Inside America's mass timber movement
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 04. 2024
- Mass timber is a type of wood being used to build large buildings, like high-rises and airports. Jeff Glor traveled to Oregon to understand more about the material, its safety, and whether it's sustainable to use long-term.
"CBS Saturday Morning" co-hosts Jeff Glor, Michelle Miller and Dana Jacobson deliver two hours of original reporting and breaking news, as well as profiles of leading figures in culture and the arts. Watch "CBS Saturday Morning" at 7 a.m. ET on CBS and 8 a.m. ET on the CBS News app.
Subscribe to "CBS Mornings" on CZcams: / cbsmornings
Watch CBS News: cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram: / cbsmornings
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook: / cbsmornings
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Twitter: / cbsmornings
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
I don't like cutting down large patches of trees, either. But I'll be hard-pressed if you're trying to tell me that making buildings out of trees is somehow worse for the environment than steel and concrete. Steel and concrete involve a lot of energy and resources to produce. Timber... that literally grows on trees and requires a lot less effort to prepare.
I get what your say but also how much carbon they release just by cutting down the tree. Also this wood is pressed together laminated planks it’s much stronger base then a normal whole piece of wood. That right there uses a ton of power tools and generators that burn a ton of fuel. I still think a mixture if traditional steel and concrete with newer building materials are the way to go.
Wooden buildings will rot and decay. The most buildings that are still usable after 100 years are those made of stone, concrete or steel.
@@reecedeyoung6595 No they're not, you're thinking of stone. Rebar in concrete degrades over time and it loses it's strength. The only concrete buildings that have stood the test of time are un-reinforced concrete. Plus you stop maintaining those buildings and you'll see how fast those buildings become dangerous.
@@Jebbis Big fan of structural stone, but reinforced concrete is still gonna last much longer than timber. The Ingalls building was the first reinforced concrete skyscraper and it's still in use.
Im not an expert though
@@reecedeyoung6595it really depends on the local conditions and how the wood is treated/it's density.
There are many wooden structures and structural members still around that are hundreds of years old.
As for environmental impact it depends on how its sourced like the video shows.
It is such a relief to know that there a still people out there making beautiful things.
So people can sit in bleachers? Really, fight the airport traffic to go hang out, yeah right. Must have gotten a large payout from the timber industry. And who is going to dust between all that lumber, right more jobs for illegal immigrants.
Union labor
Beauty, where?
@@Primo_extracts Before sharing my opinion...I really and sincerely (for understanding and educational purposes) wish to know more details about your post, please. Thank you in advance...
Dangerous things too. Rot would be prevalent. Brick doesn't rot. I'm not trusting being on the 30th floor of a building during high winds with a bunch of stacks of 2x6's as a foundation.
I live in the building in Milwaukee. Love it. The wood adds so much warmth and character to our unit
bro is giving Oceangate CEO vibes.
@@shinbi6009 hahaha
Love that architecture...!!!...Your lucky!!!
But it’s in Milwaukee, Milwaukee is a dump.
Architecture student here! I’m wrapping up my 4th year now, took a class entirely dedicated to mass timber and have used mass timber on almost half of my school projects. This comment section is fantastic, I love that this isn’t being politicized and that you all have done your homework. The class I took allowed me to see this stuff through every phase of its production. We visited a sustainable forest (where the workers are passionate and competent about ecological conservation), a sawmill where the dimensional lumber is cut and dried, and a mass timber production plant, and finally multiple mass timber buildings that are either completed or under construction on my campus (University of Arkansas). This stuff is really only at its infancy, the next new decades will take it to incredible places. I was surprised that the video didn’t touch on carbon sequestration much; essentially, mass timber buildings are giant carbon storage vessels. As long as the wood is being used, the carbon it stores is withheld from release back into the atmosphere. This is incredibly effective in mitigating the emissions that construction causes. They also didn’t talk about how engineered mass timber really is, it’s kind of insane. Each piece is scanned at the plant and 2x’s are connected long ways by finger joints, glued together. The length of each piece of lumber is analyzed to create the strongest glulam beam or clt slab possible, and tests are routinely ran to ensure strength. Moisture is also heavily considered, and lumber with similar MC (moisture content) is paired together to account for compression and expansion. I’ll stop my rambling now, but mass timber is really a fantastic building material that I’m excited to see further integrated into our built environment.
Have you or your professors ever tested the effects on the White River?..or the groundwater reservoirs...it’s had quite an effect on the local wildlife! There are yippies riding around in spandex everywhere!...and they own an entire university in Fayetteville where they also teach that Tyson is best thing that ever happened to agriculture 🥺🤯😳
Congrats on that education. Well presented.
How safe are the glues and chemicals that are used to treat the wood?
wood is bigger then you think, paper industry is HUGE,
it's ok trees are just a crop like carrots, just takes 20 years to harvest
all the oil used creates CO2 plant food for the next round of trees to harvest
Except that trees are not carrots, and oil doesn’t produce CO2, but Georgia Pacific is a one of many evil giants on their way out alongside the other Dinos-
If it’s so renewable, why do they do this to existing forests? Why Oregon? Why are the Waltons funding this kids architecture program in Arkansas near a national forest and the first national River? Why don’t they just go along to Kansas or Spain and start growing their own new, forests? Why do they want to buy my trees and my land and everything else they can grab?
Go grow carrots 🥕
Those are not clearcuts, those are cut blocks. Timber is 100% renewable and sustainable, while steel is not and concrete is INCREDIBLY water-intensive.
Its not about "how high" can a mass timber structure go, its about the elimination of need for structural supports at regular intervals (like the steel in a concrete building) because the CLT wood itself has structural properties.
So building with mass timber allows for more open space, flexibility with the layout. Thats why it is used for community centres, museums, and such, this airport in Portland etc.
Concrete guy here. Yes concrete uses water but it dries out. Granted it takes a while but that water does make it back into the water cycle. Also old concrete gets recycled. So it gets used for gravel drives or for whatever. Same goes for asphalt. Which is one of the most recycled materials in the world.
And steel is one of the most recycled, if not "the" most recycled materials in the world. The maintenance of a wood structure this large is ridiculous and will only be performed for, at best, a few decades before they structure falls into disrepair. Then the city can build another new building. Where if it were built from more conventional materials it would last many decades with very little maintenance, in comparison.
It's not just water, concrete is also carbon intensive because of how cement is made
@@GardenOfEdenYT It is not technically debatable...it is factual science...OPC materials have a HUGE carbon footprint in their current state of manufacture and real-life application. New concretes are 100% carbon neutral but about 5 years out from being retally available. I'm a "timber guy" so we both have our bias for sure, however when you compare the two, honestly, side by side, wood smashes concrete in most (not all!!!) applications...
@@glennjames7107 You're speaking about timber architecture like you actually know and understand the "maintenance of wood structures" as compared to industrial steels and OPC concretes...???...Wood does not...AT ALL...have a "ridiculous maintenance schedule of any kind...and I should know...I've been taking care of them for over 50 years now...with the oldest being in excess of 1900 years of age...and the average bing 150 to 600 years old depending on the country...The "conventional materials" of which you speak are "earth, stone, and timber" even today if you wish to speak to the most durable, cost-effective, and tectonically stable...
I’ve been a wildland firefighter for many years. Some years take me to Oregon, Washington and Northern California. The amount of trees lost to old age and or the environment needs to be witnessed. Selective cutting is a great way to save forest. Idaho and Montana also have some great forest. Working closely with the US Forest Service we enter some extremely protective areas where we cannot start any type of motor (chainsaw). This country could diversify more in the building materials used.
Spot on...!!!
Thanks for your hard work dude!
Trees lost to old age and the environment are still important to the environment. Varying species rely on that environmental niche.
Do you mean that there are excessive amounts or what you would consider harmful amounts of dead trees?
I realize that your bias is going to be towards fire safety, but could you describe an example so people have a better idea about the problem you see?
@@amarketing8749 I can not speak to "professional smoke jumpers" and what they experience but have fought my share of forest fires over the years and doing controlled burning in the south. Could we just leave the forest alone and not "manage" them at all? Sure we could. We could also witness massive...and natural...million acres plus forest fires let to burn naturally which historically did and would take place again if there was zero management...Forest fires are natural, but there can be a symbiosis between human needs and those of a natural forest if good, sustainable, and holistic forest management plans are employed. When (not if) a fire takes place it should be planned and managed whenever possible, not allowed to run wild, as the recoveries from this take much longer than any "human clear cut."
@@JayCWhiteCloud
Thank you for your reply. I never said that forests should not be managed. In fact Native Americans / Indigenous People have been managing these ecosystems including with burning long before the Forest Service existed. They actually were managing the forests better than is currently done.
Unfortunately, the way we log can still have negative effects. Although I hear it is getting better and clear cutting is seen less. But I have also seen cut blocks, that appear to be clear cutting on a smaller scale. The logging companies replant the area, so that is an improvement.... but I have heard environmentalists call it green washing.
It really is a complex problem. I'm just glad that people are pushing for improving the sustainability of forestry, needed controlled burning included.
There are no other building materials that are as carbon negative as timber. The fact that we lack an industry willing to harvest in a sustainable manner is a separate issue that must be solved, but what problem does CLT end? Concrete. It ends dependence on all-concrete and steel structures, which are incredibly carbon intensive. There are simply no better alternatives for being carbon-negative, and the idea that we need to iron out the timber industries' notably lax adherence to regulation, as well as tightening and revising current regulations, shouldn't be a show-stopper, but an obvious first step.
👏👏👏👏
My dad's a logger in East Texas. The only clear cutting he does was for subdivisions. Only reason anything gets clear cut is for development. Seems obvious like growing corn. You're not going to harvest and burn it just for fun. You're either replanting or building out a town that's growing out larger and larger. Most trees that are cut are replanted. There are more trees today in middle America then there was 70 years ago.
I wish Texas could grow redwoods that's really amazing lumber!
Yeah the diesel loggers that cut down the trees are very carbon negative 😂
@lazurusknight2724 What about building using bamboo?
What's so important about building materials being carbon negative? Earth's aerosol carbon is at less than a third of what it was when lush forests covered it. You want "green"? Then we need MORE carbon, not less.
Calling those areas clear cuts is such dishonest propaganda, not to mention the selective avoidance of discussing carbon sequestration. Having spent a good portion of my life in them, the PNW forests are incredibly well maintained and have been managed effectively for decades now. It’s much harder to do the Nordic type selective cutting in the PNW due to the tree sizes and slopes.
Truth be damned. Today's news media mission is to promote confusion, hatred and discontent.
Your last sentence is total nonsense. Have you ever been to Norway or Sweden or the Canadian mountains? Exactly the same as the PNW. Its the cost that prohibits selective cutting.
@@thecocktailian2091 I was in Norway and Sweden 10 months ago. Wife is Canadian. So yes and yes. Stavanger is incredible.
Trees are the most renewable resource on the planet. Traps carbon and they grow back.
They take 20 years to grow back. This tremendous wind coming off the gulf is supposed to stop in the forested mountains. Now it circles everywhere and knocks our semi trucks down.
@@zeroshepard9513 Most logged trees are from the same gigantic areas that cycles where they cut and grow.
@@ColoradoStarlink And they are clearcut to the point that the forest no longer stops the wind. Ive seen these areas. Theyre unsustainably huge.
They absorb a good deal of carbon while growing, but once they reach their mature size, they don't absorb quite so much.
@@zeroshepard9513 you dont know what you are talking about. I grew up here in the PNW my grandfather is a logger. There are no wind problems here. We clear cut in 20-40 acre plots and replant in cycles.
You just cant accept that there is a way to sustainably grow trees and your have some kind of defiance disorder so you started lying to win lol e
Hope its not like the wood i bought from home depot. Straight today, curly fry tomorrow.
How do you know it’s curly fry tomorrow if tomorrow is in the future? 😱 Time traveler confirmed?!
You get a whole day before it warps??
Lucky you!
4x4's for sure
it's a totally engineered kind of wood. there's several major players, but LVL or Laminated Veneer Lumber, CLT or Cross Laminated Lumber are the big guys for mass timber buildings. They're basically sheets of wood glued together in different ways and under VERY high pressure. These support beams are actually stronger than steel and concrete in many ways, as the cellulose that holds wood together is one of natures STRONGEST bonds. By crisscrossing the grains 90 degrees each sheet then sandwiching it together with the glue, the end result is a pillar with INCREDIBLE strength while simultaneously being lighter than steel and concrete AND acts like a carbon sink rather than releasing carbon when being made.
@@Fenthule
Green washed with love using only the finest chemicals from Dow and ExxonMobil to "save our planet".
I'm a logger. Trees are farmed these days and managed very well. We should use more of the tree. We leave all kinds of materials in the woods as a by product. We could easily grind the scraps and make pellets to use in the coal fired electrical plants. We need more forward thinking people running our country and less of the rich cronies who only care about themselves and their friends. Lining pockets at the expense of natural resources and the American public.
I’m an architectural student and I had a hard time believing that would was better for the environment, but after trying my best to disprove it I wound up accidentally proving that they were right. I think so much of it is that we have to look at it not just from seedling to finish product but the entire cycle of when we demolition these buildings, concrete and steel buildings are relatively useless after their demolition the concrete can’t be reused it just becomes more that has to be dealt with and steel is difficult to reclaim. Meanwhile is a recyclable product. We can use it as biomass we can turn it into paper we can do all number of things with the cellulose after it serves its purpose as a structure. Also the fact that we cut down the forest but we replant it, we keep the carbon cycle going of using trapped carbon from the atmosphere which is what wood is it is a byproduct of the tree stripping CO2 from the air and then we’re going to lock that away in a structure and replant the forest to continue the cycle.
I can’t put enough emphasis on how much I did not want to believe that this was the right thing to do but when you compare it to mining iron ore all the processing the smelting the transportation and then we’re not gonna get into the concrete and how much energy it takes to create and transport concrete. Unbelievably the greatest thing to do is to use trees and replant. And on a very personal note, I would rather make structures using the beauty of wood than the cold despotic aesthetic of concrete. And if I am going to use concrete, I would rather use it as a reinforcement for reinforced rammed earth which beautifully complements wood.
I’m going to add one concern i have and that’s bio diversity of the species of wood we are cutting. I am very concerned about becoming a mono culture where we find a tree that produces the most amount of straight timber and we only plant that it would make a forest extremely susceptible to fungus and insects and all mater if parasites. I think it’s very important that if this is the future that we make sure it’s a genetically sustainable future.
You are correct about the diversity of planted forest.
I work in the timber industry and we are only replacing a few species. The local eco system suffers as a whole.
Some of the species they replant are sterile and cannot reproduce.
I think we should have to replant hardwood as well as the pine that the industry thrives on
Wouldn’t the lead time to grow more trees cause issues when we deforest at mass scales?
I disagree that concrete and steel buildings are not recyclable. We have been recycling concrete and asphalt for years and years into structured fill to be placed back into the ground .. Steel is easily separated from concrete demo and sent for recycling ... Did I misread ?
@@Jeevanm71
That’s not my area of expertise, however we should be getting on planting forests now. We clear cut our way across this country and ya e a lot of time to make up.
@@kalbcorp
It can be recycled, concrete become back fill and steel can kinda be removed however it’s contaminated and it takes a lot to salvage and prepare steel for recycling. We will still need steel and concrete however far less of it.
Wood: lighter than concrete or steel, stronger than steel when dried properly, cheaper to produce than either if farmed correctly and more resistant to collapse than steel in a fire for a longer time period, oddly enough. Once steel hits around 500 F it begins to lose all strength and bends, causing structural integrity to fail. Wood chars on the outside, but takes longer to burn to the point of failure, the charring actually acting as an insulator until it burns off. Besides, wood doesn't melt...
I’m a long time woodworker but when they talked about fire safety I immediately remembered Notre Dame Cathedral in 2019.
2:52
It's not really an accurate comparison if you dig into the details of it...Mass timber, be it traditional or modern, is still more fire resistant than concrete and steel by comparison, and the tests and fires in them have proven that over time...Concretes rely on steel for strength and still lose all structural integrity at 350° to 450°F...Timber is well above 1000°F and has to get well past the charr layer it forms...There are plenty of cases where old stone and timber 2 and 3-story buildings have steel and concrete four and more stories added only to have them burn down and the building rebuilt on the stone and timber (see repurposed mills)
Isn’t Notre Dame mostly stone?
I don't understand how they say wood is more fire resistant than concrete. I've seen woodfires happen in homes, businesses, workshops, jobsites, forests, etc. Literally everywhere wood can be found it's a fire risk. I've never seen concrete start a fire.
I definitely feel wood is much more beautiful!
@@bubblesculptor Wood beams can be made fireproof by treating them with fire-retardant chemicals, which creates a chemical barrier that slows the spread of flames. The chemicals are integrated deep into the wood, not just on the surface, to provide long-lasting protection
I live in the heart of forest plantations. The trees that are here were planted by the loggers and forest managers themselves. It is farming. They clear cut to plant another crop of trees. Yes it doesn’t look good right after it is harvested but in a few years it is a beautiful new forest. It is amazing how fast these pine trees grow. This is not “green washing” or deforestation. What takes our forests and country life away is city growth.
I would split hairs here - cities with high population density require much less land than the suburbs. If we want to conserve nature we should be trying to increase housing density and by changing zoning rules to stop the spread of single family homes on an acre of land.
@@methos-ey9nfare your priorities making people live like rats or advancing the wellbeing of people?
@@bruhice6058 If cities are planned properly you do not have to live like a "rat." I personally have only ever lived mostly in the country, but urban sprawl and everyone living in track homes in suburbs is not sustainable at all. If people continue to multiply..." like rats"...then cities (well-planned ones) are going to be a fact of life. Made of stone and timber would be beautiful...but I have my biases...as I like old European and Asian cities...
@@bruhice6058 that’s a false dichotomy. Think about all the people that go on vacation to cities because of all they offer. Then think about the social isolation and cost associated with the suburbs.
@@bruhice6058People like housing density, which btw can be achieved with narrower streets, not just massive high rise buildings.
Those softwoods from clear cutting, will be replaced within 20 to 30 years to cut again, if that. It's one of the reasons conifers are used in a lot of construction. They grow fast, have good strength, excellent flexibility, and are a lot easy to cut and mill, as well as lighter to transport, than hardwood. Hardwood on the other hand, is great for high use wear, such as desk, tables, counters, floors, and more. Both have their pros and cons, but to sensationalize clear cutting trees that grow extremely fast, is not the same as clear cutting hundred to thousand year old tress in a hardwood forest, that do not regrow in 20 years. If anything, cutting, regrowing, cutting, regrowing softwoods is a form of carbon capture.
20 to 30 years is the acceptable industry metric.
I watched the building in Seattle being built. It was honestly amazing how quickly that building went up. It took about a week for the floors to be installed. I’ve never seen a multi story building go up so quickly.
Anyone who spends time in the woods knows that we need to cut more timber today. Having cut areas in the forest makes a wildlife magnet, full of life.
The Airport in Cebu Philippines is a beautiful example of a large timber building. It looks amazing.
as long as old growth trees remain protected, +areas really replanted, more will support this.
I've been designing commercial architectural millwork for 25 years, glulams have been used for a long time but mostly for high end leed projects, they are not cheap.
You know what's more fire resistant than wood..... steel
Ha ha, only out West would they use renewables to build and someone says it’s bad for the environment. Plant the trees again and they will grow back. We have been doing this in the South for decades. Our National Forest is a resource that gets used and replanted.
It's why the responsible forestry bit was so important. If they clear-cut a forest bad enough, it could prevent real growth for a while (while the area recovers).
There is an 18 story almost 300 foot all wood building in Norway that was finished 2019. It was the tallest all wood building until the Ascent building in Milwaukee was completed in 2022.
Our company owns a 6 story stone building built in 1910 sitting on pine tree piles sunk deep into what was essentially a beach.
Mass timber is completely viable
Sounds similar to the former Montgomery Block in San Francisco. But that was brick on pilings sunk into a filled in cove. It was stable until it got torn down for a high rise.
@@danielcarroll3358 wasn’t a heritage site, I’m guessing ?
The building we own was built by the Port Authority in 1910. Original Water Front Head Office.
A developer is adding a skyscraper condo in the parking lot, but the original building will not be torn down, rather incorporated into a new structure.
Which’s kinda neat. Thanks Daniel 🇨🇦
@@davidhaynes3126 The building was a registered California historic site. But is now the location of the Transamerica Pyramid. Check out "Montgomery Block" on Wikipedia. In 1853 at four stories it was the tallest building west of the Mississippi!
That airport roof just looks like it was framed, but never finished......
Could you imagine a major city built like this, awesome
Noticed a building in Seattle near UW being build with timber recently. Pretty cool
They did not talk about the carbon sequestration aspect of mass timber construction. Concrete and steel production emits carbon into the atmosphere in the production of the materials. Timber (trees) absorbs carbon from the environment and mass timber construction locks that carbon inside buildings. However, environmental ecosystem fragmentation cannot be ignored. Habitat reduction is already critical and more emphasis on logging is just going to make that situation worse. Bottom line - there are too many people and we need too many buildings and the buildings we want are too big. We've got to live lighter in the planet. So... build a yurt!
In Marquette, Michigan on the campus of Northern Michigan University:
Superior Dome
The Superior Dome has been home to the Wildcat football team since its construction in 1991 and is now also home to the Wildcat soccer team and the Wildcat track teams. The Dome stands 14 stories high and encompasses 5.1 acres under its roof. Constructed of 781 Douglas Fir beams and 108.5 miles of fir decking, the Dome has a permanent seating capacity of 8,000, although the building can hold as many as 16,000 people.
Heard of this before this video. My first exposure to this was years ago with the term "Engineered Wood". There's a very old ad showing an engineered floor joist system with an elephant standing on it. Anyone remember that ? Maybe it's about time for this. Steel is an amazing building material, but is there no way of getting an aesthetic look from it without sheet rock, and drop ceilings ?
The piece didn't adress the other "green" aspect of mass timber and that is the carbon sequestered in the wood. Trees take remove carbon dioxide and use it to build mass. By using the timber you're holding onto that sequestred carbon and allowing new trees to grow and take in even more. The building is going to remove that carbon from the cycle for hopefully 60 or 70 years.
At the end of the life cycle, if they can either re-use it or turn the wood into biochar then they can sequester the carbon permanently
A tree has to be alive to do it’s job of recycling CO2. A dead processed tree cannot.
roof looks amazing. I don't want to dust it.
Largest mass timber building is in Milwaukee
I live in Milwaukee I didn't know that. Very cool.
Timber is the most innovative and natural infrastructure material. Better than steal yet it give aesthetics and natural feeling that mixes to the nature
I'm concerned that this will drive up the price of wood for residential projects.
Seeing stuff like this makes me hopeful and excited for the future.
Clearcutting is actually good as long as it's replanted. Trees convert co2 to wood where it's sequestered forever when used as lumber.
My workplace burned to the ground 3 years ago, all 4 buildings-all made of wood, now rebuilding with concrete floors and steel structure, the architect priced the 6000 sq feet of wood flooring like we had- maple, and it was way too expensive no matter what he tried.
Why no comparison to the carbon intensity of producing steel and concrete?
Boring data...but it is out there if you wish to find it and read it...I have...Wood smashes OPC and steel by a large margin...
Trees are made of carbon. You can sustainably harvest them. We've been doing it for a long time. I believe at this point we should never cut down old growth forest. Steel isn't too bad for carbon footprint (depending on where the steel is being produced) but cement production produces a significant amount of CO2. For buildings of a certain height (midrise), mass timber is likely the most carbon friendly structural building material.
The price of wood today is outrageous since covid. Pure GREED
So is everything else
Lumber is cheaper today than in 2004. I know, I saw and sell it, then and now. The bubble was 12 months. Look up a chart of CME lumber futures, or just google “historical price of lumber” - the data is there.
Five mills have closed in Oregon since the beginning of 2024, most in rural areas. Portland-metro is essential 3 of the 4 million people in Oregon.
It's back down to $2-5 a 2x4. Same as before 2020. I refloored a 16ft trailer for $400 in material in 21 it'd cost me 260 to do it now.
@@capps2015 2by4's aren't considered wood products. What about the cost of all other wood products like plywood and all the other board sizes involved in building a house?
Glued laminated Bamboo is another option. The best thing about Bamboo is how fast it grows. "Bamboo is the fastest-growing plant on Earth, to the tune of growing about 35 inches (89 cm) per day or up to 1.5 inches (≈4 cm) per hour for the faster species". Then you could grow faster on a industrial scale then what you can use. The cool thing about laminated wood is it can sustain fire better and longer then steel. Steel will start to deform and bend after certain degree of heat while the wood produces protective layer of char...
Protect old growth, cutting trees every 20 years is so sad, you'll never get to see the big big old trees :(
As long as the building stands, that's carbon removed from the atmosphere. Grow more and capture more carbon.
That’s beautiful.
I don't see this aging well. What kind of chemicals are they using in the adhesives and to provide fire resistance? We may find that just because it's 'wood' doesn't mean those chemicals turn it into a toxic mess long term. Meanwhile concrete and steel are pretty benign in that regard.
Huge wooden hanger was built during the WWII era was destroyer by fire just a few years ago . They stood by and watched saying it was too dangerous to do anything.
Nobody wanna talk about what lives in are ever diminishing, fire ravaged forests or have we just moved on from that?
Kind of surprised that they didn't mention building skyscrapers out of bamboo. Even stronger than most woods, and very sustainable
As an Oregonian, I feel like I've seen this story before.
How many projects of this nature can our forests withstand? 🥺
As an Arborist I can unequivocally say that that forest was already unhealthy and that clear cutting is also unhealthy. Forests are not supposed to be full of middle aged trees and certainly not empty. There is a middle way. The Navajo Nation Forest is a great example of a properly managed forest.
Surprise!
Go interview their Forester
Having our public forests burn down because they are so overgrown isn’t so green; sustainable harvesting practices and replanting is possible.
Likely more trees are lost due to out of control wildfires each year. Better management and harvesting could be possible in theory
This is my twin project at ZGF Architecture
The argument for using wood at that level is actually good resource management.
Wood is a renewable natural resource. Like anything else it can be managed. For resources in general there are outdated practices for harvest/mining but as long as we demand modern methods that are better for the environment we will be fine. It's really just a matter of making sure the cost of externalities are passed along to companies and ultimately consumers vs. loose regulations that make the cost of harvesting/mining public rather than private.
2 billion dollars for an airport..2 billion dollars.
It would be awesome to see Japanese/craftsman architectural elements be applied to these structures. Concrete is not sustainable. The shortages and pricing in our area keep getting worse. Many don’t know, but steel looses a majority of its strength at only 400 degrees and mass timber often requires less fireproofing measures.
Beautiful!
No wonder prices for lumber have gone through the roof!
Lumber was more expensive in actual dollar in 2004 than in 2024 (softwood), on the shelf, NOT adjusted for inflation. I saw lumber in Oregon. The bubble was 12 months, then within 12 months, the price fell below the highs of 2004. Google a chart, the data is clear.
Lumber prices appears to be tracking oil. $2/stick back in 2018, average oil price=$50, $3.25 in 2024, average oil price = $80. The relationship between lumber prices with fuel cost, is in the harvesting equipment (Saws), and all the transportation from the forest to the mill, then to the distributors. Might be expensive.
They did go way up but that was a couple of years ago, they are back down now to more "normal", since mid-2023.
Timber gets difficult for tall projects. The compression strength of timber is much much less than concrete and the trnsile strength is less than steel. So reinforced concrete excels at really tall buildings.
These folks respect wood
Love it. Be ideal for all community
It never matters if they don’t replant trees
For every tree that is 1 foot thick or more, that one who cut it down MUST grow 3 more saplings.
"We produce more timber than we are consuming..." Then why is wood so much more expensive now?
Because the CEO's can. It ain't Biden, it's corporate Chad.
@@mikelouis9389 ??? No one is talking about Biden.
Bidenomics
In a word...GREED...!!!!
It's market manipulation. Saw mill here just closed, not due to lack of business, but because the mill owner, a large corporation, saw an opportunity to boost profits by squeezing the lumber market a bit. They're large enough that they can move the market and tweak their profits independently from the true underlying supply and demand. It's gross, and now our town is bleeding due to lost jobs.
This is an excellent example of where even more government regulation on forestry practices would make a big difference (in mitigating the environmental impacts of timber production). There are ways to more sustainably grow and harvest timber, but they cut into profits. Many environmentalists see the US Forest Service as bought-and-paid-for by the timber companies. It takes decades for a clearcut forest to grow back. And yet, with climate change, we're likely to see a lot more devastating mega fires in the American West, so a lot of wood will go up in smoke. Using wood to build buildings can be a great idea. We need more housing everywhere. The wood in homes and buildings locks up carbon over a long period, and replacing steel and concrete is a good thing, as those both require massive CO2 emissions to produce.
Community space and not transactional space. We need to consider beauty and enjoying where we are.
The ironic part is that wood buildings have been known to last thousands of years with proper design but concrete and steel buildings barely last 50-80 years before needing serious refurbishing/replacement.
Clear cutting in select areas can help creat defensible space in areas threatened by summer fires too.
It's a shame to see large swathes of usable timber go up in flames.
Now we know why consumers have to pay a ridiculous price for lumber.
I'm less concerned about the wood than I am about the glue that binds all of the wooden elements together. In a fire, that will begin to melt.
If it’s PVA glue, the melting point is likely higher than the natural lignin that holds the wood fibers together. I doubt it’s a concern. Not that I’m sold on this whole thing.
The steel reinforced concrete breaks down slightly above 600 °C and if the building is exposed to any lateral pressure or shear force it is going down. But if wood is treated properly it won’t burn.
I mean it’s beautiful. As long as we plant more trees 🌳 🌲 🌴
Some other critical issues need to be mentioned.... Wood sequesters carbon, while concrete production is one of the biggest CO2 offenders on the planet. Concrete requires mining of the ingredients, which obviously has permanent impact on local ecologies, unlike cutting trees which can be easily replaced. And when/if the building ever needs to be demolished, that wood can be used for many things while the concrete will be mostly useless rubble.
Clearly they don't have termites in Oregon.
Wood harvesters need to resolve the esthetic problem of cut blocks. Be a much easier sell as sustainable if trees are planted in the process of harvesting mature trees.
Plus be real about how many board feet of lumber can be produced in North America per year. That is some finite number at market price.
Besides a little bit of bamboo, some straw bale and Cobb, timber is the only building product we grow. We mine, synthesize, or manufacture the rest …
As a fledgling industry, we have no data on the longevity of the material. Unfortunately, it will be at least a generation before any data can even begin to be compiled.
What people don’t understand in these comments is hilarious. The issue isn’t that we would cut down too many trees with lots of mass timber projects… this issue is that we are no where near cutting down ENOUGH trees. Most of our nation’s forests are way overgrown and need to be thinned in order to mitigate forest fires. If left unmitigated, forest fires consume FAR MORE trees than mass timber ever could. If we properly thinned our forests over the next 20 years nationwide, it would produce so much wood for lumber it would overwhelm the supply chain and mass timber wouldn’t come close to absorbing it with demand. We wouldn’t have enough mills to even process it all!
The problem is that it’s logistically difficult to gain access to every sq mi of forest in the US, and to cut down maybe one in ten trees (if sufficiently dense) and maneuver around the others. This is costly, but mitigating forest fires should offset those costs from $ from insurance, counties, or the federal government itself. native Americans used to do this on a wide scale, except they used controlled burning. We could do this too, but why control burn when you can harvest?
Nonsense.
Well he is right we have way to many trees
Those who oppose the use of wood products need to decide if they prefer climate change, homelessness, or both. The fires and blights are natural, the presence of humans is not. Without sustainable harvest, enjoy the fires; without the wood products, enjoy mining the stuff our dwellings are constructed of. If we’re going to house over 8 billion people (instead of the 2 billion we had in 1920), we’ll have to use some stuff that is grown and harvested. By the way, all alone, forests are carbon neutral and that precious old growth is off-gassing CO2, and there are people where the young, carbon-eating trees used to grow (even environmentalist people).
My neighbour would have a heart attack because she loves her trees at the back of the property and she had a hissy fit when they got chopped down
Why do people seem to go to extremes every time there is progress in anything? “oh wow. something new. we have to use it on everything” No we can incorporate it with other technologies to create hybrid systems that benefits everyone. Usually more than two sides to a story. Not just for, or against.
How many trees have they cut?
They don't care, all they care about is more $$$$ the USA is the greediest country on earth nothing get in the way of greed here including human life
All of them.
Less than they have grown, by law.
@@seeharvestercome and visit … you’re self righteousness doesn’t make you right.
Google: “Oregon Forest Practices Act” and the Oregon Department of Forestry … every tree harvested in Oregon is harvested under permit of a super-majority Democratic administration that has been in place for 30 years.
This is great, building something with meaning seems right.
I love the look of natural wood but I'm not buying the safety aspect of it.
The ceiling is just a giant dust collector.
We have a bunch of homeless that need a place to hang out. Im sure they would be appreciative for the place to hang out instead of living on the streets. Thank you for the invitation!
No worries guys they have really good sprinkler systems.
As strong as steel that amazing but hard to believe.
I work in a mass timber building, and at first it was interesting. Over a year later, the giant glued wooden beams are splitting left and right. It may not ultimately affect the building but it is concerning to see.
It's the main downside...the technology behind mass timber is "good glue" and some fire treatments. We've been using plywood since forever, so it's not really unproven, but there's still a learning curve for doing load-bearing construction with it.
I'm in the industry from the "traditional side" and checking (what you are incorrectly calling "splitting") is a common event in any large timber architecture. It can be mitigated or stopped but this "new industry" is still trying to catch up to the traditional methods and still make the "cash" they want to make...
great way to further increase the cost of the average home and clear cut forests
The problem is ensuring these timber companies are actually replanting trees too. Not everything that man does is bad for the environment, see constructed wetlands.
A great thing to have mentioned is the bark beetle problem in the PNW, you can see it clearly from the sky. Bark beetles are killing large patches of trees mainly in Oregon and Washington, these dying patches become a hotspot for forest fires. Clear cutting around these areas could potentially cut off the food supply and put enough distance between healthy trees and the inevitable forest fire.
how generous of you to build a beautiful homeless shelter!
There are some companies actually trying to do this...Have not seen it come to fruition yet. but maybe soon?
Beavers: Mm.. Bout to act up..
Firefighters: Gawd dayum, I'm uh clap and bust!
Google: “Oregon Forest Practices Act” and the Oregon Department of Forestry … every tree, privately or publicly owned, harvested in Oregon is harvested under permit of a super-majority Democratic administration that has been in place for 30 years. The only trees harvested otherwise are from US Forest Service (USDA) timber, under their rules, where Federal regulations supersede state regulation.
I can only imagine the contract just to do the ceiling,might’ve even had another contractor prep it all
the world's most flammable airport
Ever see a wheat or corn field after the crop has been harvested? Why is that clear cutting and then replanting ok?
They're is actually some serious research being down on no till famring and now pereneal grains to avoid some the more harmful effects of that. Another "popular" (ngos, homesteaders, and hippies like it at least) is food forests as an alternitive to monoculture industrial agriculutre (at least in part).