Process improvement in manufacturing and construction: Duco vs. Drywall
constructionphysics.substack.com
constructionphysics.substack.com
One could imagine a 'panel' system (like old school wood panels) that could be removed and replaced, but that would involve seams and fasteners that would need to be visible at all times. Even with wood panels or, let's say, plywood sheets, hidden fasteners would mean you're likely to damage the finish when removing it. Not to mention that it would require a regular pattern to (somewhat) conceal the seams of pieces.
Drywall, on the other hand, is almost a perfect compromise. It's extremely inexpensive, very fire resistant, and with some practice, it can be installed and/or patched with simple tools to make seams almost imperceivable. What it trades in durability and strength vs something like L&P, it more than makes up for in ease of repairs.
And indeed there is no better general alternative for the drywall. If you replace it with any other solution like MDF, plywood, etc. the repair process will be still the same - paper, mud, paint. But the material will cost you much more. And those materials are harder to cut, you'll definitely need to use a saw instead of a knife.
Probably I have an unconventional taste but I would not mind visible fasteners at all (if they look neat i. e. not at irregular intervals/angles/depth). Moreover I perceive what would be considered an ideal drywall (flat, smooth surface) to be an imitation of brick/stone wall covered by plaster, like jewellery made from plastic with 'gold' paint - looks similar to gold but at closer look you can see that it is not the one.
20" box fan with a decent air filter https://www.lasko.com/products/air-flex-air-purifier-and-roo...
Rigid shop vac https://www.ridgid.com/us/en/12-gallon-nxt-wet-dry-vac
Accompanying air filter kit https://www.ridgid.com/us/en/osha-filtration
Rotozip drywall bits https://www.rotozip.com/en_US/web/rotozip/tool-detail/-/roto...
I use a Milwaukee rotary tool with the Rotozip bits, but a lot of brands make equivalent power tools that are all essentially the same. The rotary tool embodies a big reason why I dislike drywall - the dust. The rotary tool fills the air with an incredible amount of dust, so I only ever use it with the Rigid vacuum in the other hand as close as possible to the cut. It is also loud and hard to control, but the advantage is unparalleled safety while cutting into the wall. It won't nick wires, and it won't cut into wood studs. When trying to cut along the edge of a stud, the rotary tool is how I start each cut.
I'm also working out a pretty good technique for running wire through notched wall studs behind drywall. I haven't tested it fully, but it basically combines both of these techniques:
I tried a rotozip once but never again, they are just too loud and messy.
The real deal is to learn how to mud and sand well and then never patch a hole - just cut it back to the studs and redrywall.
The finish level is housing almost always implies using some product that is mixed with water for the finish level: drywall mud, cement, thinset, etc. The maintainability of these surfaces is key. It certainly is a natural maxima: cheap and easily workable. Even if the wall surface is really bad you can easily apply a skim coat and your wall looks new. What the article didn't touch on is that there certainly is room here for automation at scale: the process of installing many panels, taping, mudding, etc does require skill. There are videos out there of robots doing this work but not sure if it competes with a crew of skilled workers.
I don't find the finish on cars to have this same kind of maintainability. Fixing / matching paint on a car is hard for me.
My parents had a sliding glass door put in their bedroom and they chose to have the opening unfinished for some reason. I happened to come by and got to show them how to match up the edges because the original home builders were apparently opposed to having straight walls, took like 20 minutes and saved them some money.
Learned this stuff when I was living with my father as a teenager and he was doing general construction projects (badly).
A homeowner, or anyone working on a small scope project can just have nearly no skill and throw tons of time at the problem to compensate. This applies to a lot of things in life.
When we build our house they had an option for "smooth" instead of textured walls (which they spray on). The smooth option was about 10k more, because of the finishing work required. Go figure.
I'm still not sure what I think of it. On one hand, it looks beautiful and has a nice texture, but it just always, always cracks, sooner or later.
Ceilings are usually plasterboard in most modern homes in the UK, rather than the lath-and-plaster used in older buildings, ain't nobody got time for that :)
To be honest, I'm not sure why we do this, but it makes for a far more durable finish than just drywall.
Still a few people out there, e.g. US trade association dedicated to the craft of plaster and drywall, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32991963 plus some books, https://www.wconline.com/products/547-plaster-and-drywall-as... & https://icontractor.net/products/plastering-skills
I've not been able to find a painter to exact match my texture. Close? Definitely. But I still stare at it at times, it nagging at me with its subtle differences.
As far as I know, no. But the brick most used here is a lightweight perforated brick (a quick web search found a site with some pictures: https://portalvidalivre.com/articles/949), and I believe the air trapped within it does have some insulating properties.
> It requires more planning for passing electical and plumbing conduits.
Not as much as you'd think. The way I've seen it done is: first you put the bricks as normal, then you dig a trench in it for the conduit, put the conduit, and fill the rest of the hole with brick fragments and mortar.
For another contrasting example, I have a friend that moved to Germany and found out, like many Americans that have moved there, that you need a totally different skillset to install things into the wall. It's very common in Berlin to live in apartments where the walls are made of concrete. I helped her install a few light fixtures on a visit and boy did I wish I was dealing with mudded brick or drywall.
Air conditioning is becoming more and more common, but the same kind of brick wall with mortar was already used back when ceiling fans were the most common cooling mechanism.
1. Labour vs material cost, increasingly it's cheaper to drywall rather than render/plaster a wall. It's quicker, therefore if Labour is expensive, it works out cheaper. When you also look at running services the gap behind the drywall is useful and saves masses of time.
2. Insulation, both thermal and sound. The small air gap behind the drywall forms an additional layer of insulation.
I lived in a condo that used steel mesh for backing material. The WiFi signal could barely make it through a single wall of that place.
though most web results for the etymological origin for 'made from scratch' point to 'scratch' being the starting line of a footrace
This doesn't refer to "made from scratch" interestingly.
Made from scratch came along later, picking up from the usage of this word.
What I'd like to know is where "Old Scratch", aka the devil came from.
They have something else common that the author didn't mention - imperfections.
I worked on custom homes with my dad growing up, and some customers demanded "triple perfect" work. Any wall can look smooth with lights pointed straight at it, or with diffuse lighting. Most walls look really bumpy when you shine a light down the wall. During construction, you are working with natural light. The customer sees the home after overhead lights are installed and after blinds and shutters are put in. This completely changes which imperfections are visible. Small scratches become pronounced; changes in texture show up. Customers can see ALL of your work. Who knows if the electrician has some half-tight wire nuts? But we all know when the drywall is bad.
Another thing drywall and automotive paint have in common: Repairs have a 50/50 chance of making things better. Automotive paint repair in this case being during the OEM process, not a collision repair. Collision repairs have a 0% chance of looking exactly like OEM paint.
Small imperfections may be fixed or covered up, but you have to skip back several steps in the process.
For drywall, if you are fixing scratches, you just have to disrupt part of the texture and paint. If you are fixing a lumpy butt joint (seam), then you have to disrupt a large area of texture and paint. The repaired texture may not match - air flow in the texture gun, humidity, exact proportions of the texture mix, temperature - will all be different. Paint has a different pore structure and dries differently on texture vs paint. This often affects the specular look of the paint.
For automotive paint, much of the same applies. Humidity, paint mix, metallic or mica mix, temperature all play a role. As well, for a repair, you are not painting primer, you are painting paint. It's very hard to match edges, so often whole body panels or even the whole vehicle is repainted. For the paint process I'm familiar with, you only get 2 tries to fix any large problems - the vehicle has to go through the oven again for each repair, and too many passes puts you out of compliance for the paint and adhesives.
====
Anyway, how to replace drywall? I don't see it happening on a large scale. I think drywall can definitely be improved, but even for most of the replacements listed drywall will be installed under the product listed. For instance, MDF does not meet fire code. Anything that uses adhesives instead of screws is MUCH harder to repair.
Some things to ponder for replacements:
- Fire code
- Speed of install
- Look and feel
- Ease of repair ( you may not like drywall repair costs, but they're nothing compared to other products)
- Ease of demolition
- Toxicity/outgassing