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

Post by gluggymug » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:12 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #140

sliverstorm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That opens the question of expected lifetime of a house though. The interior might need to be ripped out and plumbing or sewage etc retrofitted, but in plenty of cases there is simply no reason why the foundation, framing, or other things can't be retained. Which, given the value of high quality timber, seems like a goal worth striving for, rather than disposable houses.

From a purely economic perspective a building that lasts more than 50 years is probably not worth doing. In theory you could invest the initial savings and replace the whole building in 50 years from the income. The downside of pushing the engineering to the limit is the builders often cut corners to make their own savings so that the building does not even make 50 years. Plenty of new buildings here in Australia are…

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:18 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #154

danieltillett wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:28 AM UTC

gluggymug wrote: post #161

danieltillett wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a purely economic perspective a building that lasts more than 50 years is probably not worth doing. In theory you could invest the initial savings and replace the whole building in 50 years from the income. The downside of pushing the engineering to the limit is the builders often cut corners to make their own savings so that the building does not even make 50 years. Plenty of new buildings here in Australia are…

Agreed. I was a victim of this in my former home in Adelaide. It was a newly built townhouse complex so we were a body corporate. Within 4 years of building completion, we were suffering from rising damp and completely loose paving in the shared driveways. The paving was too high relative to the damp proof course and the base wasn't prepared properly. It took a couple of years of legal stuff to claim on the building…

Post by jhallenworld » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:40 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #96

jhallenworld wrote: post #80

There are some modern construction techniques that make me nervous: One is pre-stressed concrete. This has replaced I-beams for highway bridges. The problem here is how do you inspect them? With steel I-beams you can use your eyes. With concrete maybe you need some kind of ultrasound equipment to check the tension cables? Do you trust those responsible for long-term maintenance to do it? Another is engineered wood I-…

If there is a fire the house is gone because the floor joists will be ruined by the water to put the fire out. Do you have more information on this? I've known about the increased direct risk from fire, but haven't seen anything about damage from temporary water contact. The only information I can find doesn't seem to agree with this, although it doesn't specifically prove otherwise: www.woodbywy.com/document/tb-213

Post by dschiptsov » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 2:45 AM UTC