This may be a further manifestation of the house planning phase of my life my brain has entered, but I've been noticing houses in various stages of completion and there's something that's been bugging me about them.
Yes, various sources insist that aluminium frames are a terrible idea because in the case of a fire, the heat melts the frames at an alarming rate causing the house to collapse far sooner and reducing the chances of residents being able to get out or rescuers having the time to get in.
That is definitely a concern.
As is the argument that wood harvested in an ethical and environmentally conscious fashion is actually a far more renewable source than a metal alloy that requires mining, processing and a lot more fiddling about.
Both important consideration but still not it.
The thing is... Aluminium frames look so flimsy.
I know that architects and all sorts of smart cookies have done all the calculations and testing to prove that they're structurally sound and I'm not operating under the belief that these houses are likely to fall apart any time soon.
But to me, frames have always been the bones of a house, their strength, their core.
A house that has sheltered families and individuals through the decades, seen the passing of wars and world events, and stood against the centuries would sneer at these spindly constructions.
I think of houses as solid, as enduring, and Aluminium frames just don't fit in with that idea.
How can a house built on such a fragile-looking skeleton ever be a place of strength?
How can it stand the test of time?
Why does this topic make me sound like such a hippy for houses?
I'm not saying that wooden or other non-Aluminium material frames don't have their own issues and drawbacks.
But they look like the bones of houses.