Is building with wood "inferior" than building with stone?

Dec 2015
370
NYC
Another wooden marvel (The Hanging Temple of China):


(still stands for 1000 years, though I'm not sure if it's been repaired or left as is overtime, but it's still an impressive engineering feat. Any equivalent stone structures similar to this, or at least something made of wood built near a cliffside?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,685
Netherlands
Another wooden marvel (The Hanging Temple of China):


(still stands for 1000 years, though I'm not sure if it's been repaired or left as is overtime, but it's still an impressive engineering feat. Any equivalent stone structures similar to this, or at least something made of wood built near a cliffside?)
Visit Cappadocia or Petra.
Or the mountains in Europe
1576149087318.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman
Sep 2019
54
Toronto
I would say building with wood is inferior in terms of the strength and durability of buildings. Stone buildings will last a longer time. Stone buildings are harder to destroy. This would mean that stone castles are harder to destroy than wood castles.

 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,090
Susceptibility to fire would be the obvious difference. Historically, eventually everything burns.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,623
Sydney
this thread is a bit silly a lot of building were using Stone and wood
while the European feudal castle had walls of stone all the ceiling and floors were made of wood
same for brick building the interior had large quantity of paneling ,wooden staircases and frames
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman