At 18 Stories, Mjøsa Tower Is World’s Tallest Wooden Building

http://news.cision.com/metsa-wood/r/metsa-wood--at-18-storeys--mjosa-tower-in-brumunddal-to-take-title-of-world-s-tallest-wooden-buildin,c2325089

by lxm • 7 years ago

206 154 7 years ago

news.cision.com

jdavis7032• 7 years ago

I'm excited for more wooden buildings, but the claim that "Compared to cast-in-situ concrete, wood makes it possible for construction time to be slashed by half" seems very optimistic.

There's a building boom going on around my office. The steel and concrete office tower next door is by far "sprouting" the fast. On the other side is a residential tower where half of the building is a 20+ floor concrete tower, and the other half is a 5-floor wood frame structure.

The concrete tower is going up faster, despite this being the same construction project. Perhaps what I'm missing is that a CLT build is more similar to steel construction than a wood frame building. Perhaps a real civil engineer can weigh in...

foofoo55• 7 years ago

I'm not a civil engineer, but I do know that a CLT (cross-laminated timber) building can get built faster because many parts are pre-fabricated panels. The University of British Columbia (UBC) built a 18-story wooden building (which is shorter at 54 metres), and it was built relatively fast:

https://archinect.com/news/article/150029630/the-world-s-tal...

buildbot• 7 years ago

I got to watch that building be constructed during my masters, it was pretty amazing to watch how quickly it was constructed.

Fun fact, UBC has like 3 18-19 story dorms with million dollar views of the entire surrounding area.

ggcdn5• 7 years ago

This building has two concrete cores (elevator/stair shafts) for lateral resistance that were built ahead of time, and then the wood gravity system came later, So it kinda took more time than normal.

Another fun fact - alot of that nice looking wood had to be covered up with drywall for fire code compliance.

owengee• 7 years ago

Concrete setting times depend on ambient temperature. Too cold and concrete takes longer to achieve the necessary strength to start the next level. Admixtures and other techniques can improve this.

So the claim for taking less time than a _concrete_ building is plausible for this location (I assume it's pretty cold compared with other climates). However like you mentioned, a _steel framed_ building would be similar in build time, since the elements can be hoisted and joined in the same way as a CLT building.

But that also depends what your slabs are. Most steel framed buildings use concrete slabs, which need to be poured and set, but with high early strength concrete and propping, this takes less time than a conventionally formed concrete building.

Concrete buildings can go up really fast, I've seen 5-6 day cycles on jobs. It depends on the complexity of the structure and again the ambient temperature (among other things). So yes concrete can go up faster than CLT as you noted.

As an interesting side note, the article mentions that the top floors of this CLT building use concrete for mass to limit swaying.

grp000• 7 years ago

I used to work in Construction Management on the structural concrete side, so I can weigh in (a little) on possible reasons why the CIP (cast in place) tower seems to be going up faster. Generally, CIP vertical structures have minimal changes from level to level, so as the building goes up, the construction crew (generally Carpenters, Rebar/PT laying crew, and concrete placers/finishers) will become much more efficient at their work. Also, there will be minimal 'fine' work on creating floor plans on a CIP deck, it will be a primarily flat surface, excepting stub walls (for steel stud walls), utility penetrations, possibly other stubbed elements for vertical shafts and etc., elevation cuts, and sloping. The structural concrete sequencing is such that the bare core structural body is formed first, and other trades will populate it to create the finished product later on. With wood framing, I am not too familiar with the process, but I believe many of the stud walls have structural properties, and in general much more of the finished 'shape' of the floor will be done in the wood framing process from level to level.

atombender• 7 years ago

I think the claim is plausible. If you've ever watched Grand Designs, a lot of the houses (especially the cheaper or less traditional ones) use prefab pieces and are incredibly fast compared to traditional timber frames with poured concrete.

In the last few seasons, in particular, a bunch of the houses use pre-built wall (and even floor) "cassettes", also called closed-panel frames, that come with everything from the factory -- not just structural framing, but layers of insulation, breather membrane, vapor barrier, etc., complete with inside-facing gypsum drywall -- and simply lock together.

There are also lots of examples of custom off-site-engineered steel or wood pieces that are CNC-machined (almost always shipped from Germany or Switzerland), and also very fast to install, partly because they can machine them to a high precision. At the construction site, it's just assembly.

jdsully3• 7 years ago

Seattle is just now allowing wood construction in high rise buildings. Previously they were an early adopter in mid-rise buildings which is why you see a lot of apartment buildings with exactly 6 stories around (1 concrete ground, 5 wood as allowed by the building code).

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/washington-state-to...

walrus013• 7 years ago

In South lake Union Seattle also has a lot of midrise because of height restrictions around the space Needle. The needle is not actually that tall, the city is afraid that rampant real estate developers could completely hide it in the skyline.

ynniv2• 7 years ago

"Using wood means greater fire safety"

Edit: Outside of how ridiculous this statement is, how does one bring a charred wooden high-rise back up to code?!

supermw• 7 years ago

What is burnt may never burn. See Shou Sugi Ban (焼杉板).

benj1113• 7 years ago

Charcoal? Coke?

aaronblohowiak3• 7 years ago

steel gets floppy before it gets melty. Wood stays rigid as it burns until it snaps.

Many factors when thinking about which is better.

burfog3• 7 years ago

Build the structure with steel pipe. Fill it with water. The temperature can not exceed the boiling point of water until all of the water has been boiled away.

stmfreak• 7 years ago

Yea, I went looking for the same thing. I find it misleading to claim that steel melts in high rise fires and collapses (only three times in history) but wood chars and becomes fire resistant (at same temperature to melt steel??).

I would never choose to live or work in a multi-Tennant hi-rise due to fire risk.

aaronblohowiak3• 7 years ago

You don’t have to get anywhere near melting temp to weaken the beam strength of steel.

From the internet: Average building fires reach temperatures of 700 to 1000°C. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230°C, retaining only 10 percent of its strength at 750°C. Wood generally does not ignite until it reaches 250°C. Once it catches fire, wood develops a protective insulating char layer. After 30 minutes a large wooden beam will have lost around 25 percent of its strength in a 750°C fire and retain structural integrity – a steel beam will have lost 90 percent strength and will have failed.

war10252• 7 years ago

There was an article some time back about fire ladders and how wooden ones will still be structurally sound after getting quite burnt, while metal ones can lose their integrity well below temperatures where the metal would actually melt.

I think it was in relation to the San Francisco fire department.

newnewpdro3• 7 years ago

The I-beams used in modern highrise construction are a world different from lightweight aluminum extrusions used in ladders.

Aluminum is one of the butter metals.

blahedo• 7 years ago

This one?

https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-whe...

walrus013• 7 years ago

The SF fire department uses wood ladders because they are non conductive, vs aluminum. They operate in an area with a lot of aerial AC power lines.

FireBeyond• 7 years ago

SFFD uses wooden ladders due to overhead power lines, predominantly.

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

That was compared to aluminum(!!!!) ladders. Aluminum loses strength far more rapidly when heated compared to steel.

vegardx2• 7 years ago

For the same reason you won't be starting your bonfire with the big logs. It has a huge thermal mass and it takes a lot of external energy to make the fire self-sufficient.

It's also easier to repair, as you can just replace the damaged wood. With concrete that's not so easy, and in some cases it can be hard to even gauge how damaged concrete is from fire damage.

jlg23• 7 years ago

According to this study, it does not compare too bad: https://www.firechief.com/2017/03/14/are-wood-frame-high-ris...

ynniv2• 7 years ago

Thanks, this is a good summary of something I wasn't paying attention to. It contains an interesting point:

The standard of workmanship (particularly in the installation of plasterboard or sheetrock) is a critical component to the necessary fire resistance

mauvehaus3• 7 years ago

Went to a talk about this (among other things). Short answer: They size the structural members making an allowance on depth from the surface for char (zero strength) and a further depth of affected material assumed to be weakened. The unaffected wood inside is what supports the structure.

For a dramatic demonstration of how shallow a fire actually penetrates wood over a short period of time and how well it insulates, see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU48ypPTH1E

(Promotional, but informative nonetheless)

mc32• 7 years ago

It doesn’t make mention but I wonder if to reach 18 storeys this is chemically, heat and compression treated wood? Also, no mention on how they’d keep insects at bay, given the structural criticality of this wood.

Never the less, very exciting to see wood so prevalent in new construction.

There was this[1] recent discussion on new wood frame midrises being very prevalent.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19152986

buss2• 7 years ago

It's all engineered lumber. "This high-rise is being built using glulam, CLT, and Metsä Wood’s Kerto® LVL (laminated veneer lumber)"

glulam = glued laminated timber AKA pieces of regular timber stacked & glued together CLT = cross-laminated timber AKA glulam but instead of stacking the lumber, you lay it out in perpendicular layers and glue it together LVL = laminated veneer lumber is like the above, but made like plywood out of wood bits instead of solid lumber, with a hardwood veneer on the outside

The wood is also treated to be fire, moisture, and insect resistant

rurounijones• 7 years ago

Given one of the things that wooden buildings inspire is a "Hey, we CAN build big buildings in a green manner", how do all the things you mention impact that?

It sounds like gluing, treating etc. etc. would really impact the "greenness" of this building

nurettin• 7 years ago

I can believe that wooden construction techniques have improved over the past however so thousands of years. But I can't bring myself to believe that it is environmentally sustainable.

PhasmaFelis• 7 years ago

Wood for construction (and paper) is harvested from fast-growing industrial pine plantations. Building with old growth wood is inefficient even if it wasn't socially unacceptable. The demand for that stuff is all in high-end furniture and other decorative items.

jsf01• 7 years ago

In countries like Norway, the timber companies replant trees. In addition, the growing trees suck up more carbon in comparison to the older trees. You think that mining is preferable to this practically infinite renewable resource?

magduf• 7 years ago

It is renewable, but trees take time to grow, and there's only so much space available that's useful for growing those trees. I'm not saying you shouldn't build things out of wood, but the question is how much supply is really reasonably available?

benj1113• 7 years ago

Why? Compared to concrete, wood is massively lower carbon.

I suppose we could get into the weeds of 'sustainability', in that case, unless you're proposing to stop all construction of any decent height, this is probably the best we can reasonably expect.

rypskar2• 7 years ago

Creating building from wood act as a carbon sink, the CO2 is kept in the wood and not released to the air. So using fast growing wood produce negative Co2 output. Also because of among other things, longer growth season from climate change Norway is getting more forest, not less

a_imho• 7 years ago

How much co2 is captured in a 18 story building?

cmpxchg8b• 7 years ago

It’s a pretty good carbon sink if you replant the trees.

peter303• 7 years ago

Various sources say that lime production for concrete creates around 1/12th of the anthroprogenic atmospheric carbon. On the other hand, wood is a temporary carbon sink until ot burns or decays.

sohkamyung• 7 years ago

That article is from August 2017. The latest one I can find on the tower is from September 2018 but it appears to be nearly complete (target completion data is March 2019).

[1] https://archinect.com/news/article/150084833/the-world-s-tal...

trhway2• 7 years ago

when i see that pressed/glued bamboo kitchenware, i wonder when the bamboo is going to take over the world. Being basically just a crazy fast growing weed grass and thus cheap and abundant, bamboo tensile strength is higher than that of steel, it is harder than oak yet lighter, bamboo cables only increase strength when getting wet :

https://makawear.com/blog/things-you-didnt-know-about-bamboo...

ggcdn5• 7 years ago

bamboo tensile strength is higher than that of steel

What? Tensile strength of steel is like 400-1200MPa, Bamboo is < 100 MPa.

trhway2• 7 years ago

strictly speaking you're right. My statement is more along those lines:

http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/nov2015/Comparative-Analysi...

"Although, the tensile strength of steel is 2.5-3.0 times higher than bamboo and the specific gravity 6-8 times that of bamboo; but by counting their tensile strength/unit weight (bamboo vs steel), the tensile strength of bamboo is 3-4 times that of steel."

mikorym4• 7 years ago

I don't understand how this is described as "green"? Maybe someone can explain this simply, without emotional bias.

mikorym4• 7 years ago

Ok so below were some comments.

TL;DR: carbon sink, pulp wood rather than old growth, trees get replanted.

I think that is all fine and dandy, but I personally would prefer an article simply describing the building. I don't think it's necessary to go the "this is green" or "better than concrete" route. For me good is good, that's it. Don't need to play towards a debate.

erk__• 7 years ago

Concrete production actually produces a surprising amount of co2 globally it is the source of 5% of all co2.

Arn_Thor• 7 years ago

In most of the world, people consider climate change scientifically proven. There isn't a debate. In Norway, the building is featured as "green" because that is desirable in a world where we want to limit CO2 emissions and other environmental harm

aoeusnth1• 7 years ago

What debate?

Entalpi• 7 years ago

Concrete production creates large amounts of CO2. Wood production does not.

Also steel production procduces a lot of CO2. So much in fact that some steelworks are switching to hydrogen instead of coalbased for its steel.

6nf3• 7 years ago

It would be nice to see some numbers. It might be true that this building created less CO2 but if it cost a lot more than concrete then it may be better to just build concrete and use the money you saved to remove CO2 some other way

JackPoach4• 7 years ago

This is really impressive, but what's the real lifetime is going to be?

Cthulhu_• 7 years ago

Well, the wood isn't going to rot if treated and kept dry enough. What's more worrying is how (if) the wood will warp over time, with expansion / contraction due to temperature differences, etc. And how that compares with concrete.

olau• 7 years ago

Cross-laminated wood is apparently very stable.

People also ask about fire resistance, but the outermost layer gets charred which then protects the inner for quite some time, compared to traditional steel beams where the heat makes the steel soft. So even though the steel doesn't burn, it needs special fire protection to stay stable for long enough for people to evacuate.

vidarh4• 7 years ago

Gol Stave Church is an ~800 years old wooden structure [1]. Most of the exterior paneling have been replaced, but the interior structure is original. And there are plenty of wooden exteriors in Norwegian houses that are 100-200+ years despite the climate.

I grew up in one that was about 100 years old and where the exterior was all timber covered with plank. Originally there was sawdust added as insulation, but that was replaced at some point in the 1980's due to the fire hazard.

Of course this building is all specially treated wood, and the structure is under a lot more strain, so it's not guaranteed that it translates well, but wood that's treated properly can last a long time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Stave_Church

JackPoach4• 7 years ago

Sorry, but you can't compare a multistory building where people live with an old church.

yesenadam• 7 years ago

Does anyone know about the lifetime of the usual (non-wood) tall buildings, skyscrapers? I always wondered..will they just fall down one day..or what?

JackPoach4• 7 years ago

The issue isn't that they fall, but they become outdated much earlier for other reasons. For example, materials (asbestos). Or that they don't comply with newer fire safety regulations. Or that the old design no longer accomodates modern working conditions, etc.

dpfu• 7 years ago

There is also the HoHo building („Holzhochhaus“, lit. wood high house) in Vienna, which is a wooden high-rise with 24 stories and 84 m [0]. They just added an antenna to the Mjøsa Tower to break the record. (Boys and their towers…)

[0] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HoHo_Wien

tom_mellior• 7 years ago

According to that article, HoHo is only 75 percent wood and has a concrete core for the elevators. Still, pretty good.

Wikipedia has a list of tallest wooden buildings, very few of which are actually complete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_wooden_buildin...

I recently read about the one in Tokyo which is supposed to be 350 meters tall for a forestry company's 350-year (!) anniversary. The article claims it will be 90% wood, 10% steel: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/tokyo-plans-to-build-1-150-foot...

latch• 7 years ago

According to the original article, Mjøsa Tower also makes use of concrete, though a % isn't given.

dmurray2• 7 years ago

A thousand words of German, including a section on its impact on the skyline, but the only image is the HoHo logo? I know I could edit it myself, but this just seems strange for any notable building.

gberger• 7 years ago

You'd need to provide an image with a copyright status appropriate for Wikipedia, which might not be trivial in some cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images

ken• 7 years ago

This is very common for German Wikipedia.

Once I had the idea for a project (never completed) to analyze the differences in pictures accompanying articles across Wikipedia's languages. The results were about what you might expect. For their respective articles on "Food", you'll find:

- English: a photograph of vegetables, meat, bread, beans, and milk

- Japanese: a room full of tuna at a large fish market, white rice, and water

- Russian: potatoes, onions, spices

- Italian: a 17th century painting of some food

- Esperanto: the cover of an Esperanto book about food

- German: bar charts tracking food prices (and no pictures of any actual food)

It's interesting how Wikipedia makes it easy to jump between languages, yet each language's maintains its own identity and conventions. I've heard people propose to just start copying photographs from English Wikipedia into others (which tend to have far fewer pictures), and editors for those languages asking people to please stop.

wodenokoto• 7 years ago

This article is from 2017, and according to it, the building should be just about completed today.

Any news on how it is going?

vegardx2• 7 years ago

Drove past it two weeks ago, looks like it's closed to finished. It felt so out of place. Anyone that knows Brumunddal knows that there's not a lot of tall buildings around. I guess the people on top will get an amazing view though.

There aren't even many 18 stories tall buildings in Oslo.

leadingthenet3• 7 years ago

It's also really ugly.

raister• 7 years ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

yason• 7 years ago

If that was true then it wouldn't matter what buildings look like at all.

iceninenines2• 7 years ago

Beer includes free goggles.

rcMgD2BwE72F2• 7 years ago

No: you find it ugly, but that's just your opinion.

leadingthenet3• 7 years ago

Really?

If there's no such thing as objective beauty measures, then please explain to me why European cities with predominantly traditional architecture have vastly higher numbers of tourists than European cities with predominantly modern architecture. You can't argue it's due to lack of history, or culture, or any other measure, as Europe is vast and diverse, and you can control for all of those other variables.

There's weirdos who actually enjoy Brutalist architecture. But the vast majority of us clearly do not. That by itself should give you a hint that there is such a thing as "more beautiful" and "less beautiful".

perlgeek• 7 years ago

But why build 18 stories building at all, in a pretty small town (it looks like)?

vidarh4• 7 years ago

Partly because they can; it's very much partly a demonstration of the technology. Partly because it means not having to let the town spread out and take over surrounding farmland and wilderness when you can build up.

doktrin• 7 years ago

Also plentiful access to raw materials. Lots of timber production around Brumunddal.

vvillena2• 7 years ago

Building tall is the best way to keep the town small.

rcMgD2BwE72F2• 7 years ago

It's also the most environmental-friendly thing to do.

d--b• 7 years ago

In my opinion, it looks really dull and plain. It's kind of sad that they would demo such a technology with a so bad-looking tower.

einarfd• 7 years ago

The picture in the article is a computer generated rendering, the real building looks better.

Although if you don't like the "Scandinavian" school of design. You are probably not going to like it anyway.

kwhitefoot2• 7 years ago

Here is a page with some photographs and more details: https://www.artwave.it/ecowave/ecoarchitecture/eco-tecnologi....

Fiahil• 7 years ago

If I want to build a robust wooden house, where should I go ? What kind of resources should I look for ? Any recommendation ?

simonsarris• 7 years ago

How robust? Search for "timber framing", there are schools and builders who specialize in it. And of course thousands of hours of YouTube like with any craft.

nradov• 7 years ago

If you're building a house no more than 3 stories high then regular wood construction with 2x4s spaced every 16 inches is plenty robust, unless you expect to be hit by floods or hurricanes. And if you do expect hurricanes then wood isn't a good option regardless of construction.

mauvehaus3• 7 years ago

Haven't the building code changes in Florida since (I think) Hurricane Andrew advanced the limits of what stick-build, platform-framed structures can survive?

I know metal roof tiedowns ("hurricane clips") were created to solve the issue of roofs being peeled off wholesale by high winds catching them under the eaves and lifting.

bigpicture• 7 years ago

2x4s spaced every 16 inches is plenty robust

The current recommendation is 2x6 exterior framing with 24 inch spacing. This results in a durable and energy efficient home.

https://www.apawood.org/data/sites/1/documents/technicalrese...

triplesec• 7 years ago

One answer to the robust question is to build an eco house, perhaps partly underground. You want sustainability? Aim for more than structural integrity, but how it related to its environment and social structure.

Here's a clickbaity-but-useful-article showing some different designs, and the Welsh Preseli community is particularly interesting for there sharing of designs. A quick google will find you lots of resources for all budgets.

https://www.homedit.com/10-spectacular-underground-homes-aro...

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

If I want to build a robust wooden house, where should I go

Your local lumber yard. Wood is cheap. The easiest way to make a robust structure out of wood is to just use more material than you normally would.

JoeAltmaier2• 7 years ago

There's a reason brick doesn't get taller than 20 stories - the walls at the base get thicker, the taller it gets. At 20 stories you're basically building a pedestal on the bottom, to hold up the top. At that point you just get a larger pedestal on the bottom, and no more usable space going taller.

I wonder what the limit is for wood?

Bluecobra• 7 years ago

If you're ever in Chicago, check out the Monadnock Building. It's the tallest load bearing brick skyscraper (16 stories) and the foundation goes underneath the sidewalk.

JoeAltmaier2• 7 years ago

Brick on the outside; braced on the inside. From the Wikipedia article:

"the masonry walls were braced with an interior frame of cast and wrought iron"

RickJWagner• 7 years ago

"In fact, wood is a fireproof material despite the commonly held belief that it isn’t."

I stopped reading at that sentence. They went too far.

soneca• 7 years ago

"In fact, wood is a fireproof material despite the commonly held belief that it isn’t."

What? I hold this belief that isn't. I understood the point about keeping its structure well while burning, but it doesn't make it "fireproof"!

horsawlarway• 7 years ago

Eh, I think this is a jargon issue.

Wood obviously isn't fireproof. But we have regulations that say that in buildings "fireproof" just means it will last some amount of time before burning or degrading/collapsing.

Ex: if you're in an office with a wooden door in the US, go check the side of the door where the hinges are. Most will have a small metal plate indicating that they're rated for some amount of time for fires.

It will look like this: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1903&bih=898&tbm=isch&sa=1...:

z3t4• 7 years ago

And old fireman said that Steel will burn like crazy. Tree probably burns slower. Concrete also "burns" and will change characteristics (become weaker) when exposed to high temperatures. I wouln't like to be in a burning building, but a wooden building would probably be least dangerous !?

Isamu• 7 years ago

Somebody was just telling me that oxyacetylene torches cut steel by burning it - not melting. That's why they won't cut stainless steel, they can't burn it (oxidize it).

Plasma, cutters, on the other hand, cut by melting.

crote2• 7 years ago

This is what a forest looks like after a fire: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_fire_aftermat... .

Note that the trees are all still there. Wood is surprisingly difficult to burn, and if it does, it will do so very predictably, slowly, with relatively low temperatures, while maintaining structural integrity.

This video makes the difference very clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-J86Ka9MkQ . It's not that wood can't burn, it's that it won't burn significantly.

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

How do the wooden buildings fare in towns consumed by forest fires? What about the steel, concrete and masonry buildings?

I wager that if we built forest like structures out of steel and concrete they'd be far more fire resistant than natural, wooden, forests even if the amount of fuel at ground and canopy level was kept constant.

This whole wooden building thing is great for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean it's not inferior to steel/concrete when it comes to resisting a major fire. Just because it's inferior doesn't mean it can't still be "good enough". Trying to claim that a wooden structure has superior fire resistance to a steel/concrete/masonry structure is an exercise in mental gymnastics.

jhallenworld• 7 years ago

This Swiss company makes all-wood houses: meaning no insulation, they just make the solid wood walls thick enough to pass insulation codes without requiring foam or fiberglass. Also no metal fasteners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_UjIshzMc

jackfoxy• 7 years ago

Same old ugly Bauhaus architecture. Showcasing a beautiful building would do a lot more to promote innovative construction methods.

SilasX• 7 years ago

How does it do with acoustic isolation? Do you hear every footstep above you?

reza_n• 7 years ago

Exactly. I used to live in a low rise apartment building which used modern wood construction. Not only did I hear everything above me, but the shock waves (from foot strikes) would also travel thru the structure, so you could feel everything as well.

nimbius• 7 years ago

So many people have seemingly given up on wood for strength and durability. As an engine mechanic by trade, some of the strongest equipment in my shop is wooden.

- My diagnostics table can support a load of 2000lbs. You could park a golf cart on it.

- my Stronghold work bench will handle up to 8000lbs of load. You could park an F250 on it.

both of these are maple top/butcher block.

purplezooey• 7 years ago

Wood is terrible for multi-tenant buildings. Ever hear your neighbor walking around in a concrete/steel building?

danans2• 7 years ago

Years again I was on a tour of the Johnson space center in Houston, home of the astronaut training facility.

As we were looking at a return capsule I noticed that the interior surfaces were finished with some kind of wood, which struck me as odd, and I asked if it was for aesthetics.

The astronaut standing near me explained that wood had the best trade-off of many criteria including weight and durability, and the goal was not to look like an 80s station wagon dashboard.

danans2• 7 years ago

The Sheffield Winter Garden is a marvel of large scale wood based structural engineering, ironically enough in the heart of the UKs steel city:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Winter_Garden

bunderbunder• 7 years ago

After seeing what this winter's repeated freeze/thaw cycles have been doing to my city, I'm rethinking the idea that wood is less durable, too.

Winters are always tough, but climate change seems to be exacerbating it. Where, once upon a time, it used to get cold and stay cold, now the temperature bounces back and forth across the freezing point, and, from what I can tell, it's taking a serious toll. The streets are increasingly a giant mess of potholes and spalling, the sidewalks are a mess, and even the buildings are starting to fall apart. Yesterday I heard about a person in my neighborhood being hit in the head by a falling chunk of masonry.

riskneutral• 7 years ago

When you have a building made of steel and concrete, the steel melts and the building collapses,” says Erik Tveit, Project Manager at HENT AS, the general contractor for the site.

Really.

At 18 Stories, Mjøsa Tower Is World’s Tallest Wooden Building

Related Stories