The swaths of well built, wood frame, old homes is just evidence that the author’s premise that wooden houses are intrinsically flimsy (defined as “dont last long”) is wrong.
Wood houses can be well built or not well built.
And I would argue that flimsy houses aren’t a recent phenomenon. As others pointed out, the crappy houses built 100 years ago were likely torn down.
And why are flimsy houses built? My guess is mostly cost savings either intentionally (that’s all the buyer can afford) or surreptitiously (builder cuts corners to increase profit).
And as I mentioned in another article you can have poorly built concrete buildings as well.
It’s not that one is superior to the other overall, it’s all trade offs.
Wood houses can be well built or not well built.
And I would argue that flimsy houses aren’t a recent phenomenon. As others pointed out, the crappy houses built 100 years ago were likely torn down.
And why are flimsy houses built? My guess is mostly cost savings either intentionally (that’s all the buyer can afford) or surreptitiously (builder cuts corners to increase profit).
And as I mentioned in another article you can have poorly built concrete buildings as well.
It’s not that one is superior to the other overall, it’s all trade offs.