Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

greenbuildingadvisor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 282 posts

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

#171

Post by ngoede »

ams6110 wrote: post #152
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.

Of course they also tend to fail for the same reason as gravity slowly pulls them off the lathe.

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

#172

Post by prodmerc »

tobico wrote: post #85
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…

Shorter ceilings are better for climate control, though. No need to heat up a bunch of air that just floats around over your head.

It's the opposite in countries with a hot climate - high ceilings make ventilation (without an AC) better.

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

#173

Post by rsync »

bitanarch wrote: post #119
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.

True, but a wood frame doesn't have to imply stick-built, green and wet 2x4 construction.

Even in modern times where big timbers are scarce, you can still get straight, true, kiln-dried douglas fir in large (8x8, 8x12) sizes relatively cheaply.

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

#174

Post by aurizon »

The dramatic increase in the cost of labour compared to the cost of bricks and mortar has been a major driver in the elimination of detail on houses and buildings. Now we engineer things to snap together. Wires and pipes etc all suffer from this problem as well. We can actually make better brick work, with longer lasting mortar - as long as we want to pay for these details

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

#175

Post by plonh »

redcalx wrote: post #104
nikatwork wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7' is accurate for many new Housing Estate houses eg AV Jennings. The buildings all look similar except for roof color. It's very disorientating. My house is 1860s with a 12' ceiling. Those other places feel like claustrophobic rabbit holes in comparison. Low ceilings minimize material costs and maximize profits.

> Low ceilings minimize material costs and maximize profits. They also minimise heat loss, which is strictly regulated in the UK. Hence that other annoying feature of many modern build - tiny windows.

UK tenements had few or no windows due to the perverse tax formula.

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

#176

Post by HillRat »

aurizon wrote: post #174

The dramatic increase in the cost of labour compared to the cost of bricks and mortar has been a major driver in the elimination of detail on houses and buildings. Now we engineer things to snap together. Wires and pipes etc all suffer from this problem as well. We can actually make better brick work, with longer lasting mortar - as long as we want to pay for these details

One interesting thing that I found out, having renovated a loft in a brick building from the early 1900s, is that modern mortar is much more friable and shorter-lived than older mortars (specifically, European recipes) made with a higher proportion of lime. The old mortars flex more effectively, while moderns compounds crack and spall. When we repointed our building, we found an English stonemason with a background in historical buildings (it's not cheap, architecture). He had worked on renovating Roman-era buildings in Bath, where they found that mortar laid down thousands of years ago had survived completely intact, requiring often very minor repairs. It's sobering to think that Roman building technologies will outlast those of our own age.

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

#177

Post by jonnathanson »

massysett wrote: post #158
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 apa…

Maybe that's DC, then? I dunno. I live in Southern California, and I haven't seen a home built here in the last 30 years that was remotely well constructed. They're all made out of ticky tacky, as the song goes. And it seems to be getting worse year over year, especially in homes built after the Great Recession. The only exceptions seem to be the double-digit-million-dollar luxury homes.

As for the pros and cons of old construction...

Pros: generally more durable, more attention to detail, nicer materials used. Will suffer from age-related maintenance issues, but unlike modern construction, is unlikely to suffer from issues related to fundamental structural or design failure.

Cons: design and layout choices that no longer fit a contemporary lifestyle (small or no closets; tiny bathrooms and kitchens; closed floor plans; etc.). Generally poorer insulation. Depending on the age of the home, it may also have issues with old plumbing and, having not been designed for central heating or A/C, will sometimes be a bear to deal with in that department.

All things considered, having lived in a c. 1920s home and a series of c. 2000s and c. 2010s homes, I'd take the older house 9 times out of 10 and just gut/retrofit as necessary to remedy layout issues (not construction-quality issues). I don't enjoy living in a drywall box with a superficially nice looking kitchen.

And I say all of this as someone who, all things being equal, greatly prefers a hyper-modernist aesthetic. I just have to accept that I don't get a Tony Stark house until I have Tony Stark money. :)

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

#178

Post by kaizendad »

One of the things the author brings up is that the old worksite would've had senior craftsmen - and that the standard of work of the ordinary laborer would've been higher.

Have these skilled craftsmen moved into other careers - for instance, software engineer?

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

#179

Post by gluggymug »

danieltillett wrote: post #164
tgb wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I grew up in a house with ceilings no higher than maybe 7'2" (though that was not usual for buildings) and am 5'11" and wouldn't dream of calling it "claustrophobic". My father is even a couple inches taller. I guess it depends a lot on what you're used to. Meanwhile my current residence has ceilings so high that I haven't bothered to install some LED bulbs that I have lying around since I don't have an easy saf…

I am sure different people feel differently, but for me low ceilings are a non-option. In a climate like mine high ceilings avoid the need for air conditioning. You can get special poles for changing high bulbs. I have seen them before, but I can't remember what they are called.

Ah you must mean the good old "ceiling puncher". :)

Actually I think the pole is just the regular extension pole you'd use with a paint roller. You get a light bulb changing attachment instead.

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

#180

Post by speeder »

mrec wrote: post #131
oh_sigh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is heat loss regulated? Shouldn't I be able to heat my home as much or as little as I want?

The regulation is about energy efficiency of new-build construction, not how much you have your heating on. Partly it's a green thing, partly it's pragmatic, in that the UK has failed to invest in serious power generation for decades and faces the real possibility of brownouts in the not too distant future. Plants are approaching EOL and they haven't been building new capacity to replace them. They've thrown a bunch…

UK STILL don't fixed those issues?

UK since middle ages was already infamous for having cities (specially london, but not just london) that have energetic problems and rely a lot on coal (and now other fossil fuels), leading to the infamous killer fogs, and to the victorian fashion (in victorian era, people tried to use stuff that would not have issues in a highly polluted air, for example extremely thick and dark curtains, so that people don't notice you aren't washing them a lot...)

Post reply on HN