Question: European vs. Sinospheric architectures

In India, where i live, its a common myth that the Japanese live in 'paper houses' (sic) because of the earthquakes. You know, from the idea that paper and wood houses won't kill you when they come crashing down in an earthquake.

In Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and outside the borders of the Roman Empire, most of the houses were made of less durable materials like mud, wood and hay/thatch, etc.

It is only after the Plague swept through Europe that housing was made from more durable (and co-incidentally rodent resistant) materials like stone and fired bricks.

It is possible that these new more durable (and thus more expensive houses) were built as a result of the increase in affluence the later Eras from commerce, colonization, etc.

Even conflict could have been a factor. Castles proliferated in Europe and stone houses where at a lower risk of destruction from fire, unlike alternatives made of wood. Apparently around the time of the Renaissance rich Italian families built like mini-castles inside the cities themselves from which they could fight against their other rich neighbours living in their own mini castles.

Perhaps there was some other factor at play when it came to China and Japan. Perhaps it was something like the 'paper-houses' legend i mentioned earlier. Or perhaps it was just a tendency to adhere to old ways and traditions, but that could just be a Western misconception about the East we adhere to till this day

I will leave it to the Eastern experts.

Regards

Kalki
 
The "rodent" theory seems quite reasonable. Explains why most houses - not just forts and castles but common farmhouses - were built out of stone.
But I believed the Plague to have also passed through Asia, with equal devastations as their European counterparts. Maybe the news was suppressed in China and nearby Asian countries, unlike in Europe?
 
Chinese peasant housing, Cuandixia, Beijing, China:

49630645.jpg


Rammed Earth Roundhouse, Fujian, China:

fujian_tulou__china.jpg


Basically, Asian architecture (or at least Chinese) has plenty of stone and brick in its construction. The Japanese live in wood and paper houses because stone houses tend to collapse in earthquakes while paper ones can shift around a lot more.
 
Why did Europe prefer stone-based buildings over wood, unlike their Asian counterparts?

I'm not that sure Europe "prefers" stone building that much as a given.
It's essentially a tropism due to greco-roman influence (or more generally mediterranean), and even up to the XIIth century, most of public buildings (to say nothing of private housing) was made of wood in Northern and Western Europe.

Remember that up to the XIXth century in Western Europe, that was the typical construction, removed for question of safety (fire, hygienism, etc.) and tastes (triumph of positivism and straight line cult)

Eventually it cames down for me to Greco-Roman influence, and to the symbolic of stone in western conception : strength (not only strong), power, lasting.
 
Basically, Asian architecture (or at least Chinese) has plenty of stone and brick in its construction. The Japanese live in wood and paper houses because stone houses tend to collapse in earthquakes while paper ones can shift around a lot more.

For your information, "rammed earth" does not mean "stone". As a matter of fact our school trip a few days ago included those houses. And I can assure you that they were not made of stone.

Also, what on earth are you talking about in "paper houses"? The only major part paper play in Japanese architecture are the doors or windows. Perhaps you are referring to Shigeru Ban's post-earthquake reconstruction design?

The rammed-earth design brings forth the main issue I had. Unlike the northern Chinese architecture that you provided on the first picture, Korea is mainly rammed-earth design and therefore quite architecturally unstable. Is this because Korea has not witnessed much urbanisation, or is this something based on culture?
 
I read somewhere that the reason why the japanese built mostly wood houses was because the had more access to quality wood than to quality stone and so they didn't have a need to resort to stone when they had plenty of good wood around.
 
Prestige and Over forrestation

I am not as well versed on other locations in Europe but the British and Irish Isles have actually quite a long history of extensive wood building dating back to Celtic times. And once Romanized they continued using wood as it was much more accessible then the stone quarries they were accustomed to have easy access to.

Even into the medieval era the prominent material for building castles was wood. However, changes in siege tactics coupled with maintenance (ie rot, rodents and ect.) eventually took their toll. As nobles became wealthier due to trade opening up with the rest of Europe masonry became more sought after which made their demand thus guilds grow more in number. The knowledge about wood castles is limited and is only becoming more known now as most nobles who retained their castles simply renovated them with stone while others that were left derelict rotted away.

But this did not stop the predominance of wood that was still widely used, when stone was not easily accessible, by those were not of aristocracy nor had the means as in wealth. A testament of wood architecture still being recognized until this very day is the stucco and wood based Tudor Revival architecture starting in the late 19th century to name a few.
 
Reinli stave church, Sør-Aurdal

Tudor The timber-framed Staple Inn in Holborn, London

Kizhi Pogost: Russian Log Church

The churches do not count, as symbolism of religious authority has been extensively used in both Europe and Asia with various elements such as stone and wood.

The city buildings, however, are interesting: were English buildings naturally built as multi-storied structures or was this a result of urbanisation?
 
Timber-framed buildings are widespread in Germany and most other regions of the former HRE too.
Here they are called "Fachwerkhäuser"
(Singular: Fachwerkhaus - for googling)
 
It was an evolution

The churches do not count, as symbolism of religious authority has been extensively used in both Europe and Asia with various elements such as stone and wood.

The city buildings, however, are interesting: were English buildings naturally built as multi-storied structures or was this a result of urbanisation?

As far as I know throughout history most English structures had a tall vaulted roof with trusses. This helped keep ventilation as medieval Europe was actually going through a warm period. These places were in no way two floor structures but quite a few probably had compartments above to store wood and keep it away from moisture. In fact for the same reason for the warmer climate of that era cellars were probably more widely used as cool storage.

Besides fornications there was no serious development of multiple floor structures that I know of until around the 16th Century. This coincides with the formation of town centers across the English countryside and of course, Tudor architecture. But even then most places were bi-level rather than fully multiple level like in major cities such as London and Nottingham. This growth was not maintained though as the bubonic plague struck major cities once more killing as much as 15% of the population.

If anyone can illuminate further on what I stated or correct me I would be more than happy to know.
 
Last edited:
Most stone or brick based houses were mandated by municipal structures or the respective monarch for purposes of fire protection. While most cities and towns adopted such measures rather from 18th century onwards it was not unknown before (e.g. Dubrovnik after the city fire of 1296).

Not sure whether Chinese cities used to adopt similar measures?
 
I read somewhere that the reason why the japanese built mostly wood houses was because the had more access to quality wood than to quality stone and so they didn't have a need to resort to stone when they had plenty of good wood around.
I'm not sure on this one. They certainly do have a lot of forests, even today. But they also have a lot of mountains. Maybe lack of decent iron to quarry the stone could play a small part.

In India, where i live, its a common myth that the Japanese live in 'paper houses' (sic) because of the earthquakes. You know, from the idea that paper and wood houses won't kill you when they come crashing down in an earthquake.
I've heard Japanese people say the same. No idea if there is any truth to it.
Certainly the crappy temporary nature of everyday Japanese architecture is probably down to earthquakes leaving a large mark on their culture.


Also a huge part of the reason for the flimsy nature of Japanese houses is the weather.
Whereas in Northern Europe we build houses for the winter (and so suffocate in our not too hot summers), the Japanese priority is for their houses to be cool in summer rather than warm in winter. Except in Hokkaido (but not Tohoku which has similarly cold weather. pff)

I guess most of the traditional civilized parts of China had similarly warm climates with the colder northern regions tending to be where the nomads were.
 
Last edited:
The "rodent" theory seems quite reasonable. Explains why most houses - not just forts and castles but common farmhouses - were built out of stone.
But I believed the Plague to have also passed through Asia, with equal devastations as their European counterparts. Maybe the news was suppressed in China and nearby Asian countries, unlike in Europe?

It's not like they never heard of rats in China. Most people prefer not to have them in their house for any reason. Were they even aware of the rat-plague connection in the Middle Ages?
 
Why did Europe prefer stone-based buildings over wood, unlike their Asian counterparts?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Europe had a lot of buildings that were built 'high', e.g. cathedrals, castles, etc.

Traditional Chinese architecture prefers 'wide' structures, rather than 'high' structures. Most of the ancient stuff that's 'high' in China is for defensive purposes (like tulou).

Given that the cost of building a one-floor house with wood is probably cheaper than building a one-floor house with stone, that could be why Chinese buildings are more wood-based. Over time you'd also see greater advances in carpentry (see Forbidden Palace) compared with stonemasonry, which would increase the appeal of wood even more.

Of course the Chinese realize that stone is more permanent than wood, so you do have the more spiritual places being built out of stone/brick, like ancestral halls or a few early Buddhist temples (Wild Goose Pagoda).
 
Top