Rating Q2 plaster: Poor work or normal?

The following was agreed upon:

1st coat lime-cement lightweight plaster smoothed

I don’t quite understand. There is obviously gypsum plaster on the wall. Lime-cement plaster was agreed upon.
I would describe the execution as inadequate. As a rule, plaster guides are applied to the masonry in interior areas in order to smooth a flat surface. There is no sign of that.

It makes no difference what quality was agreed upon. This work does not meet the requirements for interior plaster. Not in the slightest. But even the Eastern European subcontractors nowadays have acute personnel problems and extreme price pressure. So such results are not really surprising. Although there are, of course, also very well-functioning and well-working companies from that region of origin.

I am generally not in favor of gypsum plaster. It absorbs odors much more and always attracts moisture. The tendency for mold is significantly higher compared to lime-cement plaster. Why gypsum plaster? Because it is faster and easier for the plasterer. And gypsum plaster can be worked better. Sanding, etc.

Lime-cement plaster takes significantly longer to dry and to work with.

I don’t quite understand. There is obviously gypsum plaster on the wall. Lime cement plaster was agreed upon.

I don’t understand that either. Because precisely in the initial post gypsum plaster is mentioned. Or was – which is also common – gypsum plaster/spackle used to achieve a smooth surface?

I am generally not a fan of gypsum plaster. It absorbs odors much more and always draws in moisture. The tendency to mold is significantly higher compared to lime cement plaster. Why gypsum plaster? Because it is faster and easier for the plasterer. And you can work better with gypsum plaster. Sanding, etc.

Lime cement plaster has – except in bathroom areas – exclusively disadvantages in new buildings. - significantly more expensive - more difficult to process - gypsum has a smoother and more appealing surface (unless you prefer the somewhat rougher lime cement variant) - mold is no longer an issue in new buildings - repairs on gypsum plaster are easier - gypsum plaster is also vapor permeable I did find one advantage: it is harder and thus more resistant to impacts. As a conclusion – and this is how it is mostly done in practice – it can be said that lime cement plaster is not worthwhile.

Lime-cement plaster has - except in the bathroom area - exclusively disadvantages in new buildings.
- significantly more expensive
- more difficult to process
- gypsum has a smoother and more appealing surface (unless you like the slightly rougher lime-cement variant)
- mold is no longer an issue in new buildings
- repairs with gypsum plaster are easier
- gypsum plaster is also vapor-permeable

I found one advantage after all: It is harder and therefore less sensitive to impacts.

Mold is an issue in many new buildings. and gypsum plaster also contributes to that. Gypsum plaster is not harder than lime-cement plaster.
Quite the opposite.

Yes, lime-cement plaster is more expensive and more difficult to process. Not everyone can do that.

The problem is, gypsum attracts moisture, is hygroscopic.
Moisture exposure destroys the strength in gypsum plaster to such an extent that even the drying process can no longer improve it.

Once damp, it is ruined. It also absorbs odors. The house starts to stink. I have experienced that myself.
Lime-cement plaster does not do any of that.

That will never pass as Q2. Q2 should be at least smooth and good enough for at least woodchip wallpaper, but you have real mountains there. In terms of quality, it reminds me more of the interior walls in our farmhouse museum than a new building.

Mold is an issue in many new buildings. and gypsum plaster also plays its part.

Nope. Not true. Sorry.

Gypsum plaster is not harder than a lime cement plaster.
Quite the opposite.

Yep. But I wrote that as well.

The problem is, gypsum attracts moisture, is hygroscopic.
Due to moisture exposure, the strength of the gypsum plaster is destroyed to such an extent that even the drying process can no longer improve it.

Yes, gypsum is hygroscopic. No, in new buildings this is not a problem. That’s why gypsum plaster is predominantly used, because it is absolutely unproblematic (except in wet rooms).

Just the same, it absorbs odors. The house starts to stink. I have experienced that myself.

In what kind of houses do you stay where they stink? In a normal household, there is no difference between plaster types.

Once again: gypsum plaster is a long-proven standard that is predominantly used. There is nothing wrong with it. Except for wet rooms, there are no reasonable grounds (a “I have my own stinky house” does not apply to all houses – maybe it would have smelled with other plasters as well depending on the usage) not to use gypsum plaster.

The climatic conditions in today's modern new-build houses are really a disaster. I do not feel comfortable in them. I have also heard from some that they have experienced health problems.

Of course, no one here will admit it, but it is true. It is not for nothing that ventilation systems are still specially installed in houses today. There is no natural ventilation in the mostly hermetically sealed houses of today. When gypsum boards or gypsum plaster are added, there is no natural moisture regulation anymore.

A house must be able to breathe. That has been the case for hundreds of years. Today's houses are completely sealed with vapor barriers, sealing tapes, sealants, silicone, and foam insulation frenzies in the name of climate protection. Sorry, but that is the reality.

I don't even want to have a blower door test on my house. And then people complain when construction prices explode.

In my region, special clay houses have been built since 1800. They still stand today, mostly between 200 and 150 years old. 1m thick walls with natural weathering on the outside. Warm in winter, cool in summer with natural regulation. The thick clay walls absorb moisture and release it again. No problems with mold or similar. The exterior walls are a biotope for insects. Absolutely healthy living without pollutants. Pure nature! Built very cheaply.

If I tear down such a house today, nothing of it remains. Clay bricks, wooden beams, and I spread the clay out in the garden. The clay came back then from the local clay pit, a little cow manure and straw added, and the building material was ready.

There was no CO² footprint or all that nonsense back then. Ecologically completely harmless and climate-neutral. As I said, we are talking about 200 years ago.

Let's see what will become of all the Styrofoam boxes of the modern era. At most a few mice will settle in them.