this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
512 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
85333 readers
4441 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Americans deserve shit for a lot that's going on right now, but the "they build houses out of cardboard and sticks" thing has never been exclusive to America. Also, there are plenty of drawbacks to building houses out of bricks and concrete.
You are correct but the stereotype has a point - something like 90% of houses in the US have wood frames. What's wrong about the stereotype is the implication that wood framing is outright worse than brick as you alluded.
The two biggest factors are speed and cost. Unlike most of the world, the US expanded wide and fast. And also unlike most of the world, the US has an insane amount of forest (even more before colonization). Wood framing has come a long way since then and a well-built house is incredibly strong.
Europe had to build out housing extremely fast after WWII, because whole cities were practically demolished by bombings. Cities built huge blocks of apartment towers, typically from prefabricated concrete panels. These were made in a factory, trucked to the building site, and assembled into 4-20 story towers (8-10 the most typical).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-panel-system_building
The apartments are small, and typically have district heating and no AC. These buildings provided housing for lower income or middle class families, depending on the area, from Spain to Russia. In America, the closest equivalent are the projects. The concrete walls don’t make for very comfortable living spaces. Sound travels between apartments, walls between rooms are frequently drywall. It’s a bitch to drill into if you want to hang anything. District heating means too hot inside when it’s on, and you can’t turn it on or off when you want it.
That's not really relevant though, is it? The US expansion was wide, they weren't trying to house a bunch of people in an existing city.
And like it says, those are basically slums.
Some are slums, some are decent. It’s not irrelevant, because you specifically said the US housing is unique because it was built fast. America was not built out in a rush in 10 years while millions were without homes, it was populated gradually over 4-5 centuries. That is a long time compared to the average lifespan of a house. The availability of lumber is a much bigger factor than speed.
I also said "wide" in that same sentence. You are comparing mass housing in a small area to single family homes spread across a large area and the stereotype comes from single family homes.
The US has plenty of multifamily buildings made with prefabbed concrete, they're just in densely-populated areas
Europe is a small area while San Francisco is a large area? dude you are dumb as fuck, sorry.
...what are you talking about, Doug? Where did I say anything about San Francisco?
Do you know anything about construction or American history?