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

211–220 of 282 posts

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

#211

Post by madaxe_again »

babuskov wrote: post #202
adevine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Came here to say exactly that. Not sure why folks wouldn't think that the same philosophy which overtook manufactured goods post-war wouldn't also apply to construction.

I mean, I'm sat here in my living room, place was built 1798 (relatively modern), near as damnit everything is original. Stone floors. Stone fireplaces. Stone walls. Lath and plaster ceilings. Lime plaster.

They knew what they were doing, this shit is built to last.

These days, they also know what they're doing, but a house has a shelf life of 30 years, so you can tear it down later, not feel bad, and stimulate the construction industry. In theory. I. Practice people live in leaky shoeboxes made of twigs, paper and tar.

Finally, the insurance industry drives this. Ever try insuring a 100 year old slate roof in America? Good luck with that. They'll insist you rip it off and replace it with tar shingles, because no roof more than 20 years old can be any good.

My other property has a 13th century stone roof (limestone, stacked), and it's barely been maintained and is in perfect nick after 600+ years.

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

#212

Post by ido »

peteretep wrote: post #135
adevine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Virtually EVERY product Well not just physical products. Flights are another good example. > Compare that with many flimsy, plastic machines today ... that are available at a cheap accessible price. It's still entirely possible to buy espresso machines that are built like tanks, or ones that have lots of expensive electronics, and so on. The high-end of the market has not disappeared... > it's no wonder there is a…

    We've seen a spread in the market to where the cheap end
    is now affordable by everyone, and the expensive end is
    even better than (and more expensive than) the best of 
    the best was 20 years ago.
I've worked for a household-name European electronics manufacturer about 10 years ago (as an embedded programmer). Afaik their high-end offering differed from the low-end ones mostly or entirely in cosmetic details.

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

#213

Post by roel_v »

Cerium wrote: post #117
dpark wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If there are cinderblocks on the inside, then the outside layer isn't structural. Depending on how old the building is, it might serve a purpose for insulation - either an 'air gap' or to sandwich proper insulation material between two layers. But the building will stand without the brick. This is actually the 'normal' way of building anything under, say, 4 stories in most of Western Europe.

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

#214

Post by xorcist »

frik wrote: post #203
peteretep wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pan…

In published tests, cleaning ability is not correlated at all to power over a certain level. Most 2000W cleaners are older models, since research and development has focused on energy efficiency for the past decade, so they are even likely to be worse. I could easily construct a 10 kW model for you, and it's going to run very hot.

(There was this EU introduced power cap for domestic vacuum cleaners the other year, accompanied with articles how you should hurry up and buy one of the powerful ones before they were forbidden. I was in the market for one, and scoured every independent test I could find where I understood the language, and the result were the same: the modern ones using less power picked up small particles better. As soon as you have a powerful enough engine other things start to matter. That's when I sighed deeply about journalistic integrity and bought one of the newer models.)

You describe an important problem. Consumers keep buying older models, which are objectively worse, because they want a scalar value for "betterness". It's just like megapixels, where you stuff a 20 megapixel sensor behind a plastic lens and consumers buy it because big numbers are good.

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

#215

Post by roel_v »

speeder wrote: post #180
mrec wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cu…

Across Europe there are strict standards for building efficiency. This is not just about insufficient infrastructure, it's to keep energy waste in check. People want as cheap a house as possible (which I understand, it's hugely expensive and most people have to make serious sacrifices) and when having to choose between not terribly energy-inefficient and full-height bedrooms, they'll often choose the latter. Which is unsustainable in the aggregate. Hence, tight regulations on energy efficiency.

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

#216

Post by roel_v »

danieltillett wrote: post #163
ams6110 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same argument can be made against windows. High ceilings not only avoid the need for air conditioning (my home has 11' ceilings and no air conditioning), they make you feel better in the space. When I am in a building with low ceilings I feel totally claustrophobic and tense - this is not something I want to feel in my own home.

Modern windows can be made very energy efficient. In fact, it's possible to design an almost all-glass energy-neutral house in much of Western Europe.

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

#217

Post by roel_v »

sliverstorm wrote: post #100
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…

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.

It's unlikely that the design and layout of a house will remain up-to-date over 50+ years. People's expectations change, see for example the role of a kitchen in a house. 50 years ago, the kitchen was were the wife cooked. Now kitchens are open, connected to the other living spaces, and very much the central point in the house. Re-doing the plumbing is one thing, dealing with that sort of changes is another.

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

#218

Post by roel_v »

pcurve wrote: post #190
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 laughed at this post because my current home is all brick house built in 1930s, with a brick extension built in 1980s. An inspector said, "those are very good bricks from the 30s. They don't make bricks that strong anymore"

Yes they do, if you pay for it. I know several brick factories that will make you those 'high-quality' ones. But they don't stock them (instead they make them custom if you want them) because the demand is so low due to the 100% price difference with other bricks that, realistically, serve they purpose just as well.

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

#219

Post by spc476 »

jonnathanson wrote: post #151
hrktb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cor…

Back in 1999, an acquaintance of mine bought a $2.3MM home in an exclusive neighborhood. As he was driving me and a few friends through his neighborhood, he explained that all the houses could be knocked down and rebuilt if desired. The price included location, security (theater really, but hey, it sells), footage, looks and fancy appliances. Not quality.

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

#220

Post by roel_v »

everyone wrote: post #110
finnh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will gladly trade a 100 year old washing machine (rusty and hand-powered, I assume) for a Miele. I'm sure you have an argument here, but I don't see how washing machines further it.

You assume too much. Also this article is addressing the construction quality and longevity of brick facades. I was referencing the construction quality and longevity of washing machines, pre-war vs modern. https://youtu.be/baFaEvBywGc?t=22m40s

Back then, you could only buy expensive high quality ones. Only a few people could afford it. Nowadays, you can buy cheap crappy ones, as well as expensive high quality ones. What's the argument here? If someone will let me spend the equivalent amount of what these old houses cost back then on a new brick building, I will have them build just as good as the old ones. Actually, I'll have them build better, because the woodworking of the windows will be much better, the moisture barriers will be better, the insulation will be better, the quality of the mortar will be better, the concrete slab will be better (actually, 'it will have a concrete slab'), the roof tiles will be of better quality, the heating system will not suck, I can go on and on...
Post reply on HN