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

201–210 of 282 posts

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

#201

Post by darkskyshades »

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: Low "hobbit" ceilings.

...in many cases i have seen in NYC, homeowners are economically motivated to "lower" their ceilings (cheaper to heat/cool living space).

I bought and still live in an early century Georgian, and the maintenance costs over the past two decades has been a very real challenge.

If a pipe leaks, if there is a crack in the wall, if/when the floor eventually gets bowed, etc. It is an entirely different, time-consuming and expensive approach to maintaining everything.

For the majority of homeowners, it is clearly and absolutely a cost issue.

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

#202

Post by babuskov »

adevine wrote: post #128
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 not just an issue with housing. Virtually EVERY product is built with less long-term quality. I collect antique espresso machines. Some of these are highly sought after because they use big, heavy, high quality components: big brass boilers, copper piping, stainless steel enclosures and big brass groupheads. Compare that with many flimsy, plastic machines today (which rarely last more than a couple years), an…

It's called Planned Obsolescence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

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

#203

Post by frik »

peteretep wrote: post #195
_delirium wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the expensive end is even better than (and more expensive than) the best of the best was 20 years ago I'm not sure about this part, unless you are very careful in what you're shopping for, and knowledgeable about it. One Achilles heel of a lot of current appliances is that there are now circuit boards everywhere, which are a common point of premature failure. If the computerized part of your appliance fails (due to…

You couldn't buy a washing machine 20 years ago that was anywhere near as energy efficient, kind to your clothes, could figure out the right amount of detergent or softener to use, or had features like remote operation so your clothes don't sit damp all day. Durability is not the only mark of quality.

I hope you know that energy efficients often means using motors with less Watt so that e.g. your washing machine will take longer to complete the washing cycle and with less hot water. The same with vacuum cleaners, eletronic kettles, etc. Eletro motors aren't a new invention, even brushless motors are there for some decades. Not every energy saving idea is a good idea. Often it's better to buy a few photovoltaic panels yourself and buy high quality brands that last decades (e.g. Miele washing machines). I would buy a 2000W vacuum cleaner that can clean my house in 30min than a 1000W vacuum cleaner that is less efficient in cleaning the floor so it takes at least twice as long to really clean the floor. In the end you often trade time for peak power usage. Sure, power grid operators like that.

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

#205

Post by bluthru »

pbreit wrote: post #191
robbrown451 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What architecture are you speaking of? Wood buildings like the very common Victorians? I don't know what you mean by "hideous paneling," but of the many places I've lived, San Francisco has the most beautiful/interesting architecture. I grew up in a brick house on the east coast, and I find that sort of architecture drab comparatively.

Oh, no. I'm talking about stuff that's been built over the last 1 or 2 decades. Mainly, the disgusting loft buildings in SOMA and all the larger, paneled residential buildings.

It looks cheap because it is cheap. Developers have no civic pride and just want their investment to pay out ASAP.

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

#206

Post by mcs »

Cinder blocks were cheaper near foundries, so a lot of plant economy homes are wood propped up and not on slabs. Slabs do not last on the "gumbo" mud, and it floods. Metals weren't cheap enough for siding so asbestos was used. Now there are the synthesized woods.

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

#207

Post by dazc »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #122
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…

A combination of three things, IMHO: 1. Labor specialization, meaning less of the home-buying market is savvy enough in the "handyman" sense to tell the difference. 2. A move away from building the thing you're going to own, and building things that other people will buy later. 3. Minimum standards for housing construction. The third needs to be explained more - instead of aiming towards "building a good home", the c…

>"...less of the home-buying market is savvy enough in the "handyman" sense to tell the difference"

True. I don't know how the market works in the US but in the UK what typically happens is a developer owns the land but borrows short term money to build on it.

The incentive, therefore, is to complete the project as quickly and cheaply as possible. Residential houses are designed for ease of building not for quality.

A typical buyer will have a 90-95% mortgage and the completed house is signed off by a surveyor who is engaged by the mortgage provider. The only real concern is if the house will still be standing in 25 years time and nothing else. In effect it's a rubber stamping process.

The buyer is often too emotionally involved in the concept of owning a home to care less.

No sane person would complete the purchase of a new car if defects in build quality were so glaringly obvious but the same people do it with houses every day?

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

#208

Post by AmVess »

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…

It is very much a cost issue, although a small one in terms of the overall price of the house. However, money that goes into 2x6 vs 2x4 studs, drywall, doors, insulation, windows comes out of the overall budget. People shop by price because they have to. Fancy appliances vs sturdy floors? People will pick fancy appliances 99% of the time.

I built a few dozen homes and only once had a client request 2x6 construction. I tried to sell it on all the others, citing sturdiness and better insulating properties, but everyone looked at the features it excluded and went for flimsy 2x4 builds.

It gets important if you are a developer building subdivisions of homes. $10k saved on every house is $big profit. 25 home subs is $250k+ savings...very much an issue.

My own house is 2x6, and properly insulated top to bottom. My neighbor's slap job summer cooling bill is not quite double mine. Close to same sqft and same interior ac temp setting.

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

#209

Post by ttepasse »

Retric wrote: post #168
coldtea wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was generation of Germans for example who thought a good idea to elect Hitler, and then cheer for him even as he dismantled the state. Or there was the boring generation of the 10's, compare with the more lively roaring 20s. Or consider the 60s vs the more conservative 50s.

Hitler was never elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_... He ran for office twice and lost by more than 15% both times.

Even then Germany was a parliamentary system where the Chancellery goes to the biggest party or coalition in parliament. And the NSDAP was the biggest in the elections in 1932-11 and 1933-3. There were enough idiots who voted for Hitler and his party in those early years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March...

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

#210

Post by Asbostos »

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

Whenever something is done cheaply and it looks like it's not a cost issue because it's only miniscule part of the total cost of the product, it's usually actually is a cost issue. The buyer of the final product might not mind spending a little extra to have that one thing done a little better, but for the supplier of the sub-sub-contractor whose entire profit comes from doing that one thing, the "miniscule" part becomes 100% of the cost.

Not only that, but this is only one of many things that could be done more expensively. What if you add better fire resistance, better insulation, more weather resistant paint, more carefully assembled parts, etc. it ends up becoming quite a lot more expensive. It's a bit like the difference between a Mercedes and a Toyota. They both seem to be basically the same, but the Mercedes has slightly more expensive parts scattered all through it like a few dollars spent on fluid dampers on the adjustable seat backs compared to no damping.

Post reply on HN