Why Does The USA Continue Building Wooden Houses?

The recent wildfires in LA destroyed over 10,000 homes and buildings, covering more than 150 square kilometers, with economic losses estimated at over $250 billion. Seeing the devastation on the news was heartbreaking, with almost no buildings spared. Some of my friends (not in the timber business) asked, “Why do Americans keep building wooden houses instead of using bricks and cement?” This question made me think and do some research.

Wooden houses have been common in the USA for centuries. When European settlers arrived in the 16th century, and especially during the 18th century migration westward (such as the Oregon Trail, the California Gold Rush, and the Homestead Act), wood was abundant and became the main building material. Small settlements grew into towns and eventually cities, with wood remaining the primary material for homes and buildings.

After the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 destroyed much of the city, a ban on using timber for construction was introduced in Chicago. Cities like Boston and New York followed, switching to bricks, steel, and concrete for inner-city buildings. However, these rules didn’t apply to smaller towns and suburbs, where timber construction continued. The USA still has large forest resources so wood is relative cheap and remains a favourite building material. The same applies in many other countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Scandinavian nations. Interestingly, these countries seem to face fewer risks of severe wildfires.

For Los Angeles, the focus after this disaster shouldn’t just be on using less timber; the city must consider rebuilding smarter to reduce wildfire risks. This includes identifying and avoiding high-risk areas, creating fireproof buffer zones, and improving fire management strategies. While timber homes have deep historical roots in the USA, adapting to modern challenges is crucial to protect people and property in the future.