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?

#151

Post by jonnathanson » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:42 AM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #132

patmcc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

To chime in, even in places where people are willing to pay a premium for construction materials and architecture (like in sismic areas) there is numerous cases of the builder cheaping out and osometimes illegally trying to get away with fewer material. The last months there was again a case of a building constructor using less structural elements than it was legally required to, also violating the number specified i…

It seems like one of those cascading series of perverse incentives up and down the value chain. The subcontractors want to cut corners with the contractor. The contractor wants to cut corners with the developer. The developer wants to cut corners on the project in general, passing the headache onto the buyer at some point after the eventual sale. Almost no one in this mess has incentives aligned with doing things correctly.

If buying and moving homes were a more frequent event, buyers would play more "rounds" of this game and eventually become wiser to the ground rules of it. Reputation would start to matter, and developers, contractors, et al., would need to work harder to ensure they didn't get dinged. As it now stands, except in the luxury market, really, where people custom build homes, no one cares about a developer or contractor's reputation. So they don't have any reputational risk on the line. So they happily cut corners wherever they can get away with it.

(And I'm willing to bet that even the luxury/custom buyer barely has a clue when it comes to evaluating the quality of construction and materials.)

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

#152

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:44 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…

The main thing is the drywall. Interior walls in homes used to be plaster, troweled onto lathe or wire backing in several coats. Plaster is a LOT heavier than drywall: it's basically like having 3/4-inch cement walls. Plaster walls lend a sense of solidity and quiet to the entire house.

The basic framing of houses is not that much different.

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

#153

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:47 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…

The robot is .. meh. I expected something like http://www.honolulutraffic.com/LayingBrickRoad.JPG, but vertical. That slow and hesitant 3 joints arm seems a bad idea.

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

#154

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:47 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #67

ealexhudson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My last house was built in ~1936. It was cheap for the time, but the entire estate of houses it sat in was complete - virtually nothing had been removed. The form of the buildings had changed somewhat (extension for bathroom instead of toilet in the garden), but the brick walls were incredible and the internal timberwork (joists, frames, etc.) was all hardwood of a quality that would be very expensive now. My current…

I think one thing is buildings are now are built closer to their required engineering tolerances. In the past many building were massively over engineered, while modern buildings seem to be built for their exact expected lifespan. The one thing I really hate about most modern buildings here in Australia is the ceiling height has been reduced. A lot of modern buildings have ceiling heights around 7’ while old building…

High ceilings help when you don't have air conditioning. They are nice aesthetically but unnecessary and even detrimental (more air volume to cool) when you have it.

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

#155

Post by vlehto » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:49 AM 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…

It's international thing. One of the original breeds of modernist architecture was even named "international style". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Style_%28archite...

I have a theory why it's like this. In 1800's architects we're often painters first. Their day job was to paint portraits and signs and whatever was ordered. There was quite lot of painters around, only few of them made "art" and only the best got to draw buildings. The architect would then work the design together with mason. Civil engineers of the time we're busy building railroads.

Then at the end of the century, photography happened. In hindsight it's called "the crisis of art!". Suddenly architects could no longer apprentice by painting stuff for customers. You needed a school for architecture. The teachers would of course be old architects, who hang out with painters. So they sucked that "we can't sell portraits anymore, let's go crazy!" attitude.

In the 1940's you still had some old school guys. During this time some factory owners still thought that paying an architect was investment. You got a factory that would sell your product, keep your employers happy and make you proud. Here is factory building from that period. http://torshammer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kabelfabrike...

Now architecture has not been based on anything for century. Or maybe seeping fashion trends of modern art. Most big money people use architect just to "pretty up" the facade of a building as afterthought. If even that. Nobody trusts architect to make anything coherent or beautiful.

At the same time architects need to jump on any opportunity to get some international fame. Because that's the only way you can ever succeed with such career. This breeds eccentricity. Which makes the whole thing worse.

To justify not using and architect, you might word that as "saving money". To be consistent with that, you cut costs in labor and materials. To the point of making actually bad buildings.

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

#156

Post by gluggymug » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

vvpan wrote: post #30

Alright, too many mentions of survival bias and too much skepticism. There're large parts of some cities that are almost exclusively constructed from brick. It might be bias or it might not be. It's clear that nowadays buildings are made cheaply. For example the construction of the regular American suburban "stick" house is just the cheapest and the quickest way put up walls and a roof. What you get is something that…

Yeah I don't think it's bias.

That would imply that there's no issues with the newer design when the article clearly showed where the wrong choices have affected the durability of the building.

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

#157

Post by vlehto » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:55 AM UTC

scottious wrote: post #76

I don't buy any of it for even a second. On my way to work, they're building this wonderful brick sidewalk. While still just a side walk and not a building, it's remarkably well crafted and detailed. I think we CAN do it, we just choose not to, economically. I think somebody would rather save a lot of money and build something "good enough" these days than invest in craftsmanship. Also, I bet you don't have to look f…

My perception is that parks, walkways, fences etc have gotten better. Even bridges are getting beautiful again.

It's houses that seem to go downhill. But not single family houses, only bigger buildings.

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

#158

Post by massysett » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 1:57 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…

Where are you? The new construction I see in the Washington DC area has none of these things, whether it's a new apartment in the city or a new house in the suburbs. The ceilings are quite high--typically ten feet. Even basement ceilings are quite high, in contrast to old homes where one often must bend over a bit while in the basement. Door frames are high.

Windows if anything are too big, not too small! My city apartment has floor to ceiling windows which are difficult for window treatments. Suburban homes can have huge two-story family rooms.

Noise is more a problem from adjoining units. Outside noise is sealed out quite well thanks to double-pane windows.

Overall new construction is of quite high quality when it comes to what's important. New homes have smoke detectors, fire sprinklers, better electrical systems, more durable cladding on the outside, better insulation, more bathrooms, and air conditioning. As someone who has seen both old and new homes and has considered living in both, I do not get the nostalgia for old homes. Most home buyers around here agree as they are gutting old homes and renovating them, not living in them as is. I considered living in old homes, but only because they are in good locations. Their oldness in and of itself offered no benefits.

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

#159

Post by lutorm » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:02 AM UTC

This sort of "commodification", for lack of a better word, is visible in many areas, I think. I was thinking about this lately in relation to tools. It's great that you can now get tools for unbelievably low prices compared to, say, 50 years ago. This is a big win in many instances, because a shitty tool is often better than no tool at all, and it opens up access for many who would never be able to afford the old tools.

The flip side, however, is that it's devalued quality. It's remarkably difficult to actually find high-quality stuff these days. Even what used to be high-end brands have been bought up by some conglomerate that is now selling cheap Chinese versions under the old names.

There's still a market for quality, of course. You don't use tools from Harbor Freight when building rockets, but you'll never see those in any store you visit and they're likely to be priced far outside the reach of a normal person. It's like the middle ground has been lost, most stuff is cheap and low quality and then there is this small high end of really expensive stuff.

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

#160

Post by bsder » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:04 AM UTC

everyone wrote: post #78

pjc50 wrote: post #54

> "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…

This was a good article but I think the authors assignment of blame is misplaced. In my opinion the reason contemporary brick construction is not up to par with 100 year old brick construction is the same reason contemporary washing machines are not up to the standard of washing machines 100 years ago: The emphasis in making things now is on speed and cheapness, the emphasis 100 years ago was on quality. The college…

> the emphasis 100 years ago was on quality

I would argue that the emphasis was on "repairability".