Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



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.


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.


Have you ever done a mold spore count in your house ? There's a hypothesis that, due to living in stick frame houses, a large part of the American population might be suffering from a low dose chronic mold intoxication which shows up as a heightened state of inflammation.

> 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

I wouldn't be so sure.


In places like Boston there are many 100+ years old stick frame houses. They hold up just fine. Properly built wooden houses don't get any mold.


Very few are properly built, especially in the last decades. Asymptotically to zero.


I have many friends who own houses built in the last 10 to 30 years ago. None of them have any issues with mold.


> None of them have any issues with mold.

... or so you think. Mold contamination is most of the times invisible and triggers long-term chronic intoxication. People only realise there's a problem if the mold starts growing on the walls, at which point it's too late.


Even growing on the walls most people ignore it…

I have family like this.

Prolific recent media example: JK Rowling.


Hold up ≠ remain a healthy place to breathe.

ChangeTheAirFoundation.org


It's funny that people born here don't know about it and I, an European buying a house and asking the workers that came for some initial renovations, found out. The wall guy said he often finds small amounts of mold when he's called to replace drywalls, but owners don't like to be told about it.


100 years is nothing! I mean my local pub, for many years, was built in the 17th century.

This is probably one of the European vs. American divides though.


I am from The Netherlands. Buildings from 19th century and before are incredibly rare. Maybe 1% of the total housing stock. Thanks to bombings in WWII and a rapidly growing population since.

In my current Spanish town I don't know any building older than 1900. Rapid expansion of coastal towns due to European mobility caused that.

It's not really a European vs American divide, it is more country specific than that.

Edit: Ireland apparently has one of the youngest building age in Europe so I guess a 17th century pub is very rare and special there too.


I'm from Italy and buildings from the 19th century are pretty common at the center of the cities. They were rich people's residences and have massively thick walls that make them very comfortable to live in, both because of thermal mass and acoustic isolation. They're mostly used for commercial purpose now, as they're in high demand as office space for lawyers, medical practices. Only rich people can afford living there (in the upper floors).


Thank you for including southeast Asia (and other humid places) in the discussion :)


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.


> 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.


> 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.


I seriously doubt you get sufficiently more earthquakes than, say, Tokio, which is mostly concrete


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/christchur...

https://www.christchurchquakemap.co.nz/february


> 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.


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.


ICF is more resilient to earthquakes than wood frame is, as far as I understand.


> doesn't it rot?!!

It does indeed.

There’s a portion of our populace who accepts waking up tired with flu-like symptoms daily.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: