[tryingagainbro]

Same here. I am going to offset the carbon thing in other ways, wooden buildings are just too dangerous. A 3 year with "mommy look how cool this is" can burn the house down in 3-4 minutes. Who has the FD right outside the house and ready to go 24/7?.

A concrete house on the other hand might need the plaster taken down and you're ready to re-plaster and move in. Or just clean and paint. Plus no squeaky stairs, ever :)

[detaro]

If that were true, wooden buildings would be more expensive to insure against fire damage than non-wooden ones. Turns out, a (properly designed and built) predominantly wooden building can get the same or (even better, depending on what it is compared against) ratings.

EDIT: adjusted wording to clarify re "wood framed"

[tryingagainbro]

they cost the same? https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+insurance+wooden+vs+con...

[detaro]

That's at least figures family friends got for their buildings, not sure about the details. One thing I notice is that the top search results are about "wooden framed" - the house in question was predominantly wooden and thus more massive wood construction than just wood framing is.

If I think about it, I suspect this might not apply to larger buildings like those discussed in the article, (unless fixing partially damaged structures is easier? Don't know how the internal details work)

[roel_v]

This article isn't talking about what American's (and Australians, and Canadians, and Brits) consider 'wood buildings'. Apples and oranges.

[tryingagainbro]

It's still wood, granted full of glues and chemicals.