly modular-iirc, the main joinery being carved at the sawmill goes back more than a hundred years-so I think the more traditional approach is to dismantle the house and reuse most of the timbers when major work is required, or to just pound in new foundation stones and add on when you decide you need more house.
*_those_* houses *_were_* built to last a lot longer, but there are very few people doing that kind of work anymore.
@@captainobvious9188 What really chaps people's hides here in the USA is watching a crew demo an old house with QUALITY, DENSE, FULL SIZED studs. Why? Because they want to sell you more wood. Greed. Same reason when they tear down a metal structure with excellent condition components they specifically WRECK THEM and throw them in scrap metal piles to China. People would love to reuse the corrugated metal that is still in 20-40 year lifespan remaining. The I-beams and sundry again, have 40+ years left in them. As for timber built homes. Vastly superior construction. Same with fitted stone or in more dry climates, CEB, made on site. Thermal mass really helps keep cooling and heating costs controlled. Stick built homes are chosen for the low skill level needed and for the ability to cut corners and costs while still charging premiums to customers. Wasteful consumerist society locked into materialism and self destruction.
@@captainobvious9188 In one video on "flimsy American houses" I saw it mentioned that in Japan houses tend to be even "flimsier" than in the US and last a shorter amount of time.
Dude was SO hungry when he made this
I have 5 buildings built in 1870 on my property. They are all light wood framed, with tin siding. They are all doing great
It's likely old growth timber?
@@mattoska Took some time to talk to the ancients in the area. The local mill here was getting its logs from Northern MN, and pulling them off the Mississippi river to bring them here. As old of growth as one could hope for
My 1885 house is old growth also,. Hard to drive a nail into most of the logs in the floor...
Nice to have a video that praises something that's common and inexpensive. Too many videos, would look at this and find a way to have a snob reaction to something that makes housing and food affordable.
The burger analogy really sells it. Great stuff.
Except that it is not affordable. European way to build houses (brick and mortar or concrete) is cheaper and gives better quality. Tissue paper and toothpick construction is only "cheap" because wood logging is subsidized industry and because it does not have to adhere to environmental concerns.
Great stuff. I know NOTHING about house building or architecture but the sign of a good channel is the ability to snag interest from the passer by. As a Chicagoan, just another reason to watch. Good work!
Enjoyed the video!
Two things:
First, I have been doing framing and carpentry for 45 yrs and hamburgers are my favorite food… coincidence? I think not! 😉
Second, and I know I’m being picky, but you mention early in the video that studs are 16” apart. Technically they are 16” on center which makes them 14 1/2” apart. And it’s not uncommon for 24” on center especially with the price of lumber. Many advantages to that (that I won’t go into) but has to be done properly (like studs under roof trusses or floor joists)
You carpentry inclined folks are such artists with your hands and mind. I’ve the utmost respect for you, and the mechanically and architecturally gifted.
14 7/16
14, 28/64 ? 😮
the burger is a great analogy and certainly lands on the factor of convenience, flexibility, cost effectiveness etc. as is the case with the prevalence of the wood framing in the US. but as a metaphor it only goes so far and i think there's a good portion of the ground left to cover that you didn't get really into.
in a way automobiles as a mode of transport are also small, nimble, give individuals the freedom and the precision do get to their exact destinations on their own schedule etc. and I'm sure one would be able to draw interesting parallels between cars and burgers and wood framing. their inherent qualities take majority of the credit in their rise and subsequent dominance as a mode of transport in the US. but a significant part of that story are the oil, tire, car manufacturers and their lobbies that discouraged competing modes of transportation, so they can sell more gas and cars etc. tied into this is the fact that the north American continent happens to have this natural resource readily available - had it not been the case, I doubt that the car would be as dominant as it turned out to be. another side to the story is the cultural momentum of the post WWII generation and the ensuing baby boom which lead to suburbization, low density planning, lack of infrastructure etc. which made the use of a car pretty much the only viable option for most people. another side is the cultural context, the traditional American ethos that values independence, individualism, the ability to control your own destiny etc. which has made a reinforcing feedback loop with the car that became a cultural symbol as well as a product.
my point is that there are a lot of the sides to the story of the wood frame, why it out-competed brick and other materials, where it hasn't and why etc., that seem to be skipped over. I get that the form factor you chose doesn't allow for all that level of detail or the time it would take to delve into it, but as a non-American, I'd really be interested to learn more about these things which seem really interesting and quirky about the US. I think this is a topic deserving of a more in depth explanation, more nuance and it would be great if you found a way of revisiting it sometimes. thanks.
He referred to the Sears catalogue in the video. They sold a lot of flat pack wooden houses. A limited number of styles and sizes that could be put together by the average handyman. It kept the costs down too, as the buyer supplied construction labour. The company had factories producing standard components.
This wasn't at the level used today for SIPs with all the utilities literally built into panels that clipped together. It was on the level of build your own model aeroplane kits. All the parts are there and you have to put them together in the right order.
I thought the burger was a great analogy, but I definitely think a third or more of the burger callbacks could have been cut. Every time I got invested in the timber he said, “and burger.” Is this a framing video or a burger video? Burger
Contrarily to hamburgers or cars, wood framing hasn't conquered the rest of the world. So there must be other factors. The cost of energy is certainly one. I guess history is part of it too: US colons (from first pilgrims to late gold rushers) had to build fast, with whatever they could find around them.
100% agree, good video topic and delivery, but the script should drop the analogies - they just and up as annoying padding.
you should look into the rise of cars in the US too, it's quite interesting.
There are reasons why north american levels of car dependency aren't found in europe, such as being able to build wide roads... but a fascinating number of reasons can be tracked back to car companies doing their very best to destroy public transportation, and push cars on everyone.
I'm a carpenter, this video is something I'll be taking about on Monday with my home build crew here in Vermont. Wonderful stuff...thankyou
As to the invention of the hamburger, it depends on how you define it. There was supposedly a ground meat patty type product served with bread outside the Colosseum in ancient Rome, fast food style.
In college I was working on a degree in geology, and the subject of light-wood framing came up. There is an unexpected upside to the way it's usually done, and that is houses built this way come with a degree of earthquake resistance. There are three reasons for this.
First, the way the frames are built is resistant to collapse, because there are so many supports, so many connections, the force from the earthquake doesn't have a weak point to focus on.
Second, the buildings built with this method can sway, which is important for riding out an earthquake.
And third, if a collapse does occur, it tends to be a collapse that creates pockets where people can still breathe and potentially crawl out.
This is actually very important for American housing, as the New Madrid Fault Zone in the eastern half of the country famously rocked the nation with three major quakes back in the 1810s. Though the fault zone is in Missouri, it rang church bells on the East Coast and cracked sidewalks in DC. If the same quakes happened today, half of the entire US population would be in the danger zone. That means making all our houses in this way will help save lots of lives if those earthquakes happen again.
This is something I think about with regards to masonry housing in that area. It's undeniably better at insulating against extreme heat and cold, and will also survive powerful wind storms and tornadoes for longer than a stick-built house will. But in an earthquake, they just turn into heaps of bricks...
@@MalikCarrjust build using earthquake resistant bricks
It's miraculous really. I'm not much of a builder. Only scratch built a few sheds. The amazing this is how they become rock solid and absolutely unmovable once the siding is installed. You can join the studs with only two nails at each joint and the whole thing seems wobbly until siding is applied, then rock solid. It's a great application of physics and economics as well. If you've never tried it, give it a go. Build a shed or even a dog house. It's a great learning experience and not difficult at all.
Thank You! In Florida most homes are block in my neighborhood. For hurricanes that's good. Earth Quakes is another ball game. Wood construction is the safer method. Thanks I never thought about it. I keep my wood home. My Florida home will be sold and the house that my father in law had constructed is made of wood. 73
My Father was French Canadian (Acadian and Cree)
He had an ability to make the simplest things into complex atrocities 😂
Anywhere 1 nail was required in 2x4 framing, he used 12 (most bent and an assortment of sizes) "just to make sure"
and where 2 were required, he used 1 or none 🤣
He taught me what not to do in many aspects of life, and motivated me to learn the right way to do things.
I am grateful for his "Frenchness"
Great anecdote. My Grandfather was Italian, and lived during WWII.
He saved everything and anything that could be of use down the road.
I certainly got his genes, because I'm a pack rat. On the commercial construction sites I work on, I'll walk around, and pick up dropped, or discarded, nails, screws, or items tossed in the 40 yard trash bins.
It's amazing the things that get thrown away, because shipping it back, costs too much.
I wish I'd have had a warehouse to store so many things that I just didn't have room for, that was worth a mint.
I remember on one job, they were throwing out the laminated header beams that were very large, and long. I estimate they were
5"x20"×20', and there were several.
An entire pallet of commercial steel doors (my work as a door mechanic) was tossed, because they were accidentally lost in a warehouse, then reordered, and both delivered to me.
I did take one home to my neighbor, and installed it on his music studio, with all the proper trim. He loved it.
My selection of screws, nails, and hardware is impressive by any measure. I just have to look long enough to find what I need.
😂
@@davidgraham2673 my brother in law was Italian (the only one of his siblings born in the US)
He had 40 years worth of extra screws, nuts, bolts, twisty ties etc..
In that number of years of collecting, I'd say maybe 10 times it actually paid off
And one of those times was for a screw I needed 🤣
And he was so proud, "I've got the exact screw you need...."
Sadly he passed away quite young recently,
and my sister ended up having to deal with what to do with all of his various collections, it was extremely difficult on her.
@@warthogA10 , It might be an Italian thing......LOL. (I was born in Vicenza)
I like your Brother-in-law already.
In my case, I've actually had the exact screw(s) I needed many, many times.
I apparently also got my grandfathers gift of knowing exactly where to look to find my needed screw, or do-dad.
The funny thing is: I kind of hate using
My Precious'es......because they've kinda become my treasure now.
(No wonder my Grandfather didn't like anyone touching his items.
I finally understand....I see the light.)
Thanks for the comment.
You made my day.
A salute to your Brother in law, and my condolences.
He and I are simpatico.
@@davidgraham2673 he was a truly good and great man
Awesome video. Oriented strand board is not made from sawdust but rather shredded strips of wood usually from Aspen trees. Practical board is made from sawdust though but is rarely used in the home construction industry today. Particle board is often used as a substrate for cabinetry and laminate countertops.
good comment I was thinking that during the video. I'm pretty sure they farm those small rapidly growing aspen trees specifically for making OSB.
They are bothering not made from waste products but rather the trees get chopped to a specific particle size exclusively for the purpose of making those boards, at least here in Germany at Egger, a major manufacturer of MDF, OSB an particle board in Europe.
The particle size and uniformity are extremely important so regular sawdust wouldn’t cut it…
What an amazing exhibit! Thanks Stewart!
I'm a fan of standardization.
Many people believe creativity is born of infinite choices, but when you can do anything you usualy end up doing nothing.
Having constraints is actually quite beneficial for creativity. once you have a box you can think outside of it.
Standardization also helps to contrast the unique, making custom works stand out.
I'm hoping 3d printed concrete becomes standardized soon so we can start exploring all the custom cast options that can make something bland something grand.
Profound
“The limited amount of training and expertise to put up wood framing means that so many more people can build a house than would be possible otherwise.”
I believe that the opposite happened. The limited training and expertise required let the labor force stop passing along their advanced and expertise skills. Now it’s incredibly expensive to hire anyone truly skilled because so few of them remain. This means that anything other than 2x4 construction comes at a premium beyond the cost effectiveness of the material.
Maybe this isn’t exactly it, but there has to be some reason why construction quality has tanked. My colleagues always describe how specific our documents must be to get any level of quality out of the construction crew.
That's not the opposite, that's something that happened concurrently.
Thinking that over all more expensive and less spacious housing is desirable just because it preserved a way of doing things is flawed thinking. We have a ten thousand year history of moving beyond previously required skills, but you only lament what just passed away, not the fact that the average person doesn't tan their own hides after scraping the fat and viscera away while living on some arid plain.
@@DrewLSsix there are many meticulously crafted giant stone buildings still standing, imagine if we focused on making things last and be timeless, it's less waste, less time spent (relative to how long it lasts, not up front of course) and so you can decrease the work needed to *maintain* a quality of life, as opposed to merely obtain it (which is going backwards rapidly anyways)
@@ms-fk6eb But people don't live in giant stone buildings and is not efficient or affordable to meet the demand required currently.
Nailed it. The dumbing down if material use means that anything else will cost so much more.
I wouldn't assume that we ever had a great deal of high skill people. Just because construction required higher skill in the past, doesn't mean that everyone doing it actually possessed that skill. We have ample evidence that a vast number of historic construction was done very poorly. Though it's easy to overlook this because of how fantastically those that were made well survived. It's a survivorship bias, which causes us to judge the average, or even the worst, of today's construction against the very best of yesteryear's.
Great look at something we Americans pretty much take for granted. With energy efficiency, building costs, and mandatory requirements increasingly impacting construction, it will be interesting to see how standard framing will change, or if it is replaced altogether (as in prebuilt panelized construction).
2x6 standard instead of 2x4, and 24 in on center instead of 16 in. Also sealed air envelope with continuous flow energy recovery ventilation systems. This is the way we should have been building for at least 20 years. We are just to cheap to make actually good houses, people want size not quality, just like the big mac in the example. Cheap garbage that fills you up in the case of the big mac and large cheap house that makes you feel successful in the case of housing. Both lead to poor outcomes for the one who partakes.
I love how their models have all the trusses and studs in perfect stacks. It is the correct way, but it’s not the way we build them in America. Your Trusses or rafters, depending on what you’re using are typically on 24 OC and your studs are typically on 16 OC.
Even in the snowy north, a properly pitched roof never bears enough weight to require 16 OC, and if you think about it, that would increase the load on all the lower frames, too.
@@michaelmcmeel914 engineering specifications on a house in the Northwest is engineered to 40 lb per square foot of that is typical engineering for the United States that translates to a 2X 4 trust at 24 oc
This was a great video and will inform how I teach American history for my high school students. "Perfect adequacy", however, was an incredible turn of phrase that I will probably try to fit into my parlance whenever I need to express that exact idea...which as a public high school teacher, is more often than you might think.
I've pretty much built my tiny house that way even though i live in europe. It's such an easy, cheap, ecological and light weight way to make a building. In my case i managed to make almost the whole building out of natural materials (mostly solid wood and hemp insulation).
Interesting. As I am also finishing a tiny house, I actually came to the same conclusion as this video: that 2x4 framing is genius!
Mainly because the regular cavities between the studs are so convenient for accommodating insulation [which isn't or wasn't so common throughout the world] as well as wiring and piping [the regularity of the studs holds the wires and pipes up nicely].
I think 2x4 framing's modern success can be partially attributed to its ability to accommodate the modern conveniences of insulation, wiring, and plumbing.
@@danteinferno175
I'm in Europe though and i didn't use 2x4s. My tiny house is very tiny and i wanted it to be light. So i just used the technique, but used thinner pieces of wood.
@Phillip Banes
Switzerland. Doesn't matter though.
@Phillip Banes They never claimed Europe was a country.
@Phillip Banes
I never wrote or implied that europe is a country. Odd comment. Want to be a good troll and double down on the stupidity of your comment now?
On the building channels I follow, there's an inordinate number of Europeans deriding light wood framing. It's almost comically predictable at this point. The beauty of the US system, as it admittedly teeters on the edge of becoming a govt directed central planning nightmare, is the choice and flexibility it offers. In the end, that gives a good balance between speed, cost, and quality. With plenty of choices to tweak whichever factor one wants. Europe, conversely, is a top down, rigid building industry. They pride themselves on high quality, and that isn't incorrect. But at the expense of so much. Most importantly, freedom of choice. Good video. Lot of interesting tidbits. Sub'd.
Standardization is how power flows through the human made landscape. I get fascinated by that, and very much appreciate this episode.
The exhibit on wood frame construction, featuring the small-scale models was very cool! It seems to me that structures that are built with a combination of wood and stone (not veneer) not only has character, but they tend to last a long time. Great video! Thanks for sharing.
“Ordinary” (brick and light joist) construction is indeed much less maintenance intensive than frame structures, but there is a steep premium paid for the convenience, especially with modern labor costs. Brick veneer is a pretty good compromise.
Never thought a construction video would make me so hungry.
The problem with light-wood framing is that much of it's benefits are also it's shortfalls. The Northeast and it's lack of natural disasters provides a vast array of different architecture and building styles as long as the roofs manage the snow. Also just enough weather to give a good window into what holds up over time and what doesn't. That being said the earlier light-wood frame houses with brick nogging in between the framing are really idyllic. The roofing standards at the time really sucked so they had a fair share of issues but with a good roof or at least a well maintained one they are extremely durable and manage temps fairly well. More modern light frame houses, like last 50-60yrs or so, aren't nearly as durable. The benefits of how efficiently they're built just causes builders to abuse that in the chase of profits and timely construction which leads to so many small issues building up over time. The excessive us of the wood framing, typical insulation between the framing, and the sheetrock walls are great until they aren't and problems like mold/moisture tend to snowball or things like cold spots negate the rest of the insulation
Alot of that has to do with methods and construction science. The 70s thru the 90s was a dark age for construction science especially with light framed housing. People didn't care about dew points, heat transfer, air dealing or water shedding. That's why you see vented attics paper water membranes and poor insulation. That's changing slowly but we still need to get past the "I've been doing this 20 years and we've never done that" crowd of contractors that are still building shit homes. (Cough cough dr horton)
50-60 years? In a lot of places all the SFRs were built in the late 60s-70s. So many neighborhoods are on the brink of disaster?
@@mattepple6759 Yea that makes sense
@@paulblichmann2791 yes that's exactly what were saying in the building science community. Those home's vapor varrier is desinigrated, the vented attic allows a fuck ton of air into the home. That included with poor water sealing means you will experience water leakage, mold, and super inefficient heating and cooling.
@@paulblichmann2791 1972 was 50 years ago. So maybe i exaggerated a little on the timing but yes the quality of light frame housing dropped like a rock about mid-late 70s. And late 60s to early 70s materials did as well. Old growth pine ran out and this new growth stuff doesn't compare and has only gone down hill since. Especially compared to the american chestnut and really old growth pine seen on early stuff like victorian balloon frame houses. Throw in fiberglass insulation, plastic siding to replace asbestos, and so on. Like i said much of that stuff works great until it doesn't, such as trapping moisture, and the problems only get worse and worse. Windows and doors have seen the biggest improvements since, and even then it's normal to see them repaired or replaced after 15 years because the wood that the sills and frames are built with get weak or rot so fast.
I do agree there's not tons of homes on the brink of disaster, but there are very many getting much more maintenance done than they should after 40 years. All while 100+ year old homes hold up fine with relatively low maintenance
Wood framing is great. Putting OSB sheets directly on the outside and the panels without an air gap is insane and one of the reasons US houses last for such a short time. In the Nordic countries we have wooden houses several hundred years old but they all have an air gap behind the outer panel to allow moisture to dry up.
It's why Zip and all of those integrated vapor/moisture barrier OSB sheet goods have become the big ticket in home building here in the US
I'm not planning on being here 100 years Otto. If my house lasts another 20 or so it's all good by me. Do you know why they call real estate property? Because that's what has real value. It don't matter what's on it. There's only three things that matter in real estate and that's location, location, location!
why are there always foreigners on US videos spewing ignorance and nonsense?
@@mariacheebandidos7183 Thank you for the feedback. My comment was directed towards those with construction competence who might want input from more than local sources. They understand that it is the opposite of ignorance to have knowledge about alternative building methods. May I also inform that UA-cam is a social media with opportunities for global interaction which is favored by those not inbred.
Best Regards.
Unfortunately, a lot of houses being built in the US are designed to be virtually disposable. A ten year structural warranty is something they *brag* about.
I was not prepared for how far this burger analogy actually went.
the trend for a lot of post framing is to use laminated members in the same capacity as their unitary counterparts, and to utilize fabricated stamped steel brackets attached with bolts or lag screws where ever possible to avoid having to do any joinery. very large overhead doors still require hand joinery, but most of the structures that use those are built from steel beams now.
I appreciate this video, and I also feel like the "cheapness" of a 2X4 frame house is no longer the norm. The actual cost of a home is WAY over the cost of materials and time to build the home. Many of us will never own a home unless something changes
The materials cost of a home is becoming an increasingly smaller piece of the pie with regards to the overall sale price. If you have the misfortune of trying to buy a house in a highly desirable and built-up area the cost of the land itself will comically exceed whatever the value of the dwelling itself is.
100% profit for builders has ruined that
In my country we build houses mostly with brick and mortar, a lot of steel and an insulation. The wood is used mostly for the roof
Sounds like a proper building to me.
@@danielr. Yeah, it's because the climate it's hot in summer (up to 42°C, normally a daily max of 36°C ) and somewhat cold in winter (minimum -5°C, normally a min of -1°C). And there are A LOT of earthquakes, and once in a pair of decades a big one. Besides that, as the summer is so dry there are fires easily too.
@@amermeleitor Where do you live? Sounds somewhat like Chile to me^^
@@danielr. Chile 100%
@@amermeleitor Bacán! En que parte? Viví un año en Valparaiso, era una experiencia única. Si te interesa, tengo buenos videos de todas las partes de este hermoso país en mi canal :)
@4:38 That's the "Golden Plough Tavern" from York, PA. I can literally see it from my office window. 😁
Great video again!
Fantastic video, glad this came up on my recommendations. One thing I would mention is that although a lot of the building industry has come a long way since 2x4 framing, the framing hasn't really kept pace, particularly with regard to accommodating high insulation standards. 2x6 framing is a quick way to get more room for insulation but the timber's still a thermal bridge. Would be good to maybe see a video on how people are trying to evolve framing to meet those challenges.
SIPS (structural insulated panel systems) are a modern innovation to get around the problem of thermal bridging in lightwood framing. They are similarly standardized, though, so they retain the same benefits of 2x4 framing.
@@catherinesearle9596 I prefer double 2x4 framing over SIPS. The basics are the same as a standard 2x construction which allows you to use just about any contractor with minimal workforce training. I also like the end product better with a full 7 1/4” of insulation with thermal bridging only at the plates and openings.
You can use a 2x6 plates with 2x4 studs and alternate lining up from I interior to exterior so there is no thermal bridge. You can do double 2x4 off set walls. You can do 2x4 framing with a second strap and rigid foam on the exterior. And there are numerous other options that have already existed for decades
ua-cam.com/video/mxDSulcLpAE/v-deo.html&pp=ygUPaW5zdWxhdGVkIHN0dWRz
It sure took Google a long time to recommend this channel to me. It's exactly what I'm interested in.
I will tell you that wood framing is getting bigger in Europe. Right now my cousin in Poland has started building them after visiting us a decade ago. They are called "Domy Kanadyjskie" or Canadian houses.
Here in New Zealand, we have the exact same building history with light frame construction. The only difference here is that we use a 50x75mm (2x3) size as our standard.
Also a beautiful pink hue to your lumber
@@somebody700it’s because the measurement of 2x4 is taken during the pre milling, not post planing.
Wow! You have simultaneously taught me more than I already knew about hamburgers AND the framing of a house! Plus I now respect both of them more! Lol
I always found it fascinating how thin the 2x4 walls seem, do you get a lot of sound travel through them? In the UK most external walls built now are brick and block cavity walls, with mineral wool or PIR insulation. About 30cm (~12 inches) thick.
Sound travels right through it like its barely there, but you can easily redo a floorplan just like that by knocking out some flimsy walls. I assume it takes alot of time to move a wall, buildings in Europe are so sturdy that they can be repurposed into fortifications.
Some sounds travel straight through, e.g. sounds of heavy vehicles, or someone slamming a car door, or dogs barking. But voices, music etc. less so. American homes also have noisy appliances like the furnace, dehumidifiers etc., even the fridges are louder. It takes some getting used to compared to the quiet in a UK brick house. For context I live in a well built 1970s light framed house in a quiet neighbourhood in the US and I used to live in an 1870s brick house on a busy road.
I really like US style houses, I just wish they had thicker, well-insulated outer walls. Also everyone round here seem to hate houses built since the 80s and thinks they wont last 50 years, but I don't know whether that has any basis in fact.
Noise transmission is less of an issue in older houses that still have lath and plaster walls. Plaster’s also a much better thermal insulator than drywall. We’ve been getting some scorchers here recently, and my balloon framed, plastered house holds the cool night air wonderfully. I suspect the constant updraft from balloon framing also helps to cool the walls of the house.
Another factor that should be mentioned: this flexible and well breathing style of construction is especially effective in climates with huge temperature and moisture variations. Other than indoor plumbing and electricity, fiberglass insulation, wind and vapour barriers are the largest contributors to health and comfort in homes since the middle ages.
Great video! I work in constructions in Europe. Because of our environmental problems, Europe is rediscovering building with wood. I love working with wood. Much more sustainable and much nicer to work with than concrete.
@Phillip Banes I never said Europe is a country. 😉
@@phillipbanes5484No...he's speaking of Europe as if it's a place, which it is. Just as we say "Here in America" when we speak in broad strokes. Relax, man.
Another great video! I wish you had been one of my architecture professors. I'd be curious to see a similar deep dive into gypsum wallboard, the pros & cons and is it here to stay? It's such a mess and time consuming to construct with, make changes with, and repair... there must be a better way!
A free market will find the most cost effective product to use, gwb is that product. It's cheap, easily installed/repaired, and readily available.
@@sixtomidnight1492 i would argue the free market prioritizes cost efficiency over effectiveness. So much of capitalism is getting "good enough" on the lowest margin possible, rather than being the most effective, which has led to products that can be cheaply made but need to be replaced often.
If you think gypsum board is a bad material try plaster and lathe which preceded it. While renovating my 1920s vintage house with new wiring and insulation I pulled all the plaster out and replaced it with drywall. IMO drywall is a breeze compared to what it replaced.
@@minuteman4199 Exactly. Gypsum board is a huge improvement over lath and plaster.
The most time consuming parts of gypsum board construction are all aesthetic - the mud and joint compound that is used to cover screws and create flat surfaces for paint. Drywall goes up fast and easy - you can cut it to size with a sharp knife and make cutouts with a hand saw! If you're looking for improvements it's not going to be in the wallboard - it's going to be the finishing process.
Great video, though I personally hate 2x4 wood framing with a passion :) Yes, good houses, even passive houses, can be built out of it that can last for centuries, but most new houses built in USA are NOT that, and are built to code minimums.
Much better options, in my opinions - Insulating Concrete Forms, Metal, Porous ceramic insulated blocks (apparently Europe only), SIP, Mass timber (CLT) etc. All of those will give people more disaster resistant, low maintenance, more comfortable, more energy efficient to live in houses.
Genau. Rückständige Häuser.
The better options are priced accordingly, though.
People who know better, and care, and most importantly can afford it, go for the better options.
@@hhiippiittyy True, but a good portion of the cost is because of a lack of widespread use. ICF is catching up in that regard, and is barely more expensive to build with compared to stick, especially recently. The more some tech is used, the cheaper it is.
So as an obvious example, dual pane windows are standard in USA, but triple pane is standard in Europe. As result, the triple pane windows in USA cost way too much, and it's sometimes cheaper to import them from Europe because of the economy of scale that they achieved.
@@rafflesmaos
So... £'m gunna sound like a contrarian, but I promise that is not my intent.
The example is missing a key element. For manufactured products like windows Europe will certainly be extremely proficient. Things that NA would do well to adopt. But for a product like wood, it might be a generation before there is a serious price competitor. Kinda like how bamboo scaffolding is regional.
At least where I'm at, where there is a mill around the corner, ICF can compete in the foundation market, but the rest of the frame in wood is probably much less than half the cost to the nearest competitor.
2x4 walls are also excellent for cheap insulation framing.
That it is pretty much the worst option I cannot deny. But it's cheap.
@@hhiippiittyy No worries at all, and wood certainly is cheap. It did spike severely in 2021, but is back to relatively reasonable levels but still double pre-pandemic. Of course, EPS foam went up in price as well. I'm no expert in where other cost differences come from exactly, but surely at least some of them are based on economies of scale for production of ICF forms as well as the EPS foam itself.
There was a paper done back in 2001 on cost differences between a 2x4 and ICF house, and the total cost difference for the entire house was about 4%. That's even though at the time the cost of an ICF wall was roughly double that of a 2x4. But as a portion of the overall house cost, it's really not much considering the long term energy savings and other benefits.
I wish I had data to back it up, but I would expect since 2001 the price difference to narrow further, as ICF houses are being built in greater amounts (but still tiny in comparison to wood framing). In places where disaster resistant construction is required (which IMO should be everywhere at this point), the price difference is probably even less.
Thank you for the ‘why‘ in a ubiquitous thing. I always wonder why we do things the way we do when there are so many other ways. Also, thank you for including yourself in the videos. It’s nice to know who is speaking to me.
I live in western Oregon. Virtually all of the old growth Douglas fir here is gone. It exists in a few protected places but what you see driving around is a patchwork of recently clear-cut and second, and third growth Douglass fir monoculture patches. Same with other trees used for construction such as ponderosa pine. Timber here is grown as a crop, just like corn or soybeans. The forest as it naturally was is gone, just as the prairies in the Midwest are gone. So far there has been no insect pest or disease that has been a major threat to Douglass firs. There may never be. On the other hand we should remember what happened to the American chestnut, several American and European elms, and currently ashes. Should something catastrophic like that happen to Douglass fir, the price of construction in North America might become prohibitive. Here in Oregon, the endemic and valuable Port Orford cedar was infected with a root disease Phytophthora lateralis in 1952. It has slowly spread through the tree's range and will probably drive it to extinction.
In a lot of places, "natural" forests haven't existed for many centuries. In England for example, most forests have been heavily managed since the middle ages.
Even in lots of North America, the pre-Columbian native people did a lot of forest management shaping it to their needs. Tons of the "virgin" forests European settlers cut down and made into farmland was actually old managed forest which had gone feral when the native population crashed.
Oh, and even lots of the jungles of Central America are surprisingly recent. The Mayans (and doubtlessly some other cultures) did a ton of clear cutting. An ecologist I knew did a survey of species numbers and you could still see a drop in places where the Mayans had settled even though it looks to the eye just like the rest of the jungle.
Thanks for your comment.
In the South Slash Pine and others are the fourth successive forest from the pre-colonial Longleaf forest that densely covered more than half of what is now America until it was decimated. Live in an area of the last Longleaf. Pine beetles didn't help any.
Although the burger metaphor could be taken as an insult to the more cynical stereotypes of American life, I actually like how you made it here. Because after all, a cheeseburger is only really bad for you depending on the ingredients, and the QUALITY of the ingredients (and the skill/knowledge of how it was put together.)
Which fits perfectly with 2x4 framing: sure it's much simpler and so opens it up for less skilled/knowledgeable people to do something productive/adequate with it (albeit sometimes at a regrettably low bar), it also still has a high "skill ceiling," where those who are very skilled can use the exact same pieces and create something truly impressive, and extremely functional.
I love the burger comparison. But I am an American who has a burger obsession.
Red meat and excess fat is bad for most people most of the time
@@AllTheArtsy humans wouldn’t be here without red meat. Also “excess” anything is inherently bad.
Also how is this relevant.
@@Bioshockaholic it's relevant because you claim your analogy based on the "fact" that "a cheeseburger is only really bad for you depending on the ingredients" when the core ingredients are bad for most people most of the time
@@AllTheArtsy Maybe for some. I eat a ton of red meat and the doctor always says that I am healthy.
Termites and mold love this construction
And politicians, insurance, and fumigation owners
Excellent video. The importance of standard building sizes and components is underestimated. As a suggested follow-up: Insights into the history of "true" 2x4s (pre-1966) and modern day dimensional lumber (11/2 x 3 1/2 ...ish) would be great.
Basically the introduction of kiln drying and planing.
From what I know it’s not that much if a mystery and not insightful. Lumberyards used to try to squeeze more profits by making them a bit smaller and smaller and there wasn’t a standardized size. Until either a law or agreement made them pick a size.
Also, 2x4's are never exactly 2x4 inches. Somebody is shorting me on every board I buy, and making bank off of it and I want this investigated:-)
The 2x4 stick built home is so ingrained in our construction that building codes are really protective of it - when you try to build with any other kind of system or scheme, it's always an uphill battle to deal with code enforcement.
A 2x4 is 3.5”x1.5”. I researched this once as I renovate houses, and some have nominal lumber, meaning a 2x4 is actually a 2x4. My findings ultimately lead to that structurally they’re basically the same, and that at saw mills they’re first rough cut to 2x4, then due to size changes via humidity and such, they’re eventually milled down to the 3.5”x1.5” so that things are more consistent.
@@calvinjohannsen6519 Any good explanation of why a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 requires a second good explanation of why older houses have 2x4s that measure 2x4. They really are cheating IMHO. I'd prefer a 2x4 with a rough edge vs a smooth 1.5x3.5, especially when using 16d nails which seem to just fit a real 2x4 better. Finally now with power nailers we use thinner and shorter nails that don't seem so oversized compared to the wood.
The framing lumber in my 100 year old house is wider than a modern 2 by 4, but not as deep. This proved to be a total PITA when trying to add insulation because the cavities on 16 inch centers are narrower than a bat of insulation and not as deep.
@@p39483 it had to do with curves of saws and the difference between planed and rough lumber. Consistent is better than big. Rough surfaces are fracture instigators, stress risers.
@@fljetgator1833 South central Ontario, Canada. Not far from the north shore of Lake Ontario.
I’m an engineer with 10+ years in light frame wood design and this was excellent
I see a lot of hate thrown at woodframe construction. I'm a framing carpenter (wanted to be one since I was a kid) who is working in a different field at the moment, but I still think that this system is the best for building houses that is commercially available today. I would like to see a new system take over, yes, but when compared to the methods used in other regions, 2×4 framing construction is the most technologically advanced and reasonable method, by far.
It basically uses the same concept as a skyscraper/ the human body/ etc. where a semi-ridgid frame is held together with an outer skin. This makes it lighter, more flexible, and cheaper to construct. Adding in the insulation now available on the market and U.S. homes are efficent while still being larger than homes in other countries.
Not to mention it uses natural resources like trees and is a carbon sink unlike concrete and bricks which creates more carbon.
He mentions in a comment that he shouldn't have written it the way he did (comment pinned at the top)
I'm curious, what are the new systems?
Totally. I used to look down on US 2x4 frame housing as "stick housing." But then, even before seeing this video, the conclusion that 2x4 framing is genius came naturally to me while working on my tiny house.
For me, I was impressed by how the regularity of the cavities between the studs accommodate the modern conveniences of insulation [efficiently sandwiched between studs] and wiring/piping: the studs - or the holes drilled through the studs - hold up the wiring/piping nicely as it runs along the walls hidden out of sight.
So maybe 2x4 housing's *modern* success lies partly in its ability to accommodate - out of sight - the *modern* conveniences of insulation, wiring, and plumbing.
The advent of powered lumber mills and cheap steel nails changed the economics of wood construction.
Prior to power mills, turning a log into a square timber required handwork, so the cost of the product was primarily in the labor, NOT in the material itself. Trees were plentiful and cheap. Dressed lumber was expensive because men had to either hew them, or saw them by hand.
After sawmills became powered by steam, or electricity, the cost to cut a log into many smaller planks dropped drastically. The value switched over to the material, and away from the labor costs.
Timber frame construction required greater skill from the workers, but it also used more wood because the mortise and tenon joints removed wood at the very locations that carried the greatest loads. That meant the timbers were sized for what was needed at the joints, and a lot of extra girth was put into the building that didn't need to be there because removing that extra wood cost too much money in manual labor.
Timber framing looks like it would require more engineering calculations if it was the most common way to build 1 million homes a year.
I could never have imagined that a video about framing could make me hungry...
Multilayer Boards and OSB seem to be a second key ingredient to standardized house building. Please more on that and on how this system works.
It's fascinating how much common there is between fast food and 2x4 framing. Both even have similarly major downsides that are very often strongly downplayed by certain parties. Interesting all in all!
which are the specific dowwnsides of lightwood framing
@@cruss9064 from European perspective? It has way worse acoustic properties than plenty other technologies. Hanging heavy objects on the walls is more problematic, or even something as simple as per sockets. Durability is lower than many other technologies. Woods is flammable, and can be damaged by mold. Just to name a few.
Thermal bridging too would be one of the major downsides.
@@cruss9064 thermal bridging, leaks air like a sieve, requires more tradesmen and contractors to finish the job which opens you up to a host of ill-installed practices that are usually seen after the homeowner has moved in, etc etc.
@@cruss9064it's structurally inferior to timber framing too. Not to mention how similar stick framing is to a McDonald's burger....they both use super processed "ingredients" for building that object.
I’m not sure why this video showed up in my feed, but I’m glad it did. Great content.
i hate to say it but first :]
always excited for your videos
I hate to say it but you’re the first person who’s right
The ubiquity of materials drives so much of construction. Earlier 20th century homes in St. Louis, even working class single bedroom homes, were brick. Lots of variation in patterns between houses. The entire region is a giant bowl of clay, and supplied much of the country with brick.
2:11 is this roof upside down to fit? or is this a spot where two roof lines meet in a canyon?
I remember 10+ years ago when a friend from the Netherlands came to visit. We happened to walk by the construction new neighborhood and they were confused as to why we were making houses out of wood.
I had never really thought of a different construction method before, besides a few brick and mortar houses that were 100+ years old. Also they asked what those "weird metal boxes sticking out the windows" we're, they also never seen an air conditioner before. (at least window units)
Because both are pretty stupid, you won't find light wood framing in europe because it's crap that doesn't last, and windows AC unit are extremely inefficient and it block a windows
In the old country, 100 miles is a long distance. In America, 100 years is a long time.
@@Uryendel Not particularly, they're products of a different set of circumstances. In America, land is plentiful (by and large). In most of Europe, land is extremely expensive. Well over half of the cost of constructing a new build house is in land purchase, which means when people build houses they build houses as an investment. People buy houses expecting them to still be useful and valuable when they die and pass them on to their children, or when their children do the same thing, practically in perpetuity.
I suspect that in America that sentiment isn't anywhere near as strong.
This has benefits and drawbacks. On the American side, houses are far less expensive than in Europe. You still have housing crises, but they're nowhere near as acute. Timber houses also act as a carbon sink, and the housing stock is more readily upgraded as technology advances (e.g. with insulation).
On the European side our houses will (mostly) still be standing long after we're dead which makes them a source for family wealth if you can get on the ladder, although the high initial price drives wealth inequality by locking a proportion of the population out of that wealth. Maintenance and upkeep over the long term is lower, and there's less wastage as houses don't need to be rebuilt every 70-100 years (or sooner depending on climate and quality of construction).
@@BiTurbo228 Land in the countryside in europe is not expensive at all, the only places that are expensives are the city because unlike the US people live in the city, they don't just go their to work. And yes, people build house in europe to last, that's the point, they don't want crappy house
@Phillip Banes No it's not a country, but no country in europe build house like in the US.
Yes scandinavian countries build wooden house (you also find a lot of wooden house around the alps), but they are not made with light wood framing.
And yes window mounted air conidtioner are way less efficient, just make a research about it
Excellent video, and I really like that museum! Although you touch on it briefly, I think it's worth emphasizing that light-wood framing led directly to tremendous innovations in house design in the 19th century. Victorian houses, with their turrets, barge boards, projecting bays, extensive porches, and newly organized floor plans would have been impossible or prohibitively expensive with masonry and timber-frame construction, as would the great stick-style and shingle-style houses found here in coastal New England. These buildings led directly to the houses of architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and Greene and Greene (although, typically, Frank Lloyd Wright insisted that his buildings owed nothing to anybody who came before). I love a good old-fashioned timber-frame house (I currently live in one) but they tend to be very limited in the form they take. There's a lot more to light-wood framing than "Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes all the same."
Great point
This is a BRILLIANT video
Used to sell building packages and this video gave verbiage to a lot of the appreciation I had for the product I sold. I will strongly contest one throwaway line though. You absolutely need a degree of skilled labor to build a free standing structure. I have seen too many Home Owner Specials that needed to be fixed or knocked down to be dissuaded from this LOL.
Also should mention I sold these just outside of Chicago, so it gave me a degree of civic pride too! Would love to see a video on pole-barn construction as a derivative (or alternative maybe? Not sure what the correct relation would be) of light-wood framing. Polebarns were EXTREMELY popular when I was working this job.
I agree, that line was going to be followed up by a quote from the 1800s about how 'a man and a boy could build a house in 40 days' using light wood framing. Without that context, the line sounds snarky. Framing today does take a lot of skill. Maybe in 1850 less so...
@@stewarthicks its also probable that the basic skills of an "unskilled person" have changes significantly from the 1800s to be significantly less suited to house building.
In modern times being able to use conputers is more relevant to an "unskilled person" than being able to build a house with just yourself and your family.
I think there's also the question of whether that 1850 house was necessarily better than the unskilled "homeowner special" done today. Most of the circa-1850 houses we see today aren't the ones built by "a man and a boy".
This video was fascinating! Thank you. I majored in Architecture in Brooklyn Technical High School in NYC. We had a 2 story building construction classroom, where every year, students would dismantle and rebuild an a-frame 2X4 frame. In any case, I wonder what your perspectives are on Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) versus 2X4. You certainly make a good arguement for 2X4s, especially in terms of available knowledge and familiarity with them, but SIPs seem like a better way forward from what I've been reading. What are your thoughts?
Yet another thing I didn’t realize I wanted to know until it was put in front of me. Thank you
As soon as you compared framing to burgers, I thought of a concept called McDonaldization which was a concept thought of by sociologist George Ritzer. It is interesting that you happened to have come across the same connections that Ritzer made almost thirty years later, specifically ideas about standardization and efficiency.
Really good. PBS should give you a series. I wonder if with modern materials, Eichler like post and beam framing, maybe using 2 x 4's would be more material efficient than 16 inch on center framing? Not necessarily with lots of glass walls, but maybe foam core panels.
So my Brothers first house was one from Levittown, Pa.
I didnt hear you mention the main reason that type of housing was built in that area....The war was over and you had the baby boom and soldiers looking for a place to raise their families.
They were built under an initiative to make lots of economically cheap houses to accommodate the soldiers.
Even today most are still there and while they obviously have needed some work over the years they are actually decent houses for the asking price (today all housing prices are nuts but 15 years ago we are talking 150k max...my Brother got his for 120k if I remember correctly....it really is a great first/starter house.
The Genius of 2x4 Framing = Hamburgers
While everything in this video is true about the comparative ease of 2x4 construction, there are still a lot of info that requires skilled and experienced laborers. Because it is pretty much certain that a lot of the lumber in any project will be warped and have imperfections. So there are a lot of tricks to make the redundancy in construction methods overcome imperfections in the base material.
This I learned building houses while volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.
3:01 Nice shot of the lumber mill in Timmins Ontario!!!!!!! Got my off guard
As an European/Italian is always been crazy for me how in the USA little house are made of wood, and not even thick, with all the kind of natural disaster there are like tornado or earthquake! Here in Italy and most of Europe all the building and even small single family house are in armed concrete. I see the use of cheap wood in America as a sign of the culture, best return in profit ( capitalism ) and best way to get rid of the house to keep building and don't look back to the past, also maybe the fact that most of the people want a single home so to made them all in concrete would be difficult, but still would be really that expensive? I also see recently here in Europe the use of big timber beams in structures, but they seams different.
All good observations, Snap. I would suggest that another issue is that Americans, until the past decade or two, also grew up with an expectation that they would not stay in a particular home for long. Most Americans until the 21st century assumed that they would be moving, sometimes across the country, for new work, and so they may have not wanted to invest as much in a home.
Wood is also much more plentiful in North America., and I suspect much less expensive.
@@hhiippiittyy Yep. As immense as the forests were when the Europeans arrived, there are actually *more* trees in the United States today than there were 400 years ago, because 90% of the wood used for products like lumber and paper is from tree farms.
If a tornado hits your concrete house it is getting demolished just like a wood frame house. We have houses from the 1800 that are wood frame construction and they are still good. We build over 10 and 20 million dollar mansions with the same technique. Are your roof systems made of concrete as well?
Concrete and masonry may look strong, but they're no more durable than wood for a home. The key is in how they're built. Modern wood framed homes built in accordance with local building codes are safe, strong, and durable. With proper maintenance, they can last indefinitely. Old houses use thick walls and heavy materials because their builders didn't know how to make a strong structure any other way. Modern engineering provides us with the materials and knowledge to produce resilient, durable structures with less resources. That's the whole point of this video.
Thanks for another great video.
I found this really interesting because I grew up in Europe in an area where houses were built of brick
@@phillipbanes5484 For those that need to know, I grew up in the UK and now live in France.
However, when I wrote "Europe" I meant Europe - it's shorthand for France, UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, etc. and my understanding is that brick, stone and concrete are widely used across European countries, but timber is not used how it is in the USA. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
面白い視点、的確な表現、無駄のない解説🤗
I kinda have a gripe with the idea that light framing is supposedly unskilled, or at least relative to timber framing. I've done a little bit of timber so I'm certainly no expert, but the speed and accuracy required for light framing takes a considerable amount of effort and practice. Not a single worker on my crew were as good as the boss needed us to be and they had all been doing it longer than I had.
Then again that's always the case, isn't it? Technology makes things easier and cheaper, the value drives up demand, and suddenly it isn't easy anymore, but people still think it's "unskilled."
Yeah, it’s an extremely out-of-touch and borderline insulting statement. It’s incredible for an architect to brush off carpentry as unskilled labor, you’d think they would have a little more respect for the people who make their designs a reality.
It is unskilled, habitat for humanity frames houses with volunteers that’s have zero experience. It requires no formal training to begin learning and very little time to become proficient in.
@@jonathandelossantos9332 framing isn’t carpentry.
I don't think he meant any disrespect, but we are talking about two different worlds here. And no question, timber framing requires more skills than light framing (I've worked on timber framing in the French and Italian alps, and on stick framing in Ohio and Western PA).
One of the great strengths of light framing is precisely that it's is easier to do, with "lesser" materials. The hamburger analogy is good. Pretty much everyone can make one, even if some are faster than others at assembling them.
I would also like to point out that light framing is found in Europe, and resembles its North American counterpart, but generally with a higher standard of construction. For example, I have never cared for the way stud walls are drilled to allow passage for a drain pipe in the North America. In my experience, I have never seen it done in Europe. Fasteners are also quite different.
Another thing to keep in mind is that energy is a lot more expensive in Europe, which is why insulation standards are also higher, which means that whenever light framing is used, the studs are closer to 2x6 or even 2x8.