As a builder, I really don't get the point of this piece arguing that stick framing is "worse". The author makes very weak arguments for the "worse" category to make a connection to tech engineering/ software development.
> Balloon frame has a few disadvantages. One major one is that the exterior wall studs all the way to the roof, which provides an unbroken path for fire to travel.
Fire blocking is a very simple and well-known practice that avoids this pitfall completely. the failure to mention fire blocking makes me question the authors overall construction competence.
It feels as if they are arguing that stick framing is worse than timber frame construction because it's "more difficult to engineer many more smaller connection points". which may have been the case in the early days of stick framing, but like in software development, builders have developed codes, standards, conventions etc. that make modern framing very much a straightforward process. As well as all the fasteners and metal hardware has been exhaustively engineered.
> And beyond that, as a structural system, it lacks any sort of aesthetic elegance or simplicity. It’s made up of lots of flimsy-looking members.
Yea, thats the point! Structural elements do not need to have any aesthetic appeal as they are hidden by finishes and cladding. Its a feature, not a bug. As long as it is structurally sound, that is all that matters.
> It’s undesirable from an architectural perspective as well. Balloon framing has largely been used for simple residential structures (or worse, mobile homes) that have historically had little architectural involvement. The size and strength of dimensional lumber makes it difficult to use it to create large or architecturally impressive spaces... The architecturally influential residential buildings are more often built from more flexible materials such as concrete or steel.
I disagree with this as I've seen some incredibly beautiful "architectural" homes that used wood framing but that's subjective and not my primary objection. Where i have more of an issue that now the author is comparing wood stud framing to concrete and steel which is an apples to oranges comparison. It's an inconsistency it what the main subject is being compared to that makes the overall thesis of this fall very flat for me.
The "worse is better" paradigm may make sense for many software applications, but the connection here to residential construction and framing practices is such a strecth.
> Balloon frame has a few disadvantages. One major one is that the exterior wall studs all the way to the roof, which provides an unbroken path for fire to travel.
Fire blocking is a very simple and well-known practice that avoids this pitfall completely. the failure to mention fire blocking makes me question the authors overall construction competence.
It feels as if they are arguing that stick framing is worse than timber frame construction because it's "more difficult to engineer many more smaller connection points". which may have been the case in the early days of stick framing, but like in software development, builders have developed codes, standards, conventions etc. that make modern framing very much a straightforward process. As well as all the fasteners and metal hardware has been exhaustively engineered.
> And beyond that, as a structural system, it lacks any sort of aesthetic elegance or simplicity. It’s made up of lots of flimsy-looking members.
Yea, thats the point! Structural elements do not need to have any aesthetic appeal as they are hidden by finishes and cladding. Its a feature, not a bug. As long as it is structurally sound, that is all that matters.
> It’s undesirable from an architectural perspective as well. Balloon framing has largely been used for simple residential structures (or worse, mobile homes) that have historically had little architectural involvement. The size and strength of dimensional lumber makes it difficult to use it to create large or architecturally impressive spaces... The architecturally influential residential buildings are more often built from more flexible materials such as concrete or steel.
I disagree with this as I've seen some incredibly beautiful "architectural" homes that used wood framing but that's subjective and not my primary objection. Where i have more of an issue that now the author is comparing wood stud framing to concrete and steel which is an apples to oranges comparison. It's an inconsistency it what the main subject is being compared to that makes the overall thesis of this fall very flat for me.
The "worse is better" paradigm may make sense for many software applications, but the connection here to residential construction and framing practices is such a strecth.