Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The wonder of modern drywall

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–277 of 277 posts

Re: The wonder of modern drywall

#271

Post by ProllyInfamous »

encom wrote: post #170
ragall wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to break open the wall to fix things The best is to build in such a way as to not have to fix them in the first place. European standards mandate passing all wiring through corrugated tubes. Builders add spare empty ones for future expansion, which makes it unnecessary to open the walls in most cases.

>European standards mandate passing all wiring through corrugated tubes. Incorrect. It's usually done, because it's a good idea, but nobody says you have to.

There are residential jurisdictions within USA that require metal conduit between jboxes (e.g. Chicagoland) — initially more expensive, but much easier to modify/update. Flexible plastic conduit doesn't seem to offer barely any more protection than a standard US NM sheathed cable.

As an electrician of two decades, my commonest USA gripes are these:

•) grounding wires should always have insulation, too (instead of just bare)

•) modern NM isn't protected enough (neither physically nor chemically)

•) jboxes should have better wire anchoring inside, and bigger in general

•) oldwork cut-in jboxes aren't substantial enough even perfectly installed for long-term use (if you screw them to an adjacent stud they're great, but this is against code for grounding reasons).

Re: The wonder of modern drywall

#273

Post by ragall »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #271
encom wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>European standards mandate passing all wiring through corrugated tubes. Incorrect. It's usually done, because it's a good idea, but nobody says you have to.

There are residential jurisdictions within USA that require metal conduit between jboxes (e.g. Chicagoland) — initially more expensive, but much easier to modify/update. Flexible plastic conduit doesn't seem to offer barely any more protection than a standard US NM sheathed cable. As an electrician of two decades, my commonest USA gripes are these: •) grounding wires should always have insulation, too (instead of jus…

The main usefulness of plastic conduits is not protection, but being able to pass new wires without opening the walls.

Re: The wonder of modern drywall

#274

Post by KoftaBob »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #215
KoftaBob wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

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

Re: The wonder of modern drywall

#275

Post by hn_acc1 »

ragall wrote: post #234
quickthrowman wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newer houses can have issues with mold if the HVAC is not designed or operated correctly due to the building envelope being wrapped in a vapor barrier, trapping moisture inside. Most of the housing stock is not from this time period, older houses do not have vapor barriers so they breathe a lot better. All that being said, I’d be skeptical as hell about buying a Lennar or similar tract house built in the last 30 year…

My main point is that modern European houses, if well built, don't need maintenance at all. The expectation if you buy a new house or renovate one, is that you won't have to do any maintenance beyond cleaning the roof gutters, for your lifetime (50 years). No siding to repaint or repair, no roof repairs, no sump pump, if there's a basement (likely not) it's fully built in cement on the sides as well.

And how much more does such a building cost? If it's significantly more than a "stick house", you invest the savings, and in 50 years, tear it down and build another one. Of course, if you had to wait until you're 45 to buy a "good" house, it doesn't matter.

I'm just saying - different people prefer different tradeoffs. My dad was his own GC in W. Germany in the late 60s and built our house. Took him years of working after-hours, etc. Sure, it's still standing. So is the "stick" house built around the same time in Canada that we bought used in the 80s. And the "stick" house I bought in the 00s in CA. Yes, we did the roof back then, and it's probably going to need a new roof soon - probably like 2-3% of the total value of the house. And possibly, putting solar panels on the house reduced it's lifespan. Oh yeah, our neighbors put clay tiles on the roof, which is an option.

Re: The wonder of modern drywall

#277

Post by ragall »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #275
ragall wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main point is that modern European houses, if well built, don't need maintenance at all. The expectation if you buy a new house or renovate one, is that you won't have to do any maintenance beyond cleaning the roof gutters, for your lifetime (50 years). No siding to repaint or repair, no roof repairs, no sump pump, if there's a basement (likely not) it's fully built in cement on the sides as well.

And how much more does such a building cost? If it's significantly more than a "stick house", you invest the savings, and in 50 years, tear it down and build another one. Of course, if you had to wait until you're 45 to buy a "good" house, it doesn't matter. I'm just saying - different people prefer different tradeoffs. My dad was his own GC in W. Germany in the late 60s and built our house. Took him years of working…

> And how much more does such a building cost? If

It costs perhaps 50% more than a stick frame house and preserves its value much better because it's more durable. The house appreciation that people all over North America have been seeing is due to the land, not the building.

> different people prefer different tradeoffs

I don't think that everyone in North America would really prefer stick built, but due to regulations they have no choice and brick is much more expensive than just 50% extra.

Post reply on HN