this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
440 points (99.3% liked)
pics
28077 readers
661 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lumber quality compared:
Top one is pine, bottom one looks like oak?
Not even the same timber if so. Pine is softwood Oak is hardwood.
Yeah and the stuff’s all rated and graded anyways. New growth is perfectly fine to hold up a house, it’s what codes are based on. If a 2x4 isn’t enough, instead of speccing a higher grade that’s more expensive, just use 2x6.
It’s a total non issue, tradesmen know better than to spread this.
Then why do new houses feel like they're made of sticks and plastic?
Contractors cheaping out on materials is certainly a thing. There were a bunch of recent-ish cases (in Florida I think?) in which unbeknownst to the home owners / builders, their contractors used substandard Chinese stock for certain wall materials. Unfortunately, those materials wound up leaking toxic gases, making the houses functionally useless. IIRC, contractors got away with it due to some technicality.
The things you interact with in a new house are much cheaper and lightweight than older counterparts e.g. trims are mdf instead of wood, doors are fiberboard instead of laminated wood, walls are drywall instead of buttonboard, wood I-joists instead of solid wood joists, fixtures are thinner and often plastic instead of metal.
Building codes are based on safety and functionality. They're for human safety, not aesthetics. Compare a solid core door to a hollow core door. Both meet the code definition for a door. Both meet fire break and insulation standards. But the solid core door made from solid bits of real hardwood is going to inevitably feel a lot more solid and of higher quality than the hollow core door.
You can still have a house with all that old world charm if you want. You're just going to have to do a custom build and pay extra for it.
I completely agree, and at the same time you'll have to convince every contractor and person you workw with that you actually do want the higher quality items, trims, etc. Almost at every turn folks will steer you toeard cheaper alternatives, because most folks don't notice or care.
I'm not disagreeing, but it will be more effort than just paying more. It will mean sourcing vendors/contractors that are prepared to do the work too. Personally, I feel it's worth the extra effort and cost, but I understand why not everyone does.
Because they are. Those sticks and plastic still meet the minimum requirements, though.
Code is the floor and developers work in the basement.
Materials are regional. Woods easily accessible in Canada and USA, so it’s the predominate material.
Wood and plaster isn’t the most ideal material, but it serves it purpose for the expected longevity in f its purpose. It’s not gonna last as long as stone, but at the same time, does everything need to? People do like change as well.
Yeah, there's a good argument to be made that right now, we shouldn't be optimizing our homes to last for centuries. Think about how much life has changed in the last century or two. Think of just how differently people live now compared to then. The only way anyone today is living in a 200 year old house is if that home has been extensively renovated, likely gutted down to the bare stone walls, just to make it livable. Ultra durable architecture makes a lot of sense if population and tech levels are stable over many centuries. If a community is going to look reasonably similar 200 years from now as it does today, then designing buildings to last centuries is rational. But in times of rapid change, there's no point in making a building last forever, if it's going to be hopelessly obsolete in just a century or two.
Very well said. The other consideration is that many regions of USA are more prone to earthquakes, and wood structures can flex in a way that concrete and brick cannot. Wood is fine for most people.
Building standards are LOW and most of the developers are even lower
Yup. Every single comparison you see of "Old growth vs new growth" it's always a different wood species.
Bottom one is old growth fir.
Thanks for the ID
Important to note: you really, seriously, don't need the extra strength the bottom piece gives. It is simply a complete and utter waste of oldgrowth forrests to strive for that quality. Loadbearing posts and beams are made in quality assured, tested wood.
Often times, like 99% of the time, the dimensions of the wood isn't determined by the strength required, but rather the insulation thickness required, size of internal installations like HVAC, or soundproofing requirements.
2x4s are fine for up to 2 story houses where I live, so you either use 2x6 to get the r20, or a slightly better option. Still use 2x4, but clad it in rigid insulation to go from r12 to r20. This removes issues like thermal bridging and moisture penetration. But costs more and takes longer to do as well.
Tell me you don't know how important old growth forests are. Oh wait, no need, I can see that already.