5 ms·

As a German I always found North American houses and their drywall and wood constructions incredibly odd. It always felt flimsy to me. From my experience we jus

As a German I always found North American houses and their drywall and wood constructions incredibly odd. It always felt flimsy to me. From my experience we just started using drywall for some interior walls on some newly built homes. But throughout my life I was used to very massive walls. I recently saw some house building videos and it is somehow fascinating how different the building materials and methodologies are. North America obviously made it work, but still very odd to me.

rootusrootus 8mo ago
I think it's just what you get used to. Every method has ups and downs. And different regions are going to gravitate to different materials based on availability (for example, my Indian coworkers just cannot fathom why we would ever build houses from trees instead of reinforced concrete; doesn't it rot?!!). I don't think of the walls as especially flimsy, though. Built correctly, they are totally fine. Yes you can punch a hole in one if you are sufficiently motivated (and you better miss the stud...), but the only times I've ever punched any hole in drywall it was because the door stop was removed for whatever reason and a dumb teenager threw the door open with no regard for propriety. At least drywall is trivial to fix.
- BadBadJellyBean 8mo ago
  > Yes you can punch a hole in one if you are sufficiently motivated This is what I meant with "flimsy". If I hit my wall my hand breaks. But as I said It seems to work. I am just used to the massive nature of our houses and I admit a part of me prefers it that way but I don't think it's the one true way.
- lostlogin 8mo ago
  > why we would ever build houses from trees instead of reinforced concrete Earthquakes are a factor where we are, but also, if NZ can find a way to do something cheaper, we will always do it. Quality be damned.
  - usrnm 8mo ago
    I seriously doubt you get sufficiently more earthquakes than, say, Tokio, which is mostly concrete
    - lostlogin 8mo ago
      Christchurch would give it a run for its money. It’s down to every few days now but it was almost by the minute for a while there. Have a look at that second link, and skip to 22.2.2011. At an about 12.51 it goes wild, and it lasted for years. It’s still shaking now. https://earthquakelist.org/new-zealand/canterbury/christchurch/ https://earthquakelist.org/new-zealand/canterbury/christchur... https://www.christchurchquakemap.co.nz/february https://www.christchurchquakemap.co.nz/february
- ragall 8mo ago
  Stick frame buildings are prone to dry rot, very susceptible to molding, and the addition of drywalls* make them objectively inferior for any building that's expected to last more than ~40-50 years. It used to be, 100 years ago, that the big cities like NYC, Chicago, Cincinnati, etc... were so dynamic that entire neighbourhoods were expected to be rebuilt every ~50 years or so. That's no longer the case. Over a lifespan of 100+ years that's very well expected in the US given that cities aren't growing much any more and infill has been made almost illegal in most places, using long-lasting materials and techniques like in Germany becomes a lot cheaper, and more convenient. It always surprises my US colleagues when I told them that in 20 years living in the house I grew up in, the only thing that ever broke were once the roof gutters due to very heavy rain. Otherwise, houses are expected to just go on and maybe need repairs every 50-60 years. * drywalls are inherently sensitive to humidity, which makes it necessary to cover them with wall paint which is essentially a waterproof layer of plastic, which makes it not breathable and thus drywalls develop mold rather easily (even worse, it's often invisible mold). In contrast, walls made of stone, cement or brick (or a mix thereof) and covered in stucco are breathable and much more resilient to humidity and mold issues.
  - yowayb 8mo ago
    Thank you for including southeast Asia (and other humid places) in the discussion :)
    - ragall 8mo ago
      I'm not familiar with life in SE Asia. All I know is I've been to Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the levels of humidity were gruesome. I once wanted to bring a leather bag as a gift to a friend in Taiwan and he asked not to bother because it will likely get moldy.
  - rootusrootus 8mo ago
    I may be biased, because I live in a city filled with houses over 100 years old, and we get incessant rain. They seem to hold up fine. Not sure how long they’ll last but there hasn’t been any push to replace them.
- KoftaBob 8mo ago
  > cannot fathom why we would ever build houses from trees instead of reinforced concrete Steel-reinforced ICF (Insulated Concrete Form) has become a much more common frame material for homes in the US, especially in the hurricane-prone southeast.
  - jandrewrogers 8mo ago
    The deep southeast has the advantage of being one of the few regions in the US without a known major earthquake risk. It makes a lot of sense to use concrete there given the other natural hazards. The closest major earthquake zone is in South Carolina, which had M7+ earthquakes as recently as the late 19th century. Given how prevalent strong earthquakes are across most of the US, I always wonder if the few areas on the map without a known seismic hazard means we just haven't discovered it yet.
    - KoftaBob 8mo ago
      ICF is more resilient to earthquakes than wood frame is, as far as I understand.
- DANmode 8mo ago
  > doesn't it rot?!! It does indeed. There’s a portion of our populace who accepts waking up tired with flu-like symptoms daily.
pibaker 8mo ago
I suspect the prevalence of "flimsy" wood and drywall constructions to be part of the reason why Americans dislike apartment living. They provide little sound insulation, are prone to water damage, have a shorter lifespan than the average person and once they catch fire they burn the entire thing down. Concrete or brick buildings are much nicer to live in, but expensive, so they are not very common among new constructions.
- glitchc 8mo ago
  Actually apartment buildings are mostly concrete. Strip away finishings like cabinets, drywall and flooring from a unit, and what's left is a concrete cell. Sometimes separating walls within a unit are wood based but that's rare too.
  - rkomorn 8mo ago
    I think you and OP just have different definitions for "apartment building". I've lived in pretty large buildings (eg dozens of units and four floors high) that were largely made of wood in both the northeast of the US and California. They aren't high-rise buildings but I wouldn't argue they aren't apartment buildings, and they're far from uncommon.
    - lmz 8mo ago
      AKA the 5-over-1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
      - rkomorn 8mo ago
        Didn't know those had a name but that only applies to half the wood frame buildings I lived in. The other ones had no "1" (I assume the foundation/slab was concrete though).
    - glitchc 8mo ago
      Yeah I was thinking mainly of condo towers in cities, which I normally associate with apartment buildings. California has different rules due to high earthquake frequency. It's hard to generalize elsewhere.
UltraSane 8mo ago
The way houses are built and what materials are used is very location specific do to climate and economics. North America has oodles of land to grow wood on. When you have cheap nails and screws wood is a FANTASTIC material to make houses out of and not flimsy at all when designed correctly. Europe used to make houses out of wood until they cut down all of their forests. Wood and drywall construction has the advantage of being fast to build and easy to remodel. I personally like houses that use Insulated Concrete Forms for the exterior walls.
scottscambaugh 8mo ago
[dead]
briHass 8mo ago
Drywall gets maligned, but it is a pretty remarkable building material. Inexpensive, easy to fix/finish, and very fire-resistant, especially for its weight. The timber-stud and drywall model also works well for the modern world, where layout preferences and in-wall technology changes often. It was only about 20-25 years ago where having POTS lines/jacks in multiple rooms was cool, and now they're mostly useless.
- bravoetch 8mo ago
  My home, built in 2011, has 36 ethernet ports throughout the house. Some in closets, some above the trim, some where a TV would be mounted. The TV mount areas also have conduit specifically for HDMI and other cords. And there's speakers and speaker wire going all over the house. All of it terminates in the garage at a single panel. It's mostly unused. I have PoE wifi access points around the house. And the sound system I hardly use.
whartung 8mo ago
I live in rock and rolling California, and we love our stick framed houses. They’re very resilient to the tremblors that plague us. Yea, if we’re hit hard enough, the stucco may or drywall may crack, but, big picture, those are cheap cosmetic fixes compared to anything more structural being damaged. Back during the Northridge quake, my friend was buying a second floor condo in Santa Monica (which was hit pretty hard). It resulted in several drywall cracks, but nothing worse than that. Even better, the closing day was scheduled for the day after the quake.
woodpanel 8mo ago
As a German I have to admit we are culturally odd with this. Our houses are way too over constructed and the dry-wall stigma here is just one aspect of it, wood construction stigma is another. It thus is no wonder that Americans have way more affordable housing. Those stigmas are also odd for most of our heritage-like old towns that are full of still-intact "Fachwerk"-Wooden-Constructions - which basically use the same technique, should give us a hint or two. Also wooden constructions do allow to comply with our ever climbing ecology standards, without complicated venting mechanisms to keep mold out (as you need for stone). Those two stigmas are also odd, given, that drywall and wooden construction sectors are actually huge in Germany. Knauf is one of the worlds largest companies in the wallboard sector.
- BadBadJellyBean 8mo ago
  Stein auf Stein, Brick on Brick. It's what makes the German feel safe. It will last forever. I will break everything but the walls if I hit them. I need heavy machinery to put a screw into the wall. It feels right for the German. Wooden houses are for eccentric people with too much money for a disposable house. As much as I don't want to be a stereotypical German thick walls feel right to me. But I honestly don't think that our building style is the true one. It is just what I am used to.
  - woodpanel 8mo ago
    I completely agree, I felt the same. It's a cultural thing. But its almost funny once you've broaden your horizon.
- ragall 8mo ago
  > Our houses are way too over constructed They're not. The long-term reduction in maintenance costs more than make up for it. Tell a German that the "normal" North-American "common sense" is saving 1-2% of the house value every year for repairs and you'll be considered a madman. > and the dry-wall stigma here is just one aspect of it, wood construction stigma is another Both stigmas are very well justified.
  - 8mo ago
hn_acc1 8mo ago
For a while in the 90s, a friend from Canada went to Germany and started building NA style houses (wood frame, drywall) in Germany. People loved that it could be finished in 3 months instead of 9-12 and cost 1/3 less, IIRC.
- ragall 8mo ago
  They're happy until the long-term effects hit them, as stick frame houses need repairs a lot more often. Nowadays, European companies have developed many modular building techniques that have reduced the labor considerably, from robots that 3D-print concrete walls, to LEGO-like hollow bricks.
  - maxerickson 8mo ago
    I am sitting here in a 100+ year old stick frame house. The siding and shingles were replaced 10 years ago. There hasn't been any major structural work for at least 40 years. What is your definition of "often"?
    - ragall 8mo ago
      Most houses have asphalt shingles with an expected lifetime of ~15 years after which they start leaking and subject the house to the risk of mold. Contrast with ceramic tile shingles which easily last 75-100 years. Of course you might say that durable materials exist in North America, but almost nobody chooses them. The likelihood of being able to move somewhere and be able to buy a modern durable house is ~0% in NA, and 30-90% in Europe depending on country and location. So you can do it in NA if you have enough money to rebuild a house. Good luck with that.
      - aidenn0 8mo ago
        Ceramic tiles only last until a worker goes on the roof and breaks one. In the US, contractors routinely require you to release them from liability of any damage to ceramic tile shingles. Pest fumigation becomes much more of a pain. That being said, if you want them, you can get them (this is how I know the above), and you can get other options. All of this is orthogonal to stick-frame construction. I've seen copper-roofs on stick-framed buildings even.
nkrisc 8mo ago
Flimsy? No. I mean they won't survive a tornado, but homes aren't usually built with surviving a direct tornado hit in mind. Sure it's not as strong as brick or concrete blocks, but it's strong enough for normal, every day use. Where it does pale in comparison is hanging heavy objects on the wall. You do need to secure heavy loads to a stud, instead of just drilling and anchoring anywhere in the wall. However what it lacks there it more than makes up for in ease of routing low-voltage cables in an existing home. Also, if I really wanted it, I could knock out almost all of my interior walls and completely change the layout of my home. Not something you do on a whim, but you can absolutely do so when renovating a home.
JKCalhoun 8mo ago
I have heard (from a German co-worker) that you tend to double-up the drywall. Sheets go on vertically, then a second layer horizontally to double the thickness—improve soundproofing.
sorenjan 8mo ago
Wood and drywall is how most houses in Sweden are built as well. Here's a timelapse of a Swedish house being built: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSm0Zw00Cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSm0Zw00Cs
- timc3 8mo ago
  The drywall wall is stronger, heavier thicker stuff and sometimes doubled up. We also often use steel work as the studs (particularly good professionals) as it’s stronger and faster than wood to put up. Then all the wiring is in conduits, and it’s acceptable to put water feeds on the outside of walls in the room for servicing. Then it comes to our bathrooms which are proper wet rooms and usually built to a very high standard to meet insurance needs. I watch a lot of building videos from the US, it’s eyeopening watching for someone used to better construction methods. The construction of UK inner walls is even better, it”s often plaster applied on plasterboard/drywall usually by skilled trades. Very strong.
  - quickthrowman 8mo ago
    Running conduit for electrical wiring in a house is a huge waste of labor and material. PVC insulation and a nylon jacket is just fine for 2.5mm^2 (#14AWG) conductors, which is what 90% of the wiring in a house will be. The only place that conduit is mandatory in residences in the US is Chicago. Hell, most office buildouts in the US use very minimal amounts of conduit, most of the lightning and receptacle branch circuits are metal-clad cable (MC cable).
jimnotgym 8mo ago
I left the building trade in the UK about 20 years ago. The UK is a damp place! We built one-off- houses. We built exclusively with 'brick and block'. Brick outside (to take the weather), cavity and block inside. Downstairs walls were block. Upstairs walls were studding, unless blocks were required to go up to support roof purlins. The blocks inside were normally 'dry lined', sheets of 'plasterboard' (what we call drywall) 'dabbed' to the blocks with a plaster-like adhesive. Often these were 'Thermal boards', plasterboard laminated to urethane insulation foam. Plasterboard was always 'skimmed', plastered over with a plaster designed for this. The drying time is much lower than 'wet plastering' on the blocks. On big spec built sites they were using prefab timber frames instead of blocks for the inner wall. Then they would plasterboard, and just fill the joints (no skimming). This is always considered a lower spec than skimmed walls.

rootusrootus 8mo ago

I think it's just what you get used to. Every method has ups and downs. And different regions are going to gravitate to different materials based on availability (for example, my Indian coworkers just cannot fathom why we would ever build houses from trees instead of reinforced concrete; doesn't it rot?!!). I don't think of the walls as especially flimsy, though. Built correctly, they are totally fine. Yes you can punch a hole in one if you are sufficiently motivated (and you better miss the stud...), but the only times I've ever punched any hole in drywall it was because the door stop was removed for whatever reason and a dumb teenager threw the door open with no regard for propriety. At least drywall is trivial to fix.

BadBadJellyBean 8mo ago
> Yes you can punch a hole in one if you are sufficiently motivated This is what I meant with "flimsy". If I hit my wall my hand breaks. But as I said It seems to work. I am just used to the massive nature of our houses and I admit a part of me prefers it that way but I don't think it's the one true way.
lostlogin 8mo ago
> why we would ever build houses from trees instead of reinforced concrete Earthquakes are a factor where we are, but also, if NZ can find a way to do something cheaper, we will always do it. Quality be damned.
- usrnm 8mo ago
  I seriously doubt you get sufficiently more earthquakes than, say, Tokio, which is mostly concrete
  - lostlogin 8mo ago
    Christchurch would give it a run for its money. It’s down to every few days now but it was almost by the minute for a while there. Have a look at that second link, and skip to 22.2.2011. At an about 12.51 it goes wild, and it lasted for years. It’s still shaking now. https://earthquakelist.org/new-zealand/canterbury/christchurch/ https://earthquakelist.org/new-zealand/canterbury/christchur... https://www.christchurchquakemap.co.nz/february https://www.christchurchquakemap.co.nz/february
ragall 8mo ago
Stick frame buildings are prone to dry rot, very susceptible to molding, and the addition of drywalls* make them objectively inferior for any building that's expected to last more than ~40-50 years. It used to be, 100 years ago, that the big cities like NYC, Chicago, Cincinnati, etc... were so dynamic that entire neighbourhoods were expected to be rebuilt every ~50 years or so. That's no longer the case. Over a lifespan of 100+ years that's very well expected in the US given that cities aren't growing much any more and infill has been made almost illegal in most places, using long-lasting materials and techniques like in Germany becomes a lot cheaper, and more convenient. It always surprises my US colleagues when I told them that in 20 years living in the house I grew up in, the only thing that ever broke were once the roof gutters due to very heavy rain. Otherwise, houses are expected to just go on and maybe need repairs every 50-60 years. * drywalls are inherently sensitive to humidity, which makes it necessary to cover them with wall paint which is essentially a waterproof layer of plastic, which makes it not breathable and thus drywalls develop mold rather easily (even worse, it's often invisible mold). In contrast, walls made of stone, cement or brick (or a mix thereof) and covered in stucco are breathable and much more resilient to humidity and mold issues.
- yowayb 8mo ago
  Thank you for including southeast Asia (and other humid places) in the discussion :)
  - ragall 8mo ago
    I'm not familiar with life in SE Asia. All I know is I've been to Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the levels of humidity were gruesome. I once wanted to bring a leather bag as a gift to a friend in Taiwan and he asked not to bother because it will likely get moldy.
- rootusrootus 8mo ago
  I may be biased, because I live in a city filled with houses over 100 years old, and we get incessant rain. They seem to hold up fine. Not sure how long they’ll last but there hasn’t been any push to replace them.
KoftaBob 8mo ago
> cannot fathom why we would ever build houses from trees instead of reinforced concrete Steel-reinforced ICF (Insulated Concrete Form) has become a much more common frame material for homes in the US, especially in the hurricane-prone southeast.
- jandrewrogers 8mo ago
  The deep southeast has the advantage of being one of the few regions in the US without a known major earthquake risk. It makes a lot of sense to use concrete there given the other natural hazards. The closest major earthquake zone is in South Carolina, which had M7+ earthquakes as recently as the late 19th century. Given how prevalent strong earthquakes are across most of the US, I always wonder if the few areas on the map without a known seismic hazard means we just haven't discovered it yet.
  - KoftaBob 8mo ago
    ICF is more resilient to earthquakes than wood frame is, as far as I understand.
DANmode 8mo ago
> doesn't it rot?!! It does indeed. There’s a portion of our populace who accepts waking up tired with flu-like symptoms daily.

pibaker 8mo ago

I suspect the prevalence of "flimsy" wood and drywall constructions to be part of the reason why Americans dislike apartment living. They provide little sound insulation, are prone to water damage, have a shorter lifespan than the average person and once they catch fire they burn the entire thing down. Concrete or brick buildings are much nicer to live in, but expensive, so they are not very common among new constructions.

glitchc 8mo ago
Actually apartment buildings are mostly concrete. Strip away finishings like cabinets, drywall and flooring from a unit, and what's left is a concrete cell. Sometimes separating walls within a unit are wood based but that's rare too.
- rkomorn 8mo ago
  I think you and OP just have different definitions for "apartment building". I've lived in pretty large buildings (eg dozens of units and four floors high) that were largely made of wood in both the northeast of the US and California. They aren't high-rise buildings but I wouldn't argue they aren't apartment buildings, and they're far from uncommon.
  - lmz 8mo ago
    AKA the 5-over-1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
    - rkomorn 8mo ago
      Didn't know those had a name but that only applies to half the wood frame buildings I lived in. The other ones had no "1" (I assume the foundation/slab was concrete though).
  - glitchc 8mo ago
    Yeah I was thinking mainly of condo towers in cities, which I normally associate with apartment buildings. California has different rules due to high earthquake frequency. It's hard to generalize elsewhere.

UltraSane 8mo ago

The way houses are built and what materials are used is very location specific do to climate and economics. North America has oodles of land to grow wood on. When you have cheap nails and screws wood is a FANTASTIC material to make houses out of and not flimsy at all when designed correctly. Europe used to make houses out of wood until they cut down all of their forests. Wood and drywall construction has the advantage of being fast to build and easy to remodel. I personally like houses that use Insulated Concrete Forms for the exterior walls.

scottscambaugh 8mo ago

[dead]

briHass 8mo ago

Drywall gets maligned, but it is a pretty remarkable building material. Inexpensive, easy to fix/finish, and very fire-resistant, especially for its weight. The timber-stud and drywall model also works well for the modern world, where layout preferences and in-wall technology changes often. It was only about 20-25 years ago where having POTS lines/jacks in multiple rooms was cool, and now they're mostly useless.

bravoetch 8mo ago
My home, built in 2011, has 36 ethernet ports throughout the house. Some in closets, some above the trim, some where a TV would be mounted. The TV mount areas also have conduit specifically for HDMI and other cords. And there's speakers and speaker wire going all over the house. All of it terminates in the garage at a single panel. It's mostly unused. I have PoE wifi access points around the house. And the sound system I hardly use.

whartung 8mo ago

I live in rock and rolling California, and we love our stick framed houses. They’re very resilient to the tremblors that plague us. Yea, if we’re hit hard enough, the stucco may or drywall may crack, but, big picture, those are cheap cosmetic fixes compared to anything more structural being damaged. Back during the Northridge quake, my friend was buying a second floor condo in Santa Monica (which was hit pretty hard). It resulted in several drywall cracks, but nothing worse than that. Even better, the closing day was scheduled for the day after the quake.

woodpanel 8mo ago

As a German I have to admit we are culturally odd with this. Our houses are way too over constructed and the dry-wall stigma here is just one aspect of it, wood construction stigma is another. It thus is no wonder that Americans have way more affordable housing. Those stigmas are also odd for most of our heritage-like old towns that are full of still-intact "Fachwerk"-Wooden-Constructions - which basically use the same technique, should give us a hint or two. Also wooden constructions do allow to comply with our ever climbing ecology standards, without complicated venting mechanisms to keep mold out (as you need for stone). Those two stigmas are also odd, given, that drywall and wooden construction sectors are actually huge in Germany. Knauf is one of the worlds largest companies in the wallboard sector.

BadBadJellyBean 8mo ago
Stein auf Stein, Brick on Brick. It's what makes the German feel safe. It will last forever. I will break everything but the walls if I hit them. I need heavy machinery to put a screw into the wall. It feels right for the German. Wooden houses are for eccentric people with too much money for a disposable house. As much as I don't want to be a stereotypical German thick walls feel right to me. But I honestly don't think that our building style is the true one. It is just what I am used to.
- woodpanel 8mo ago
  I completely agree, I felt the same. It's a cultural thing. But its almost funny once you've broaden your horizon.
ragall 8mo ago
> Our houses are way too over constructed They're not. The long-term reduction in maintenance costs more than make up for it. Tell a German that the "normal" North-American "common sense" is saving 1-2% of the house value every year for repairs and you'll be considered a madman. > and the dry-wall stigma here is just one aspect of it, wood construction stigma is another Both stigmas are very well justified.
- 8mo ago

hn_acc1 8mo ago

For a while in the 90s, a friend from Canada went to Germany and started building NA style houses (wood frame, drywall) in Germany. People loved that it could be finished in 3 months instead of 9-12 and cost 1/3 less, IIRC.

ragall 8mo ago
They're happy until the long-term effects hit them, as stick frame houses need repairs a lot more often. Nowadays, European companies have developed many modular building techniques that have reduced the labor considerably, from robots that 3D-print concrete walls, to LEGO-like hollow bricks.
- maxerickson 8mo ago
  I am sitting here in a 100+ year old stick frame house. The siding and shingles were replaced 10 years ago. There hasn't been any major structural work for at least 40 years. What is your definition of "often"?
  - ragall 8mo ago
    Most houses have asphalt shingles with an expected lifetime of ~15 years after which they start leaking and subject the house to the risk of mold. Contrast with ceramic tile shingles which easily last 75-100 years. Of course you might say that durable materials exist in North America, but almost nobody chooses them. The likelihood of being able to move somewhere and be able to buy a modern durable house is ~0% in NA, and 30-90% in Europe depending on country and location. So you can do it in NA if you have enough money to rebuild a house. Good luck with that.
    - aidenn0 8mo ago
      Ceramic tiles only last until a worker goes on the roof and breaks one. In the US, contractors routinely require you to release them from liability of any damage to ceramic tile shingles. Pest fumigation becomes much more of a pain. That being said, if you want them, you can get them (this is how I know the above), and you can get other options. All of this is orthogonal to stick-frame construction. I've seen copper-roofs on stick-framed buildings even.

nkrisc 8mo ago

Flimsy? No. I mean they won't survive a tornado, but homes aren't usually built with surviving a direct tornado hit in mind. Sure it's not as strong as brick or concrete blocks, but it's strong enough for normal, every day use. Where it does pale in comparison is hanging heavy objects on the wall. You do need to secure heavy loads to a stud, instead of just drilling and anchoring anywhere in the wall. However what it lacks there it more than makes up for in ease of routing low-voltage cables in an existing home. Also, if I really wanted it, I could knock out almost all of my interior walls and completely change the layout of my home. Not something you do on a whim, but you can absolutely do so when renovating a home.

JKCalhoun 8mo ago

I have heard (from a German co-worker) that you tend to double-up the drywall. Sheets go on vertically, then a second layer horizontally to double the thickness—improve soundproofing.

sorenjan 8mo ago

Wood and drywall is how most houses in Sweden are built as well. Here's a timelapse of a Swedish house being built: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSm0Zw00Cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSm0Zw00Cs

timc3 8mo ago
The drywall wall is stronger, heavier thicker stuff and sometimes doubled up. We also often use steel work as the studs (particularly good professionals) as it’s stronger and faster than wood to put up. Then all the wiring is in conduits, and it’s acceptable to put water feeds on the outside of walls in the room for servicing. Then it comes to our bathrooms which are proper wet rooms and usually built to a very high standard to meet insurance needs. I watch a lot of building videos from the US, it’s eyeopening watching for someone used to better construction methods. The construction of UK inner walls is even better, it”s often plaster applied on plasterboard/drywall usually by skilled trades. Very strong.
- quickthrowman 8mo ago
  Running conduit for electrical wiring in a house is a huge waste of labor and material. PVC insulation and a nylon jacket is just fine for 2.5mm^2 (#14AWG) conductors, which is what 90% of the wiring in a house will be. The only place that conduit is mandatory in residences in the US is Chicago. Hell, most office buildouts in the US use very minimal amounts of conduit, most of the lightning and receptacle branch circuits are metal-clad cable (MC cable).

jimnotgym 8mo ago

I left the building trade in the UK about 20 years ago. The UK is a damp place! We built one-off- houses. We built exclusively with 'brick and block'. Brick outside (to take the weather), cavity and block inside. Downstairs walls were block. Upstairs walls were studding, unless blocks were required to go up to support roof purlins. The blocks inside were normally 'dry lined', sheets of 'plasterboard' (what we call drywall) 'dabbed' to the blocks with a plaster-like adhesive. Often these were 'Thermal boards', plasterboard laminated to urethane insulation foam. Plasterboard was always 'skimmed', plastered over with a plaster designed for this. The drying time is much lower than 'wet plastering' on the blocks. On big spec built sites they were using prefab timber frames instead of blocks for the inner wall. Then they would plasterboard, and just fill the joints (no skimming). This is always considered a lower spec than skimmed walls.