Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#51

Post by shimon » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

SamBam wrote: post #11

coryrc wrote: post #8

The author admits to the limited comparison. I have a few other reasons: 1. We actually care if our buildings are insulated now and withstand earthquakes. 2. People are so wealthy here they don't have to get it right, they can always pay to do it over again. They don't care to put in the research to make sure it is done right. [0] 3. Corollary to #2, we don't need our buildings to last 100 years because we expect the…

How would any of the issues with the Dartmouth brick building in the article have been caused by #1?

Those reasons help explain why brick is a less desirable building material now than it was a century ago. This decline in desirability means that brick won't be selected for the most ambitious, highest-budget projects today, where it was the preferred choice back then.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#52

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #44

It's an interesting idea worth exploring... ...but comparing a bank (a building that in 1891 had to LOOK expensive) and student flats (a building that has to BE cheap) results in the rather underwhelming discovery that because they had wildly different budgets with completely different aesthetic aims, they ended up with different built qualities. Shocking, isn't it? If they want to make an apples-for-apples compariso…

Student housing at a very expensive private institution. Not some council houses. So pretty fair comparison I think.

And that aesthetics should override competent construction technique is a bad idea, is also a fair criticism.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#53

Post by gopowerranger » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

It may be due to the quality of the clay, or the lack of clay at all, for making the bricks. I saw a documentary on this just a few months ago aired by our local PBS station on this very subject.

http://ninenet.org/archives/pressroom/st-louis-brick-buildin...

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/brick

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#54

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

> "Part of the blame, I feel, rests at the feet of the Modernist movement — a movement that idealized the cube and disdained roof overhangs. Modernist architects were ignorant of the entire concept of moisture management. The fact that thousands of Modernist buildings suffered water entry problems did little to deter architects from falling in love with Modernism and Brutalism. This tragic love affair contributed to the withering of age-old skills."

I believe this is a fair assignment of blame. It's analogous to the complaints people have about some modern web design - total focus on appearance at the expense of usability or technical quality.

The architects produce buildings that look good on paper, because that's what wins the contract. The next client isn't going to go to their previous building and do a customer satisfaction survey on the users. Nobody ever does.

Edit: Incan stone construction is one of the great examples of ancient 'over'building: precisely fitted hand-carved stone, good for five centuries. And Rome has plenty of 2000 year old brick buildings, especially the Pantheon dome.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#55

Post by Marazan » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #20

If you are curious about this topic you should bring it up with some architects from different countries. From my understanding there are indeed regressions in building quality in some countries but it's not entirely clear what causes it other than decisions that have been made at the time. In particular the brick did not decrease in quality but the way they were built did. For instance for a while people paid less a…

Brutalism gets everywhere in modern british arcitecture. The idea that any archtiect should be designing a flat foor bulding in, say, Scotland is totally bonkers.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#56

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #35

beachstartup wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not only that, but back in the day brick was the fancy expensive option, today it isn't. those with big budgets and ambitious design goals choose other materials (steel, glass, etc.)

I thought brick was more expensive today due to labor costs and that steel and glass were comparatively cheap. Is this false?

Generally true. The relative cost of wood vs brick also varies from country to country depending on local availability.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#57

Post by shimon » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:17 PM UTC

In Somerville, MA there is an area with some converted loft buildings including new construction loft-style buildings. The new building walls use masonry blocks (large grey blocks) for structure, with decorative brick on the outside. On the inside, there is a cavity for insulation and wiring, and an interior brick wall.

The masonry work is excellent, and is probably the best way to create a wall that looks like brick inside and out yet meets modern insulation demands. But it is a gratuitously expensive construction technique to try and make a building look old and classic. If you don't value that particular aesthetic, you would select other materials. If you want to pander to that aesthetic but don't have a premium loft budget, you might end up with crap like that dorm.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#58

Post by oliwarner » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:18 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52

oliwarner wrote: post #44

It's an interesting idea worth exploring... ...but comparing a bank (a building that in 1891 had to LOOK expensive) and student flats (a building that has to BE cheap) results in the rather underwhelming discovery that because they had wildly different budgets with completely different aesthetic aims, they ended up with different built qualities. Shocking, isn't it? If they want to make an apples-for-apples compariso…

Student housing at a very expensive private institution. Not some council houses. So pretty fair comparison I think. And that aesthetics should override competent construction technique is a bad idea, is also a fair criticism.

It's sweet that you think students get what their parents pay for. No. The briefest of glances lets you know exactly what Dartmouth instructed their architect to aim for: capacity.

The real reason it looks so poor is —as I did say before— their respective aesthetic aims. Dartmouth wanted something that looked New Englandy that holds dozens of students, while the bank wanted something that makes them look like they have all the money.

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#59

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:20 PM UTC

jws wrote: post #45

smrtinsert wrote: post #24

Where are brick buildings being torn down left and right? I challenge the survivorship bias argument as where I live in the US east coast multiple cities push for historical status on buildings past a certain age in order to retain character.

My 1950 brick building is 1/3 constructed from re-used brick. Many houses built in the 1960s in my area are also built of reused brick. There must have been some degree of brick teardown going on. Even now we have trouble with people stealing brick buildings. Unused houses are sometimes set ablaze by brick thieves, then later they come in the night and cart off the bricks.

stealing brick buildings

This sounds totally bananas, where is this? Are the bricks made of gold or something?

Re: Why has the quality of brick buildings declined in the last 100 years?

#60

Post by betaby » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:22 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #10

Survivorship bias is a really important caveat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias Many cheap brick buildings from 100 years ago are gone, where the high quality ones are more likely to remain. Also, steel Lintel are often used over windows in brick buildings. They don't last as long, but are fine for cheap construction that is not expected to last. AKA the kinds of building that are unlikely to be aroun…

It's unlikely survivor bias - Montreal is full of really shitty build "plexes" for example. They are not falling apart - there is a 'brick works' for them - remove whole brick facade and redo it again. Those "plexes" are rarely torn down in fact. At the same time bank buildings on the same street are very sturdy and never seen 'brick works' since the birth. I tend to think 'plexes' used to be cheap [and crap] and banks, factories [but not schools!] are expensive and good. Construction errors on those 'plexes' are abundant and repeated over and over in today's plexes, yet those are OK with building codes.