Concrete cracks, wood burns: Competing narratives in the construction sector

Innate to the human condition are rules of thumb, or heuristics, important for our survival. It is widely understood that wood is combustible, and concrete is prone to cracking. These factors significantly drive our perceptions concerning the selection of materials used in construction. The present study aimed to better understand the competing narratives employed by supporters on both sides of this construction ‘material warfare’ and specifically investigate their advantage and disadvantage arguments. To meet our research objective, we looked at news media articles through Google search tool using keywords ‘wood vs concrete building construction’. The articles are published as early as 2006, and along the years, the competing conversations are more prominent with the ‘birth’ of mass timber in North America. The topic is also becoming an interest for specific audiences, such as architects, engineers, and insurance companies. Through inductive thematic analysis of 100 articles, we find that cost and sustainability are two dominant factors in the narratives. Each industry claims to be more cost effective and sustainable than the other, typically sniping at each other. This rhetoric, we argue, will not be beneficial for society and environmental justice. A sustainable built environment requires cross-sector collaboration between wood and concrete companies to handle difficulties that they cannot address successfully within their own sector.