7 ms·

Americans don't build their houses out of cardboard either. Usually it's concrete, wood, brick, vinyl (siding), and gypsum.

danuker 4y ago
I think the parent comment meant drywall, which is made of gypsum and paper/cardboard among others.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Gypsum board does use paper backing, but that doesn't mean the house is made of cardboard. Gypsum board is not a bad thing or inferior product. In any case, gypsum board is largely standard around the world these days, even in places where plastering walls is common.
  - troon-lover 4y ago
  - toss1 4y ago
    Just because it (drywall/gypsum board, in this case) is relatively standard, does not mean that it doesn't suck. Awful stuff that I'll work hard to avoid in any future building
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Why do you think it's awful? It's far better than the alternative (lath).
      - mindslight 4y ago
        The criticism really isn't about the gypsum board per se. It's the difference between using a hard veneer plaster over the whole wall, or only patching the seams and leaving most of the wall a soft thin sheet that dents/breaks easily and carries sound right through. You can of course get veneer plaster done in the US, you'll just be paying through the nose as it's not standard for residential. Similar to every other "builder quality" cheap out.
        frosted-flakes 4y ago
        A 1/8" thick plaster layer will do very little to block sound. And drywall is 1/2" or 5/8" thick, not 3/8" as you said. Or even 1" thick (on each side) on common fire walls. Yes, drywall dents fairly easily before it's painted, but it's also extremely economical and quick to repair. Once it's primed and painted with a high-quality paint, it really does not dent that easily. My parents' 50-year-old house has the original drywall and has probably been repainted only once, and it's in remarkably good shape. And that's saying something, given that my parents raised 9 children in that house, and who knows how many before us. The biggest problem is the metal nail-on corner beads in high-flow areas going into the kitchen where it gets lots of abuse and the mud has cracked in a few spots, but modern paper-faced plastic beads solve that problem.
        mindslight 4y ago
        I've got experience with plaster+lath, plasterboard+veneer, and drywall walls. Plaster walls are generally much more substantial, apart from when horsehair plaster starts crumbling and pulling out of the lath. Sure you can use thicker stock than the bare minimum, or double it up for rated firewalls. I've seen such, and such walls do provide good sound isolation between apartments. Ultimately yes, a material is just a material. But it's like OSB versus plywood - you can build cheap or quality things with either, but there's certainly a correlation for what types of things get built with each one. I'm sure there's some survivorship bias - the cheaper plaster jobs probably fell apart before I was born. But none of this really changes the overarching critique of being in a cheap ranch-box, and hearing everything else going on in the house. (And for sound transmission I don't think it's the thickness itself, but rather the hardness creating more of an impedance mismatch with the air).
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    We use those in Poland, but over the brick/concrete walls, not instead of them.
    - olyjohn 4y ago
      We don't make the walls out of it either. It's not structural, and it's commonly laid onto wood framing in most houses.
      - frosted-flakes 4y ago
        Apparently in New Zealand it is structural. They have special structural-rated Gib (the local name for drywall) that is used for shear strength on exterior walls. They have a special screw schedule (every 5 cm) and it needs to be inspected before the tapers come in. This is because they don't use exterior sheathing for some reason, just building paper.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Does anyone not use drywall? Complaining that it has a paper backing utterly misses the point that it is a fantastic firebreak. There basically isn’t any alternative that performs as well.
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    I lived in a house with luan plywood walls. It was nice to have the wood grain instead of dry wall.
    - Thetawaves 4y ago
      Tinder boxes. Be careful, this construction is a death trap in a fire.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Was it a modern house built to modern fire codes? If so, there's a good chance there was drywall behind the plywood on some walls. There's a reason even unfinished garages still get 5/8" drywall on walls shared with the house.
  - jjav 4y ago
    The common alternative is brick and concrete, the only way I had seen houses built before seeing USA houses.
deltarholamda 4y ago
It's a kind of joke among Europeans. The American building material standards are pretty different. It's not without a bit of truth. We do build homes much more cheaply and without the assumption that the home will last 200 years. It's a side effect of massive land resources and cheap material costs that Europe doesn't have. We're also a really new country in comparison, and much of our growth occurred during the rise of the automobile and massive roadworks construction, so building a cheap building fast out in the sticks is not only viable, it's attractive. Long term this is folly, as it depends on cheap energy. But all that said, a properly constructed home from wood studs with plywood sheathing and gypboard internal walls isn't intrinsically shoddy. It's actually very strong and very light, and in large parts of the US, entirely appropriate. Modern engineered wood is amazing stuff.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  Some of it also has to do with seismic activity. Traditional masonry is a very poor choice if you're expecting earthquakes. In Japan (another earthquake-prone area) the classic houses also tended to be lumber and even paper, not masonry, because lightweight materials are less likely to squash you like a bug when the next earthquake comes along. Obviously the Japanese did use masonry for fortifications and suchlike, but not usually for a standard dwelling.
  - booi 4y ago
    My understanding is masonry generally has less give and wood buildings can flex in the case of an earthquake. In fact it’s not to code in California to build with masonry without significant steel rebar reinforcement. It’s not necessarily due to the weight although I’m sure it plays a factor
    - xenadu02 4y ago
      This is correct. Wood frame buildings sway and flex during an earthquake. The weight is less important. The problem spots tend to be attachment to the foundation (the building disconnects from the moving ground and starts to skitter around), insufficient beam connections (beams slide off their supporting columns), or support wall collapse. If you live in the Bay Area all of those things are fairly easy to fix - even as a DIY project. Install more concrete anchors in the sill plates, add earthquake rated connections to beams (which were often just toe-nailed), and put plywood on interior garage walls and half height supporting walls which makes those walls much stiffer (old building standards didn't require nearly as much blocking or cross-bracing between studs). As long as a wood stick construction structure stays connected to its foundation and has the smallest bit of strength it can withstand even massive earthquakes without issue.

danuker 4y ago

I think the parent comment meant drywall, which is made of gypsum and paper/cardboard among others.

frosted-flakes 4y ago
Gypsum board does use paper backing, but that doesn't mean the house is made of cardboard. Gypsum board is not a bad thing or inferior product. In any case, gypsum board is largely standard around the world these days, even in places where plastering walls is common.
- troon-lover 4y ago
- toss1 4y ago
  Just because it (drywall/gypsum board, in this case) is relatively standard, does not mean that it doesn't suck. Awful stuff that I'll work hard to avoid in any future building
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Why do you think it's awful? It's far better than the alternative (lath).
    - mindslight 4y ago
      The criticism really isn't about the gypsum board per se. It's the difference between using a hard veneer plaster over the whole wall, or only patching the seams and leaving most of the wall a soft thin sheet that dents/breaks easily and carries sound right through. You can of course get veneer plaster done in the US, you'll just be paying through the nose as it's not standard for residential. Similar to every other "builder quality" cheap out.
      - frosted-flakes 4y ago
        A 1/8" thick plaster layer will do very little to block sound. And drywall is 1/2" or 5/8" thick, not 3/8" as you said. Or even 1" thick (on each side) on common fire walls. Yes, drywall dents fairly easily before it's painted, but it's also extremely economical and quick to repair. Once it's primed and painted with a high-quality paint, it really does not dent that easily. My parents' 50-year-old house has the original drywall and has probably been repainted only once, and it's in remarkably good shape. And that's saying something, given that my parents raised 9 children in that house, and who knows how many before us. The biggest problem is the metal nail-on corner beads in high-flow areas going into the kitchen where it gets lots of abuse and the mud has cracked in a few spots, but modern paper-faced plastic beads solve that problem.
        mindslight 4y ago
        I've got experience with plaster+lath, plasterboard+veneer, and drywall walls. Plaster walls are generally much more substantial, apart from when horsehair plaster starts crumbling and pulling out of the lath. Sure you can use thicker stock than the bare minimum, or double it up for rated firewalls. I've seen such, and such walls do provide good sound isolation between apartments. Ultimately yes, a material is just a material. But it's like OSB versus plywood - you can build cheap or quality things with either, but there's certainly a correlation for what types of things get built with each one. I'm sure there's some survivorship bias - the cheaper plaster jobs probably fell apart before I was born. But none of this really changes the overarching critique of being in a cheap ranch-box, and hearing everything else going on in the house. (And for sound transmission I don't think it's the thickness itself, but rather the hardness creating more of an impedance mismatch with the air).
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  We use those in Poland, but over the brick/concrete walls, not instead of them.
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    We don't make the walls out of it either. It's not structural, and it's commonly laid onto wood framing in most houses.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Apparently in New Zealand it is structural. They have special structural-rated Gib (the local name for drywall) that is used for shear strength on exterior walls. They have a special screw schedule (every 5 cm) and it needs to be inspected before the tapers come in. This is because they don't use exterior sheathing for some reason, just building paper.
more_corn 4y ago
Does anyone not use drywall? Complaining that it has a paper backing utterly misses the point that it is a fantastic firebreak. There basically isn’t any alternative that performs as well.
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  I lived in a house with luan plywood walls. It was nice to have the wood grain instead of dry wall.
  - Thetawaves 4y ago
    Tinder boxes. Be careful, this construction is a death trap in a fire.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Was it a modern house built to modern fire codes? If so, there's a good chance there was drywall behind the plywood on some walls. There's a reason even unfinished garages still get 5/8" drywall on walls shared with the house.
- jjav 4y ago
  The common alternative is brick and concrete, the only way I had seen houses built before seeing USA houses.

deltarholamda 4y ago

It's a kind of joke among Europeans. The American building material standards are pretty different. It's not without a bit of truth. We do build homes much more cheaply and without the assumption that the home will last 200 years. It's a side effect of massive land resources and cheap material costs that Europe doesn't have. We're also a really new country in comparison, and much of our growth occurred during the rise of the automobile and massive roadworks construction, so building a cheap building fast out in the sticks is not only viable, it's attractive. Long term this is folly, as it depends on cheap energy. But all that said, a properly constructed home from wood studs with plywood sheathing and gypboard internal walls isn't intrinsically shoddy. It's actually very strong and very light, and in large parts of the US, entirely appropriate. Modern engineered wood is amazing stuff.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
Some of it also has to do with seismic activity. Traditional masonry is a very poor choice if you're expecting earthquakes. In Japan (another earthquake-prone area) the classic houses also tended to be lumber and even paper, not masonry, because lightweight materials are less likely to squash you like a bug when the next earthquake comes along. Obviously the Japanese did use masonry for fortifications and suchlike, but not usually for a standard dwelling.
- booi 4y ago
  My understanding is masonry generally has less give and wood buildings can flex in the case of an earthquake. In fact it’s not to code in California to build with masonry without significant steel rebar reinforcement. It’s not necessarily due to the weight although I’m sure it plays a factor
  - xenadu02 4y ago
    This is correct. Wood frame buildings sway and flex during an earthquake. The weight is less important. The problem spots tend to be attachment to the foundation (the building disconnects from the moving ground and starts to skitter around), insufficient beam connections (beams slide off their supporting columns), or support wall collapse. If you live in the Bay Area all of those things are fairly easy to fix - even as a DIY project. Install more concrete anchors in the sill plates, add earthquake rated connections to beams (which were often just toe-nailed), and put plywood on interior garage walls and half height supporting walls which makes those walls much stiffer (old building standards didn't require nearly as much blocking or cross-bracing between studs). As long as a wood stick construction structure stays connected to its foundation and has the smallest bit of strength it can withstand even massive earthquakes without issue.