525 Linc | 525 Lincoln Street | Allston

9.30--this one is going up fast. Spoke with the GC supervisor on site for the day who was very nice!
Common Allbright (3).JPG
Common Allbright (4).JPG
Common Allbright (1).JPG
Common Allbright (2).JPG
Common Allbright (5).JPG
Common Allbright (6).JPG
 
I'm convinced that all these multi-family buildings in light wood construction will be piles of pulp in 30 years.
 
Wow, I am so less out of the loop on this stuff than I used to be... also, I don't spend anywhere near as much time around the city as I used to... Had no idea about this project, this is a great location for some density and street wall.

king_vibe said:
I'm convinced that all these multi-family buildings in light wood construction will be piles of pulp in 30 years.
Click to expand...

I have wondered the same thing. I would go even further and say that the vast majority of large residential developments we've seen all over Boston are not going to age well, regardless of what they're made of.
 
king_vibe said:
I'm convinced that all these multi-family buildings in light wood construction will be piles of pulp in 30 years.
Click to expand...
The triple deckers in my neighborhood are more than 100 years old, if they remain standing, why should we expect newer wood construction to be less resilient?
 
HenryAlan said:
The triple deckers in my neighborhood are more than 100 years old, if they remain standing, why should we expect newer wood construction to be less resilient?
Click to expand...
Because these are made of wood pulp and glue.
 
HenryAlan said:
The triple deckers in my neighborhood are more than 100 years old, if they remain standing, why should we expect newer wood construction to be less resilient?
Click to expand...
Partially because the quality and quantity of the wood used is much lower quality today. VE'd all the way.
 
393b40 said:
Any actual evidence to back this up or is just conjecture based on the "old is better than new" talking point people like to tie themselves up in.
Click to expand...
I see no reason why a contemporary concrete, steel, or CMU building wouldn't be able to last just as long as old masonry building. I have a specification prediction that buildings made of oriented strand board have a very short life span based on the material's poor mechanical properties and resistance to moisture.
 
Heres a great read from structure magazine about the longevity, renewability, safety etc with mid rise wood framed buildings. All materials have different positives and negatives and nothing checks all of the good boxes and none of the bad. With everything its a compromise. Wood may not be as technically strong as steel, but its much cheaper and with modern building codes it is built to meet all of the same safety standards as other materials. Its also the only renewable construction material that is out there today. If light wood frame buildings can allow much cheaper apartments to be able to be built throughout the city, but they only last 150 years vs 300 then in a lot of cases that trade off is worth it. In other cases it might not be and other materials fit in to the picture there. Theres nothing wrong at all with using different materials to fit different needs in construction and one is not better than the other, they fill different roles.

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=14188
 
Last edited:
The article you sent is by a guy who literally works for the Wood Products Council. His job is to sell you wood buildings.

As an engineer myself, I discourage anyone from purchasing a home in a stick built condo building. Rent an apartment in one for a few years if you need to, but don't invest in something that isn't built to last.
 
I watched a documentary on this type of wood construction and from a non-engineer, this stuff looks cheap, but is not cheap at all and has supposedly good fire ratings. I also found out 5-over-1 is not called that bc its 5 floors of wood over 1 floor of concrete. It has to do with the wood itself.

I also know someone that works at the Nature Conservancy and they raved about the materials used - it went into all sorts of multi-step value chains and how these buildings are better for the environment when you consider all the inputs and outputs - all of this was way beyond my understanding.

I lived in a new 5-over-1 as I mentioned for about 2 years, and it was pretty solid in terms of noise and vibrations as a fancy concrete building I lived in prior to that.
 
king_vibe said:
As an engineer myself, I discourage anyone from purchasing a home in a stick built condo building. Rent an apartment in one for a few years if you need to, but don't invest in something that isn't built to last.
Click to expand...

Well gee golly I'll just go buy a unit in that huge stock of new cement and steel constructed buildings that we have lying around.

Practically, it's not a real option for most folks. Steel and concrete is reserved for much higher end construction and carries a price tag most people cannot afford.
 
This would make for a great thread on its own because the discussion about building materials and how long buildings should be designed to last is way outside the scope of this thread but would make for a great discussion.
 
This type of construction is already banned in New York City, Chicago, and would be unthinkable in nearly any developed country in the world. I’ve said it before: ban stick built wood midrises, and in exchange, eliminate the parking requirements and add a density sweetener.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top