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?

#111

Post by anonbanker » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:13 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #17

Is the brick actually holding up the building? In many modern buildings, it's just a veneer, about 1cm thick. The steelwork holds it up. The new Box.net HQ in Redwood City looks like a brick building, but it's not; it's steel and concrete with about 1cm of brick on the outside. There's some nice work being done with brick today.[1] Some of this is gentrification, built to fit in with existing brick buildings, or to i…

> Robotic bricklaying is here.

Does this mean there are robot Freemasons in our future?

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

#112

Post by jws » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:15 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #59

jws wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

$0.50 to $1.00 is typical for St. Louis used bricks.

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

#113

Post by djrogers » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:17 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #109

The quality of modern construction (not necessarily brick) is a big pet peeve of mine and something I keep looking for answers. The way I see it, some time right after WWII, people in US suddenly decided to live in a poorly built and ugly looking dwellings regardless of their income level. It is especially easy to see when looking at NYC buildings, some rentals are even explicitly advertized as "pre-war". Examples of…

re 'drywall on sticks' - not only does this construction technique provide for a huge amount of flexibility in interior layout, it's by far the most earthquake friendly construction for single family homes.

It wouldn't be at all surprising to see a home built with such 'toy' materials require nothing more than some stucco repair and drywall patching, with a brick house right next door literally falling apart.

I realize not every region has earthquakes to worry about, but it is a factor in some areas.

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

#114

Post by escherplex » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:18 AM UTC

Plough_Jogger wrote: post #19

This is a clear example of survivorship bias. Buildings from 100 years ago that still stand today necessarily must have been those that were most carefully constructed or those that have been thoughtfully preserved. This creates a biased comparison between the highest quality buildings of the past and an average (or perhaps worse than average) building from modern times. This article could conclude that not all brick…

And to bring that idea home: contemporary flimsy construction is also a function of local building codes. In 2004 I was in a Florida house built in 1988 which structurally resembled a concrete bunker outfitted with heavy duty crank windows. This was required construction at the time. A hurricane showed up mid August with 140 mph (225 kph) winds and two things in particular were impressive: how well the structure survived the hurricane essentially unscathed (other than damage to it's pool cage screening) and witnessing how well palm trees folded their foliage to weather the onslaught. Apparently after 1988 they had lightened up on the building codes and cheap 2X4 frame construction was allowed for two story dense pack condos in the surrounding area. These did not fare so well. In one case a large pine tree was snapped at the base and hurled through the side of a frame condo complex like a battering ram, demolishing the whole structure. The complex had been evacuated before the hurricane struck so apparently there were no casualties. The moral of this story is that if you mandate good construction then that's what you get. Leave loopholes for cheap construction and that's what you'll get (and it won't suffer the rigors of time very well).

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

#115

Post by golergka » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:18 AM UTC

How do these buildings compare in cost, adjusted for inflation?

A lot of examples of "superior" technology from 19th century turn out to be expensive stuff created for upper class, compared to mass-produced items of today that are affordable for the general population.

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

#116

Post by patmcc » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:18 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #109

The quality of modern construction (not necessarily brick) is a big pet peeve of mine and something I keep looking for answers. The way I see it, some time right after WWII, people in US suddenly decided to live in a poorly built and ugly looking dwellings regardless of their income level. It is especially easy to see when looking at NYC buildings, some rentals are even explicitly advertized as "pre-war". Examples of…

>>>This is clearly not a cost issue

Nope, that's exactly it - it's cheaper and faster for the builder to frame a house small and simply. They've found that people spend money for houses based on location, size, and the visible stuff (like nice paint jobs and shiny appliances). They could spend twice as long as 40% more in materials and the home would sell for 2% more - not worth their time.

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

#117

Post by Cerium » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:19 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #33

Animats wrote: post #17

Is the brick actually holding up the building? In many modern buildings, it's just a veneer, about 1cm thick. The steelwork holds it up. The new Box.net HQ in Redwood City looks like a brick building, but it's not; it's steel and concrete with about 1cm of brick on the outside. There's some nice work being done with brick today.[1] Some of this is gentrification, built to fit in with existing brick buildings, or to i…

> Is the brick actually holding up the building? This was my thought as well. The modern building is likely just using the brick as veneer, even if it is full-thickness brick. It's likely concrete walls with brick layered over it. The fact that the brickwork is poorly done likely doesn't matter except aesthetically. If all the brick fell off the building would still be standing. The newer building is indeed ugly, and…

I fully expect that the brick is structural in those examples. My university had brick dorms "the bricks". They had brick exterior walls and cinder block interior walls. The brick walls were brick on the outside and the inside and only one brick thick.

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

#118

Post by alricb » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:20 AM UTC

A bit more technical: http://buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi080-tailor-...

Essentially, Holladay is complaining about the lack of water detailing, which is super important to the durability of brick. It doesn't need to be as fancy as his first example, as the link above shows, but you need someone to care about it.

Essentially, the issue building science specialists have with modernist architecture is that it often favors geometric simplicity over proper protection of the materials. Brick can withstand water, to an extent, but without drip edges and other details, it's quickly going to get damaged and ugly.

Note that building science nerds also tend to hate bumpouts and complicated rooflines because the air tightness and insulation details are hard to get right (and usually they just aren't done properly).

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

#119

Post by bitanarch » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:25 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #109

The quality of modern construction (not necessarily brick) is a big pet peeve of mine and something I keep looking for answers. The way I see it, some time right after WWII, people in US suddenly decided to live in a poorly built and ugly looking dwellings regardless of their income level. It is especially easy to see when looking at NYC buildings, some rentals are even explicitly advertized as "pre-war". Examples of…

If you're talking about the Bay Area - then there's good reason why buildings are wood framed and light weight. Wood frame construction is generally more earthquake resistant.

http://timber.ce.wsu.edu/Resources/papers/4-3-2.pdf

However, if you're not in an earthquake-prone area... then I agree I'd prefer to have a more solid construction.

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

#120

Post by alricb » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 12:27 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #109

The quality of modern construction (not necessarily brick) is a big pet peeve of mine and something I keep looking for answers. The way I see it, some time right after WWII, people in US suddenly decided to live in a poorly built and ugly looking dwellings regardless of their income level. It is especially easy to see when looking at NYC buildings, some rentals are even explicitly advertized as "pre-war". Examples of…

re: shaking, it's not necessarily mass; it's rigidity, or lack thereof. It's more expensive, but you can build a more rigid floor by using deeper joists and spacing them more closely. You also need to make sure the floor is well anchored to the walls, but these days it should be done as a matter of the course to get good seismic performance.