Building with Wood

General discussion on all things Omaha.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

Post Reply
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Jones13

Post by nativeomahan »

Am I the only one who is surprised (shocked, almost) that these new buildings are mostly made of wood?
psl25201
Home Owners Association
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:50 pm

Re: Jones13

Post by psl25201 »

Well, there are a variety of reasons, but I suppose you could safely assume it's likely because of cost in this instance. Steel on the whole costs more (subject to fluctuating steel commodity prices) and generally takes longer to put up (not necessarily the framing, but the rough in of your plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc...). That results in higher labor and material costs. I'm not 100% sure but I do believe steel and wood have structurally the same weight to strength ratio as well.

You could probably go either way, but obviously someone made the decision to use wood in this instance.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Jones13

Post by GetUrban »

nativeomahan wrote:Am I the only one who is surprised (shocked, almost) that these new buildings are mostly made of wood?
The building codes allow wood construction (combustible) in a downtown district if the building is protected by automatic fire suppression, or if certain maximum square footages or occupancy types are separated by approved fire rated walls. Wood is currently likely the most economical choice compared to steel post & beam or metal stud construction. Any wood structure, other than heavy timber framing, (like the old turn of the century downtown buildings) would NOT be allowed in that district without automatic fire suppression, unless the building was setback a specified distance from the property lines and adjacent properties.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
psl25201
Home Owners Association
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:50 pm

Re: Jones13

Post by psl25201 »

We inherently understand that wood is more "combustible" than steel, but it flawed to believe that steel is not. Anything that gets hot enough will compromise itself and actually, some believe that steel is more unpredicatable than wood.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Jones13

Post by GetUrban »

The code does address the degree of combustibility of materials, thus not allowing wood in some instances without other safety measures. It is very true though, that steel is equally vulnerable in fires, even more so in some cases. If left unprotected, it will melt and lose its strength. Good point.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: Jones13

Post by S33 »

If covered in the fire resistant material, steel is far more predictable in a fire than wood.

You can predict that wood will burn 100% of the time.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Jones13

Post by iamjacobm »

Wood is pretty standard for projects this scale across the country.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

iamjacobm wrote:Wood is pretty standard for projects this scale across the country.
True, but the building setbacks from the property line are key. Typically, downtown districts have buildings with zero setback from the property line. The code takes this into account, requiring additional safe-guards such as higher fire resistance or automatic fire protection. I can almost guarantee a building of this scale could not be built out of wood stud bearing walls and wood truss-joist upper floors, in this location, without automatic fire suppression. If it were being built on a lot with greater setbacks all the way around, it would not be required to have the additional safe-guards, unless it exceeded the allowable square footage for combustible construction.

I would also argue that by code, steel is considered "non-combustible", as is concrete, but still can be required to be fire-protected. Back to the original point of my post, I can see why nativeomahan thought it was odd to see wood construction in that location...people are used to seeing mostly concrete & steel used downtown.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Jones13

Post by nativeomahan »

All of the older, existing downtown structures appear to be made of steel skeletons and brick or concrete walls. Look at the two buildings directly next to this new apartment structure on 15th Street, for example. I suspect they are NOT wooden structures gussied up with brick facades.
Was the cost of brick and steel cheaper relative to wood back 100 years ago, or did people just care about building more sturdy structures back then?
We see all of these newer suburban apartment buildings exploding in flames when some cretin falls asleep with a lit cigarette, or someone tosses a cigarette into a wastebasket. I would be scared to death to live in any wooden building where smoking was permitted.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Jones13

Post by GetUrban »

nativeomahan wrote:All of the older, existing downtown structures appear to be made of steel skeletons and brick or concrete walls.  Look at the two buildings directly next to this new apartment structure on 15th Street, for example.  I suspect they are NOT wooden structures gussied up with brick facades.
Was the cost of brick and steel cheaper relative to wood back 100 years ago, or did people just care about building more sturdy structures back then?
We see all of these newer suburban apartment buildings exploding in flames when some cretin falls asleep with a lit cigarette, or someone tosses a cigarette into a wastebasket.  I would be scared to death to live in any wooden building where smoking was permitted.
Most of the older buildings from the late 1800’s to mid 1900’s in downtown were either heavy timber construction, reinforced concrete, of fire-protected steel. The heavy timber buildings typically had solid brick bearing walls which were very fire-resistive. Heavy timbers, even though they are combustible, are actually safer than unprotected steel in a fire, at least for the first hour or so of a fire. It takes a while before the fire burns enough of the wood away for the beam or column to lose its strength. This gives people time to get out of a building before a catastrophic collapse. The introduction of fire sprinklers allowed the fire protection rules to be relaxed a bit, since sprinklers can buy some time for people to get out, and even extinguish fires before they engulf the whole structure.

If you really want to get down in the weeds on the subject, take a look at the link below to the building code currently adopted by Omaha, the 2006 IBC – especially Chapters 3-Use and Occupancy Classification, Chapter 5- General Building Heights and Areas, Chapter 6 – Types of Construction. As you’ll see, there are many options available to satisfy the requirements of the code, which all have to be balanced with the budget available to build a building.

But, I agree with your point. For peace of mind, in the downtown area, I’d rather live in a building with a concrete structure or fire protected steel. Once a building exceeds a certain size, that is your only option. The recent apartment fires in Omaha are very concerning. But the most important thing is people are able to get out before the buildings become fully engulfed.

2006 IBC
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Jones13

Post by nativeomahan »

How did the multi-residential unit sprinkler codes work on that wooden residence hall at UNO's south campus today? Looks like the entire building is toast, and will have to be torn down and rebuilt. Forty-eight people displaced and one fire fighter hospitalized in serious condition.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140226/N ... -on-campus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Jones13

Post by GetUrban »

nativeomahan wrote:How did the multi-residential unit sprinkler codes work on that wooden residence hall at UNO's south campus today?  Looks like the entire building is toast, and will have to be torn down and rebuilt.  Forty-eight people displaced and one fire fighter hospitalized in serious condition.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140226/N ... -on-campus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not too well, obviously. We'll have to wait and see what exactly happened. One news channel said the building was sprinkled, but if that's the case, it should have had a dry-pipe system (freeze-proof) in the unconditioned attic spaces under the roof too. It's hard to believe a sprinkled building would have gone up that fast.
The most important thing is people had time to get out, but it makes you wonder what it would have been like if it happened at night while people were asleep.

I wouldn't be surprised if Omaha considers amending the codes as the result of recent situations like this. Tragic so many students lost their belongings and have to deal with this disruption while completing their semester work, and a fire fighter was injured.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
Uffda
County Board
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Land o Lakes, FL

Re: Jones13

Post by Uffda »

nativeomahan wrote:How did the multi-residential unit sprinkler codes work on that wooden residence hall at UNO's south campus today?  Looks like the entire building is toast, and will have to be torn down and rebuilt.  Forty-eight people displaced and one fire fighter hospitalized in serious condition.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140226/N ... -on-campus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As to the firefighter, OWH has it incorrect. They are saying a minor injury. Something like a pulled hamstring
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Jones13

Post by Brad »

I think that the biggest problems with the UNO Fire and also the West O Apartment fires is that they have all started OUTSIDE the building on a windy day. Sprinklers are insides. Even if the building had sprinklers, The fires all had a good head start before they made it to sprinkled areas. I was also told that even Sprinkled buildings don't always have attic sprinklers.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Jones13

Post by Coyote »

Brad wrote:  I was also told that even Sprinkled buildings don't always have attic sprinklers.
And I believe this was the case with the UNO dorms
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Jones13

Post by GetUrban »

Brad wrote:I think that the biggest problems with the UNO Fire and also the West O Apartment fires is that they have all started OUTSIDE the building on a windy day.  Sprinklers are insides.  Even if the building had sprinklers, The fires all had a good head start before they made it to sprinkled areas.  I was also told that even Sprinkled buildings don't always have attic sprinklers.
I agree. If the fire started on an exterior deck, (as appears to be the case) it could spread very quickly up through the vented soffits into the attic space. I'm still surprised the building didn't have a dry-pipe system up in the attic space and even above each exterior deck to help protect the wood framing. It's been my experience as an architect on commercial projects, if the building is sprinkled, it is sprinkled everywhere, especially in concealed spaces over a certain size with combustible structural members and also exterior covered areas such as canopies and drive-thrus. I'm not sure what exception in the code they were able to apply that would exempt the attic spaces from being sprinkled in these apartment buildings. Unless the square footage of the buildings are below the allowable square footage for that construction/occupancy type and they just sprinkled the apartments for a bit of extra protection from fires burning the contents inside the apartments. ...Have to dig deep in the code to see what they might have done.

As you say, the fire could have spread so quickly, the sprinklers didn't get a chance to do their job. But the fireman quoted in the OWH article said the sprinklers inside the building worked properly, but the building did not have sprinklers in the attic, for some reason. They should amend to code to require attics to be sprinkled, in my opinion.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
brick
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:31 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Jones13

Post by brick »

The buildings had sprinklers, they met code, and they worked. Other than knocking the idiot with the cigarette over the head for smoking on his balcony, which was prohibited, i don't see a need to modify building code.

Sprinklers are not designed to put fires out. They are designed to give occupants time to get out of the building, which they did, as no one was trapped or injured.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Jones13

Post by nativeomahan »

Here's the problem, as I see it, and as we have all read about it time and time and time again. People are idiots. Smokers are people, and they are idiots. You can tell people not to smoke, and they will still smoke. You can tell smokers not to smoke in bed, and they still smoke in bed. You can tell smokers not to smoke on wood decks, and they still smoke on wood decks.

The goal of building codes, at least in part, should be to anticipate stupid behavior from humans, and to design and build buildings in a manner that will prevent most common accidents from occurring and destroying the whole building, and the property of everyone in it. As someone above pointed out, what if this occurred at 3 am rather than 3 pm, when most residents were in class, and presumably the rest were at least awake?

Omaha By Design is working hard to make buildings LOOK nice. Maybe the building code people need to revisit existing building codes to make, in particular, multiple occuppant buildings safe enough so that smokers can't cause millions of dollars of damage and displace dozens of innocent people with a $1 cigarette.

(The UNO fire was caused by an idiot smoker. Presumably a college educated idiot. http://www.ketv.com/news/authorities-re ... e/24699086" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Jones13

Post by GetUrban »

brick wrote:The buildings had sprinklers, they met code, and they worked.  Other than knocking the idiot with the cigarette over the head for smoking on his balcony, which was prohibited, i don't see a need to modify building code.

Sprinklers are not designed to put fires out.  They are designed to give occupants time to get out of the building, which they did, as no one was trapped or injured.
Yes, the building had sprinklers, but not in the attic spaces, apparently. However, you don't give any specific proof of how they met code. If you can show how these buildings were were exempted from having sprinklers in the attic, I'll stand corrected. One way I can think of is, if the building square footage & height did not exceed the allowable square footage & height increases do to frontage setbacks around all sides, sprinklers would be optional.

I would argue that sprinklers can and do put fires out, in addition to giving people more time to get out. In this case, since the fire spread very quickly up into the roof structure, which apparently wasn't protected by sprinklers, it's likely the people were already out of the building long before the fire got close enough to a fire sprinkler head to melt the fusible link activating the system.

I guess if people are content enough losing only a few of these non-idiot-proof apartment buildings each year, risking the lives of residents and first responders, then there is no reason to consider modifying the building codes.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Building with Wood

Post by Brad »

The Dorms were built in 2002, was the code different back then?
brick
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:31 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Building with Wood

Post by brick »

At this point, I am ASSUMING it met code. If it did not meet code, I'm sure it will come out in the insurance or media investigations.

If it did not meet code and it wasn't exempt, which you seem to be concerned that's the case, then we have a CODE ENFORCEMENT problem, not a CODE problem. We can write building codes until the cows come home, but if they aren't enforced properly it doesn't matter.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

Brad wrote:The Dorms were built in 2002, was the code different back then?
That's a good point. It didn't seem like the dorms had been there that long. I'm not sure what version of the IBC would have been in effect in Omaha back in 2002, maybe the 2000 IBC or even the 1994 or 1997 UBC. Omaha is pretty slow to adopt the latest version, hence they're still on the 2006 now even though the 2012 version is out. The IBC usually doesn't change much between additions, but no point in looking at the 2006 IBC for answers to specific questions about what was in effect in 2002. Oops, sorry! I think the most significant changes were between when they dropped the 1997 UBC and adopted the 2000 or later IBC.
Last edited by GetUrban on Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

brick wrote:At this point, I am ASSUMING it met code.  If it did not meet code, I'm sure it will come out in the insurance or media investigations.

If it did not meet code and it wasn't exempt, which you seem to be concerned that's the case, then we have a CODE ENFORCEMENT problem, not a CODE problem.  We can write building codes until the cows come home, but if they aren't enforced properly it doesn't matter.
Reasonable assumption. It could also be a code interpretation issue too, as the local officials have the say during permitting & inspections, at least until they are contested. My earlier arguments are moot, if the adopted code back then was significantly different than the one in force for current projects, and the exceptions were different.

But, given the number of similar apartment fires over the last few years, I think most would agree that something needs to be done differently to keep it from happening again, including a closer look at the codes in effect now for the ones being built now, or in the near future.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
cdub
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: Tempe. AZ

Re: Building with Wood

Post by cdub »

One point of order on this discussion. Omaha has nothing to do with it. UNO has been quick to remind the City that they are above the law thanks to the state. They are supposed to follow whatever codes the state has but nobody reviews or inspects that. UNO built them however they wanted. (This is not to say they did it poorly, just that the Omaha codes in place had no impact) I'm amazed at how many of these types of fires we've had in the last few years.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

cdub wrote:One point of order on this discussion.  Omaha has nothing to do with it.  UNO has been quick to remind the City that they are above the law thanks to the state.  They are supposed to follow whatever codes the state has but nobody reviews or inspects that.  UNO built them however they wanted. (This is not to say they did it poorly, just that the Omaha codes in place had no impact)  I'm amazed at how many of these types of fires we've had in the last few years.
Interesting, I forgot about that tidbit. So the State Fire Marshall's office would have had jurisdiction, along with UNO's Facility Management Dept.

UNO's website say's:

Codes Enforcement

The Environmental Safety and Health Department is responsible for the adherence to all building safety codes. During minor renovations, they review all plans and specifications to insure compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. During major building renovations, the City Fire Marshal assists them by becoming a part of the Planning Commission to review all building plans.


But they do not list specific code versions adopted....guess you have to ask.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Building with Wood

Post by nativeomahan »

Fires prompt building code changes

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140301/NEWS/140309880" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Building with Wood

Post by Brad »

So according to the Article, sprinklers in the attic were not required until 2006 and as we talked about earlier, the buildings were but in 2002.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Building with Wood

Post by Coyote »

Wasn't that a song by Aerosmyth? Sprinklers in the Attic?
User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Building with Wood

Post by jessep28 »

nativeomahan wrote:Fires prompt building code changes

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140301/NEWS/140309880" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You heard it here first.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
matthewgoett
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: Building with Wood

Post by matthewgoett »

Most of the fires seem to be in attics and in the winter. I googled apatment fires and most are caused by stoves. Maybe too many space heaters are being used and they are the cause. I am not sold that a cigarette caused the fire unless a fireman inspector could prove it to me.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

jessep28 wrote:
nativeomahan wrote:Fires prompt building code changes

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140301/NEWS/140309880" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You heard it here first.
Glad to see Omaha is going to seriously consider ways to make wood-framed apartment buildings safer from fires, including code amendments. How this will effect older buildings or ones within the city that are out of their jurisdiction (UNO) remains to be seen.
Last edited by GetUrban on Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

matthewgoett wrote:Most of the fires seem to be in attics and in the winter. I googled apatment fires and most are caused by stoves. Maybe too many space heaters are being used and they are the cause. I am not sold that a cigarette caused the fire unless a fireman inspector could prove it to me.
I don't know if you're just being sarcastic, but the 5 apartment fires mentioned in the recent OWH article all started on balconies either from cigarettes or smoking materials. From the early photos of the UNO dorm fire, it's pretty obvious that fire started on a second floor balcony and spread upward from there. Fire usually burns upward first. Plus, I think a fire captain or investigator would be very sure before they made an official statement declaring the cause.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
matthewgoett
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: Building with Wood

Post by matthewgoett »

Well I was not being sarcastic. Just curious as to why all the apartment fires were new construction. Seemed strange to me. A cigarette usually puts itself out but then it has been a long time since I smoked. I wonder if there might have been other causes of these fires.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

Looks like wood may become even more common...even for high-rises!

Interesting article.

http://www.kenilworth.com/publications/ ... es/22.html
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Building with Wood

Post by nativeomahan »

Houston Apartment building goes up in flames.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dra ... ape-n62236" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

nativeomahan wrote:Houston Apartment building goes up in flames.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dra ... ape-n62236" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wow! Thank God they rescued that guy. Wood buildings are obviously very vulnerable during construction.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Building with Wood

Post by iamjacobm »

Interesting read about wood build structures and how a change to the IBC could allow primarily stick built to reach a little higher. Code now allows 5 stick build floors above a concrete slab and 3 floors below the slab. The previous code only allowed for 1 floor below the slab.

http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-market ... ion-costs/
User avatar
Taco
Human Relations
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Building with Wood

Post by Taco »

Correct me if I'm missing something, but out in Los Angeles I've seen many apartment buildings built to seven stories with wood frames.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Building with Wood

Post by GetUrban »

Here's a related link about wood construction I posted over in the Capitol District thread...
http://www.rethinkwood.com/sites/defaul ... uction.pdf
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
Post Reply