A 13 story laminar wood apartment building is going up in Bergen Norway as well. This is how we could really build affordable housing, the materials are so much less expensive. I hope the City gets it together and writes a Code for it so that developers won't have to pay for extensive engineering to put one of these up.

If we get a good code, this could become a mainstream option. That would be so incredibly good for affordability, and so good for local industry too.

@1
Seems like a good idea, until one of them catchs fire.

'You put them in a gunnysack and throw them off the dock. That’s not going to go over too good with too many people,' she said."
1. Who the f has 'gunnysacks' these days? And since we're in Seattle, shouldn't we be using coffee sacks to mass-murder rabbits? Asking for a friend.
2. Using Puget Sound as your personal lapine abattoir seems a just little short-sighted to me. We could ahem kill two birds with one stone: Catch and cook the rabbits, then feed rabbit stew to homeless/needy people in the city.

I mean, come on people.

A 12-story highrise building... will be made of wood
What is the seismic rating of this "cross-laminated timber" building? Can it withstand a 6.5 quake or greater? We're talking +/-1 foot/sec of lateral ground movement. Or greater, if the quake is higher magnitude. Some places in Japan during the 9.0 Tohoku quake experienced 4 feet/sec horizontal movement. Pretty heavy.

Truly curious. Especially because buildings between 8 and 12 stories are right in the sweet spot for resonating with 6.0+ quakes, and are especially vulnerable to the shaking. Is wood more 'flexible' and will withstand the shaking? Or will it snap?

Rep. Tonko (D-NY) marks National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day on House Floor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=28&v=af_…

@treacle:

I'm not an engineer, but earthquake insurance usually costs less for wood-frame buildings than for brick or masonry structures. They tend to flex and sway while brick buildings crumble and fall.

@6
I don't have exact specs at my fingertips, but I would expect that CLT can be used to withstand pretty good earthquake loads. Generally, the more flexible and non-brittle the joints are the better. Timber does really well for example. Bricks are the worst offenders.
@4
Any building can catch fire.

JBITSMFOTP

@8.....On the average a wooden structure will hold up better in an earthquake, however, in a major quake there a likely to be after effects. I'm not speaking of after shocks but of the likelihood of fires. A major quake could disrupt fire and rescue operations and a cluster of large wooden buildings could mean a conflagration. This is what did the most damage in the great San Francisco quake.

@8,9,11 - Thanks folks!

And yes, according to the research/training I've come across, fires are the biggest danger to life in an earthquake.

@12
We would be pretty lucky in that respect. I believe most of that comes from natural gas mains, and Seattle doesn't use a lot of that because electricity is so cheap.

@12.....A good point, I'm actually intrigued in a positive way about urban wooden buildings for multi unit house but if it is to happen there should be some very carefully thought out building codes. Not allowing flammable gas is one point but spacing the buildings further apart and requiring non flammable roofing such as sheet metal or tile, no asphalt shingles, shakes or built up tar. Also, no barbecuing or fireplaces.

@14
To me that sounds like overkill which could eliminate the main benefit - affordability. Almost all of our current building stock is timber, both in apartment buildings and in single family homes, and we don't hold those structures to "disaster movie" standards of fireproofing. The affordability comes from being able to cheaply stand up a lot of units close together.

And if the whole place is on fire, setbacks wont help.

The set backs are to reduce the spreading of the fire, assuming that there are other wooden structures nearby. I am in favor of these buildings; they can be big but not too big. I have live in a high rise before with ver 200 units, it's like a bee hive or ant hill. Smaller buildings are nicer.

@16
Eceryone is entitled to their opinion, but if those buildings were so full they felt like a bee hive to you, they must be pretty popular. Maybe we shouldn't outlaw them.

I never suggested outlawing them I just found out I didn't care for them (super high rise), also it wasn't a wooden building. High rises are here and have a place; they seem just fine in the downtown area. When it comes to the single home residential areas, though, as the population grows, smaller low-high rise buildings would be more appropriate and easier for current residents of the area to accept. The reason I like smaller places is that they tend to be quieter and move at a slower pace; it is also easier to get to know your neighbors. You can rest assured that I would never think of outlawing super high rises and I admit that you can cram many more people onto a plot of land. As to their popularity, well, what can I say, to each their own. Quality of life as to my living space means more to me than prestige.