Hacker News Reader

Comment by nom | Hacker News Reader

> Buildings are just boxes for people which keep the cold/heat/moisture at a comfortable level.

So true. With the knowledge we have now about building materials you could create a very versatile, rigid, energy efficient base structure that lasts > 100 years, and adapt/update the internals to the current needs. You could even change the room layout completely.

I live in Europe and I can't understand why houses in the US are built with wood and drywall. It surely must be cheaper to use bricks/concrete and then renovate it fully every 20 years, or am I wrong here?

View on HN

You are not wrong. However, houses could still be built from wood like the 500 year old houses and churches made with actual timbers. Timber framed houses would use a lot less wood in the long run due to less waste and greater longevity (especially when coupled with bricks and concrete).

Milling large trees down to 2x4s and coupling it to drywall to build homes that don't last is a travesty.

What are you counting as a house that hasn’t lasted? 50 years? 100? The house I am in was built in the 1940’s by the state as an employment and housing scheme for returned servicemen post WW2. It’s wood framed and has a fair few years of life left if cared for.

The bulk of NZ houses are wooden, and have been for its entire history. They are also cold and are often damp, though these problems can be solved with decent building practices.

Concrete and brick are not that desirable in an earthquake prone country.

And yes, milling big old trees is bad. They are now made of treated pine, which comes with its own environmental concerns.

I think that Europeans just are biased against wood frame houses. I've heard this argument over and but a wood frame house can easily last 100+ years with maintenance and owners who care about what happens to it.

OP here. I guess you are right about the bias. I've learned a lot from this thread, thank you!

The funny thing is that Europe some really old wooden buildings. There is a 1200 year old one in Essex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensted_Church

There's a lot of great youtubers out there who document their work in construction. It seems like a subset of contractors/architects/builders are interested in doing "experimental" things and improving the world's understanding of how to build buildings.

This one is about energy efficiency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBOvflXoWlw

I'm really interested in finding more videos like this because his videos go past "Home Depot said this is energy efficient", he instead tests these concepts and apparently works with different colleges that research these ideas.

Properly maintained wood houses are good for 100 years. My house is 70 years old. It required insulation and electrical upgrades, mostly diy, but is otherwise fine. Also, the wood is a carbon sink, vs masonry being a carbon source.

> I live in Europe and I can't understand why houses in the US are built with wood and drywall. It surely must be cheaper to use bricks/concrete and then renovate it fully every 20 years, or am I wrong here?

I would think that renovations are much easier to do, regardless of the time interval between them, with wood and drywall. Drywall can be torn apart with by someone with just their hands; wood may need some cutting, but once in shorter pieces, can often just be yanked. Even a large house can probably be gutted/internally-exposed in a day or two.

With any kind of masonry you have to swing a sledge hammer with a lot of force or bring in jack hammers. Once set, concrete will resist a lot of force against it, which is why it's generally used for slabs and foundations.

It also depends on what you mean by renovate: often changes are in internal layout, so if one uses good design techniques for the shell:

* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...

And floor trusses to reduce/eliminate internal load-bearing walls:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysT3zXkFGB8

It give completely flexibility on what can be done inside the box.

Wood is also fairly cheap and plentiful in North America.

As for drywall: what are the alternatives for internal walls? Lath and plaster?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lath_and_plaster

Some growth in popularity for wood in Europe; some Swiss examples:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlplalGNfFM

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_UjIshzMc

Why would you remove concrete and masonry every 20 years? I don't have much experience with wooden houses, so I don't know if it's the case there.

But in brick houses renovation often means fixing what's broken and adding modern technologies such as insulation. Moving or adding walls can easily become quite a large scale project.

I think he means changing the room layout. In Europe, usually all the walls are 'set in stone'. Using a combination of masonry/concrete for the outer shell and timber/drywall for the internal walls would eliminate this problem though.

Wood is cheaper in North America than it is over there. Also it has some advantages, like being easy and cheap to work with, safer in areas with seismic activity, and it’s renewable.

Wood structures have no issues lasting 100+ years as long as they’re protected from water and termite damage.

On the east coast I’ve lived in plenty of wood houses that were built in the mid 1900s and just renovated every few decades. My last rental was even originally built in 1910. Well built wood frames can last for a long time.

Renovate every 20 years? There are plenty of wood houses that are hundreds of years old and have had minimal renovation to the wood frame.

Yeah if you can keep it dry (take care of roof and siding) and keep termites away they can last a long time. Especially older homes that have sturdier frames (when a 2x4 was really 2x4) built with old growth wood which tends to have tighter grain and therefore more strength.

This is true. Longevity of wood homes varies a lot by location.

California? They last a long time. Deep South? I assume they don’t last as long. Canada? They last a long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com