It is only me who thinks that the housing architecture split between Europe and America has something to do with the philosophy split between continental and analitic?
>>17431844It's because building your own house by yourself with bricks would be significantly easier than building it with a stick frame+drywall especially with modern trucks/transportation and the government wants to keep the price of houses high and empower construction cartels
>>17431844That's absolutely retarded. What does philosophy have to do with masonry and carpentry you retard?>between Europe and America>implying either wood or brick was common across AmericaBrick and stone were harder to come by in Virginia compared to New York or Boston. Washington's house was made of wood made to look like stone because even in the Northern Neck of VA he couldn't get enough of it to build Mt. Vernon in stone. Likewise, Williamsburg, the colonial Capitol for most of the 18th century only has like 3-4 fully brick buildings - one being the church, the Capitol building itself, and the Governor's Palace. George Wythe had brick but Peyton Randolph did not. Picrel - the Raleigh Tavern in Williamsburg (wood) and a 3-story brick tavern in NYC. >>17431859Meds. Now.
>>17431991The split took place in 1960. Your exaplmples are centuryes old.I mean by bricks, the more robust and idealistic way of building houses the germans and europeans preffer. Theyr use of long lasting materials made me think it has something to do with the intelectual pursuits they have as a culture.
>>17432012>The split took place in 1960.Then why the fuck did you post a colonial pic you mouth-breathing faggot. Either way, you're wrong.
>>17431859It's the total opposite, though. Wattle and daub with a turf or thatch roof is much easier to transport and build with than bricks and ceramic roof tiles. There's also the production process, where if you build using bricks and ceramic roof tiles you're more dependent on others, because you can't run your own brick and roof tile factory in any practical sense. This is why in more autarkic/rural communities in Europe wattle and daub construction remained in widespread use until the 20th century.Another consideration is that in the European countries with the most brick construction, regulations were also historically the tightest. Take the Netherlands, which is where I'm from. For decades after World War II almost all houses were built out of brick - but you couldn't build your own house except in very limited scenarios if you were wealthy (top 5% in terms of wealth) and the government approved your design. Most people in this country still live in mass-designed, mass-built, government-approved houses (picrel, by far the most common type of house in the country). Brick was a cheap, easy to mass produce, easy to standardize, easy to transport material.
>>17431844>>17432012You're mistaken about "what Europeans prefer". Historically, brick was only one of several materials used in housebuilding. Prior to the 19th century it was used primarily in cities, or in places with a lack of both natural stone and hardwood. Outside of cities, particularly prior to the 19th century, you had a lot of non-brick or only part-brick vernacular construction. What you see in this picture is an early 18th century farmhouse which was lived in by rural families until 1919, when it was preserved and moved to an outdoor museum.What you're seeing now in terms of historical buildings in Europe is the product of survivorship bias: you're seeing buildings that were built to last, usually by the elite, usually in the cities, and were deemed valuable enough to rebuild and not tear down and replace after World War II. It's not what most people lived like, or where most people worked.
>>17432030Building wood frames then positioning and screwing in drywall alone by yourself would not be easier than stacking bricks or concrete blocks into a square.
>>17432022It is Kant's home in Konigsberg
>>17432030Jesus christ.Look at houses in Europe and at houses in Murica. Suburb. Mansonry well made while in Muricansky thry are made from sticks. Europeans see their house as an ideal technique and want newest concrete structure modern whatever that last centuries while you build only with confort and liberty in mind. Same with cars. For you is just a place where yiu can be free and for europorors it is a status of ideal technique, that they are in standard of tech zaitgaist
>>17432144Wood-frame+drywall and concrete blocks are both "modern" idiot, the difference is that concrete is the more monkey-brained way to build. Carpentry is more intellectually challenging than masonry. You could literally train a monkey to stack bricks into a square in exchange for fruit, try getting a monkey to build a wooden frame. You're bragging about building houses the same way low IQ mexicans and peruvians do whereas americans build houses the same way as high IQ japanese
>>17432144>for europorors it is a status of ideal techniqueThe houses I showed (>>17432030) aren't exactly ideal. They were built to last for ~50 years and be torn down and replaced after that, but nearly all of them are still up after 60 years and they're selling for up to €500,000 (~$515,000) in suburban areas due to the housing shortage. The roofs are prone to leaks, the technology has gone bad (there are more and more explosions in these houses due to gas leaks, and electrical fires when people try to put up air conditioners), they're difficult to insulate to modern standards despite being small, they're cramped and they have only one tiny bathroom. They're not "ideal", they're cheap, practical postwar houses that have overstayed their welcome by more than a decade already.That said, newer houses aren't... great, either. Same principle: build to a modern standard, but small, ugly, and in a way that'll make the house impossible to maintain properly 50 years from now.
>>17432046This anon is right about survivorship bias. Over the last several centuries, natural selection in the form of fire, water, rot (to say nothing of war) has rid Europe of most if its ugly wooden buildings, and over the centuries they had the time and money to replace many of them with brick or stone.>>17432144US and Canadian houses are built of lumber because because we have an immense amount of wood, and as settler peoples we used what was available and this developed into the standard for our modern housing industry.Many modern Euro ‘dwellings’ are built of concrete because it’s cheap and easy, and because they had to build an immense amount of cheap housing after WW2, and so Europe’s modern housing industry developed based on this experienc and also because of the lack of cheap abundant wood like in North America. If however Germany had succeeded in their quest for Lebensraum in WW2, I can imagine the German realm (and Europe) building more North American style housing.
>>17431844I live in a town that was founded by the Spanish. Originally, the houses, except for the church, were built of wood.There was an altercation with a native woman in which a Spanish lady cut her hair and beat her. And the natives decided to come in a crowd to burn the city with fire arrows. The only part of the city that survived the fire was the church and the convent. Since then, it was decided that the houses would be built with bricks to avoid other serious fires.
>>17432418Its a thread abouth 20th century intelectualism. We are talking about modern stick frame American houses vs european modern concrete rock glass and other composite materials...Those where traditional colonial houses. But lets say in germany, 20 and 21th century houses are build as they build theyr cars, well made and long lasting. Fine materials and architecture.From an intelectual point of view i had a curiosity if the thinking systems are one of the reason. There was an article that the standards of construction are to high in Germany and should be lowered bevause they overengineering them. They complained that the constructions are to well made.While in America they are on the opposite. Sonyou question yoyrself. Why?Thrn you know the intelectual trends split and one is popular on one continent and other to other.Then your intuition tells you hmm, might be a relation of some kind.
>>17432396Does not matter if it is wood. Euros use too wood sometimes but when a wood house is made in europe it aplìes same principle, theybuse some hard wood glued togheter and entire walls are 10 ore more thick cm wood.
>>17432487Concrete isn't a "fine material" it's an industrial goyslop building material that isn't any more prestigious than drywall which is 1. also made of rocks and 2. also a "modern" building material.
>>17432511There are different concrete quality.
Americans do everything as cheaply as possible. Europeans value quality.
>>17431844Academic philosophy in America is actually quite diverse.It’s the UK that is 300% analytic central where continental philosophy is mainly considered historically interesting at best and total nonsense at worst. They also exclusively use brick and stone constructions.
>>17433460Not to many forests there.
>>17431859>building your own house by yourself with bricks would be significantly easier than building it with a stick frame+drywalllmao whatyou've never worked a day in your life have you?
