4 ms·

This sounds like trying to make a big deal out of something that Europe has been doing for years. Sure, these are "cement like" instead of wooden but otherwise

This sounds like trying to make a big deal out of something that Europe has been doing for years. Sure, these are "cement like" instead of wooden but otherwise nothing that interesting here. It is common to overskin these pre-made houses with render or bricks if needed for more protection but most wooden framed houses don't get blown down by high winds in Europe, mostly roofs getting blown off from buildings where they weren't tied down properly.

giantg2 4y ago
Yeah, I'm interested in what "cement like" actually means. It's possible it might not support venere or siding depending on its properties. Hard to say though since their site is down, so I can't get more info.
- peteradio 4y ago
  I'd bet they have a layer of plastic to screw into.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  Based on their construction video, it appears to be styrofoam with a layer of stucco. The problem I have with the video is the fact that they're installing these panels on short, thin little stub walls made of concrete. These have almost zero insulation factor. They basically have a large thermal gap under each wall.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    I don't know how similar this is to Insulating Concrete Forms (ICFs), but I've owned a house constructed that way and it had considerably better insulation than any stick built I've owned.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      It seems this is the inverse of ICF. ICF has the insulation on both sides of the reinforced concrete. This has a thin layer of fiber reinforced concrete on each side of a core of insulation.
      - jqpabc123 4y ago
        Probably high density styrofoam with a fiberglass mesh and stucco. More mesh, glue and stucco is probably applied by hand at the corners and seams. It appears to be basically a styrofoam house --- not nearly as sturdy as ICF.
  - turtlebits 4y ago
    You're never going to have a high R value throughout a whole house, the best you can do is to maximize it where you can. Windows and doors provide very little insulation as well.
    - stdbrouw 4y ago
      But this is a solved problem. You build the base of your wall with glass foam bricks or aerated concrete. Pretty standard these days. Or a partially above-grade basement that can be insulated, as is common in the US.
- femto 4y ago
  Fibre cement (aka 'fibro') https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_cement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_cement
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Used for "cladding" That sounds a little scary. Basically a Styrofoam house with stucco as the other commenter stated.
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      It used to be the most common approach in the United States, because it was so effective, reliable, safe, fire resistant, cheap, and insulating. Then we paniced because it was asbestos. This is just an asbestos replacement. You put a shell outside it for impact resistance. This is a bunch of people loudly misunderstanding a simple evolution in a common technology.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      fibre-cement and stucco are very different. Just like FRP and plastic are very different.
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
- notahacker 4y ago
  I think you're (pretty furiously) talking past the other user. I agree the "cement like" material one of them uses is relatively unusual, but the article also references Boxabl (light gauge steel panel frames with concrete/EPS infill) and Node (timber framed panels) as other cutting edge startups. The material Vantem uses might be novel, the idea of "flat pack homes" referenced in the article isn't, even if building homes out of masonry and timber cut on site is still far more common and greater use of offsite construction has positive sustainability implications It's also very common to skim panel/SFS/module type construction with faux-brick skins or render over here...
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > I just spoke clearly about real world regulations that you happen to be unaware of, and could easily look up Coming from a family of structural engineers (specialising in offsite construction, no less) I'm not sure whether to be more amused by the notion that there exists a Europe-wide ban on the use of prefabricated concrete panels, or that broad claims about building regulations are easy to look up! It is true that many 1960s-era system built structures would no longer be compliant, and that regulations governing things such as insulation of dwellings might make cement panel walls designed to be single-skin suboptimal for many use cases but that is not the same thing as a Europe-wide ban on prefabricated concrete panel systems. There's actually a pretty varied market for them. Perhaps your condescension towards the OP was not fury, but merely an attempt to bolster your apparently weak credentials as an expert in European construction. I recommend you discard that strategy in future :-) > In my opinion, what you did here was to say "your claims don't hold up when someone replaces the thing you were talking about with a different thing." Someone more familiar with European offsite construction techniques would interpret the OP's point that low rise construction from manufactured panels like the three different companies mentioned in TFA (two of which do not involve concrete walls) is not a "hip" novelty in Europe, and that timber-framed panels may incorporate a variety of facade systems used to provide equivalent weather protection to cement-like facades [also similar ease of assembly for the most part]. They are, in fact, very similar approaches to speeding up onsite construction I'm not sure my remarks to that effect involved more reinvention of the original argument than your extended analogies to software and 1950s construction. > But sort of the core concept here is that once it's cement-like, that's no longer necessary Cement like material does not have the aesthetics of brick. Which is the chief reason to prefer a panel with a brick-like cladding instead of a lower cost alternative panel. Which is why brick-like skins have a place in panel wall based construction.

giantg2 4y ago

Yeah, I'm interested in what "cement like" actually means. It's possible it might not support venere or siding depending on its properties. Hard to say though since their site is down, so I can't get more info.

peteradio 4y ago
I'd bet they have a layer of plastic to screw into.
jqpabc123 4y ago
Based on their construction video, it appears to be styrofoam with a layer of stucco. The problem I have with the video is the fact that they're installing these panels on short, thin little stub walls made of concrete. These have almost zero insulation factor. They basically have a large thermal gap under each wall.
- kolanos 4y ago
  I don't know how similar this is to Insulating Concrete Forms (ICFs), but I've owned a house constructed that way and it had considerably better insulation than any stick built I've owned.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    It seems this is the inverse of ICF. ICF has the insulation on both sides of the reinforced concrete. This has a thin layer of fiber reinforced concrete on each side of a core of insulation.
    - jqpabc123 4y ago
      Probably high density styrofoam with a fiberglass mesh and stucco. More mesh, glue and stucco is probably applied by hand at the corners and seams. It appears to be basically a styrofoam house --- not nearly as sturdy as ICF.
- turtlebits 4y ago
  You're never going to have a high R value throughout a whole house, the best you can do is to maximize it where you can. Windows and doors provide very little insulation as well.
  - stdbrouw 4y ago
    But this is a solved problem. You build the base of your wall with glass foam bricks or aerated concrete. Pretty standard these days. Or a partially above-grade basement that can be insulated, as is common in the US.
femto 4y ago
Fibre cement (aka 'fibro') https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_cement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_cement
- giantg2 4y ago
  Used for "cladding" That sounds a little scary. Basically a Styrofoam house with stucco as the other commenter stated.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    It used to be the most common approach in the United States, because it was so effective, reliable, safe, fire resistant, cheap, and insulating. Then we paniced because it was asbestos. This is just an asbestos replacement. You put a shell outside it for impact resistance. This is a bunch of people loudly misunderstanding a simple evolution in a common technology.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    fibre-cement and stucco are very different. Just like FRP and plastic are very different.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

notahacker 4y ago
I think you're (pretty furiously) talking past the other user. I agree the "cement like" material one of them uses is relatively unusual, but the article also references Boxabl (light gauge steel panel frames with concrete/EPS infill) and Node (timber framed panels) as other cutting edge startups. The material Vantem uses might be novel, the idea of "flat pack homes" referenced in the article isn't, even if building homes out of masonry and timber cut on site is still far more common and greater use of offsite construction has positive sustainability implications It's also very common to skim panel/SFS/module type construction with faux-brick skins or render over here...
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > I just spoke clearly about real world regulations that you happen to be unaware of, and could easily look up Coming from a family of structural engineers (specialising in offsite construction, no less) I'm not sure whether to be more amused by the notion that there exists a Europe-wide ban on the use of prefabricated concrete panels, or that broad claims about building regulations are easy to look up! It is true that many 1960s-era system built structures would no longer be compliant, and that regulations governing things such as insulation of dwellings might make cement panel walls designed to be single-skin suboptimal for many use cases but that is not the same thing as a Europe-wide ban on prefabricated concrete panel systems. There's actually a pretty varied market for them. Perhaps your condescension towards the OP was not fury, but merely an attempt to bolster your apparently weak credentials as an expert in European construction. I recommend you discard that strategy in future :-) > In my opinion, what you did here was to say "your claims don't hold up when someone replaces the thing you were talking about with a different thing." Someone more familiar with European offsite construction techniques would interpret the OP's point that low rise construction from manufactured panels like the three different companies mentioned in TFA (two of which do not involve concrete walls) is not a "hip" novelty in Europe, and that timber-framed panels may incorporate a variety of facade systems used to provide equivalent weather protection to cement-like facades [also similar ease of assembly for the most part]. They are, in fact, very similar approaches to speeding up onsite construction I'm not sure my remarks to that effect involved more reinvention of the original argument than your extended analogies to software and 1950s construction. > But sort of the core concept here is that once it's cement-like, that's no longer necessary Cement like material does not have the aesthetics of brick. Which is the chief reason to prefer a panel with a brick-like cladding instead of a lower cost alternative panel. Which is why brick-like skins have a place in panel wall based construction.