What is the rationale for building houses majorly from wood contained by Australia?
Answers: I'm not surrounded by Austalia but I think duplicate rationale applies no matter where on earth you are. Construction of homes is based mostly on the availablilty of building materials. If you live within a country that has an large amount of wood, you will typically build houses using wood. If you live in a country that lacks forests that can harvest readily for lumber you will build houses out of stone, rocks, mud, bricks or whatever you can cost effectively attain.
Also, I'm not sure I would agree that 100% stone or brick is really any safer than wood construction for house fires unless you're talking going on for brush fires burning the house form the outside. If you are, you should have evacuated the house contained by the first place. If you're talking something like a typical house fire, it's not the burning of the structure that kills most inhabitants in a fire it's the build-up of smoke and toxic gas from everything inside the house. Most people die from smoke inhalation a bit than actually burning alive. Unfortunately, it doesn't metamorphose the fact that you are departed but it really isn't a result of the outer construction of your home.
Lastly, everything is a trade-off. You could build houses out of concerete and install sprinkler systems so that you never have another house fire. However, you hold to consider cost, speed of building, consumer demand, other carrying out factors, etc. To sum it up, no business what country you're in, houses will be built to the standards that inhabitants are willing to adopt and pay for. If for some cause everyone refused to buy houses unless they be fire-proof, that 's what would be built.
It is primarily an issue of cost. Wood is much more inexpensive than bricks so if a person desires a "brick" look they normally but on a withered brick facade--so it looks like brick but it's not as expensive as 100% brick.
More Questions and Answers...