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?

#251

Post by sitkack » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 3:16 PM UTC

applecore wrote: post #184

sitkack wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was renting a place that had a washer and dryer set from the early 60s. It worked wonderfully, until one day the washer wouldn't cycle properly. I tore it apart and there was a stack of plastic gears that ran the state machine for the various cycles, one them was worn. I didn't have the means in 2000 to disassemble the gear pack and a replacement couldn't be found and god I tried. The land lords endedup scrapping b…

The future is owning a state-of-the-art 3D printer to produce the small plastic part for your sixty-year-old washing machine.

Or having Google Tango or a sufficiently smart computational camera that can take a picture of the defective part have it repaired by some mechanism either automatic or the fiver of mechanical fixups, have it printed and shipped (drone, carrier pigeon, USPS, etc).

One of my hopes is that public good corp will rise of the consumerist ashes and start to produce items that can not only be repaired but that can be collectively refined just like a codebase. Imagine if there was an open source, end user repairable washing machine, that when a flaw is discovered it is fixed and tracked in a public ledger?

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

#252

Post by douche » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 3:19 PM 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…

My experience in the US is that 8' ceilings are pretty much standard. I've helped build a few stick-built additions and houses, and when you are buying stud timber in bulk, it comes precut either to 96" or 92 5/8" - which, with standard 2xX top and bottom plates, works out to be 8'.

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

#253

Post by asveikau » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #101

Bank buildings built before 1929 tend to be massive masonry structures with greek columns, marble, etc. Ones build later tend to be cracker boxes in strip malls. My theory is that the older banks needed to impress their clients with stability, conservativeness, safety, responsibility, etc. After FDIC, customers looked to the government for that, and so banks no longer needed to spend the money on the building. The ma…

I think the strip mall thing happened much later than 1929. I can think of specific bank branches from my east coast childhood that I would estimate were built in the 60s or 70s that are still trying to pull off the "grandeur" style.

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

#254

Post by douche » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 3:35 PM 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…

I'm not so sure... Some of the superior brick dorms on that campus built in the 20s and 30s averaged around a year of construction, and cost about $200,000, which adjusted for inflation, is ~ $2.5 million.

The most recent addition to the East Wheelock cluster (couldn't find the cost of the building in question) cost $8 million over two years. The newer McLaughlin cluster, with six dorms, took three years to build and cost over $40 million in 2006.

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

#255

Post by gambiting » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 3:37 PM UTC

sanoli wrote: post #248

gambiting wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survivorship bias. People point to a 25-year old washing machine and say "look, it still works!" but are unaware of millions of other 25-year old washing machines that are currently in our landfills.

I'm talking about a specific model of washer. My dad did his research, talked to a bunch of maintenance guys who repaired machines for a living, and ended up buying the best built machine that was being sold. Recently I bought a couple of used Snap-on hand tools that were made in the early 90's. I know how tough they are. They are just pretty damn well built. In 20 years if I remark how great they're still going, tha…

Fair enough, but this also has a lot to do with cost - your dad probably spent a large chunk of his monthly salary(if not all of it) on a washing machine, but I spent literally 2-days worth on a brand new one when I got one couple months ago. If it dies in 3 years I won't even bother repairing it - I'll just get another one, it's too cheap not to.

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

#256

Post by mistermann » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

AmVess wrote: post #208

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.…

What would you estimate is the payoff time in heating/cooling costs?

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

#257

Post by listic » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

Is there a non-paywalled version?

'This article is available for GBA PRIME members only'

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

#258

Post by relaxitup » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

He is right about a couple of things, though he does not seem to have much of a grasp about buildings in general.

He is right that sills (whatever material they are made of) should always protrude. I agree that the 1970's and 80's will probably be considered the low point in building (and were certainly the low point in automobile quality).

He apparently doesn't understand that the brick header in the older building is actually weight-bearing while the one in the newer building is a veneer covering a poured-concrete structural header.

He misses the main point: the older building is much better quality because it cost much more in relative terms. Buildings, like most of our modern products have declined in quality because we don't spend as much on them. But we have far more stuff - buildings and everything else.

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

#259

Post by burger_moon » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #250

madaxe_again wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I've never understood why people put asphalt shingles on new houses, instead of putting on steel roofing. It might be a hair cheaper, but the difference between shingle and the screw-on steel panels is not that much. A.) Snow doesn't come off of shingles worth a damn unless you have a wicked pitch on your roof. So you have to get up and shovel off the roof, or risk icedams, leaks, and potentially the whole roof colla…

Steel roofs are a lot louder when it's raining and such, so it might have something to do with that. Also, they don't look as good (not so much for me personally, but in general) as a shingled roof. No question that they last a lot longer. I very often see large garages and barns built with steel roofs.

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

#260

Post by xorcist » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

frik wrote: post #237

xorcist wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ac…

Some devices like a electric kettle are incredibly simple in how the works and you can't beat the real world physics, less Watt means more waiting time. You can only improve the design of vacuum cleaner and washing machines so much, a half as powerful device (Watt) won't make up the loss by a far superior design. Don't get me wrong I am for energy efficient devices, but I have an engineering degree and know a lot of…

Don't let your engineering degree stand in the way of finding out the facts. You claimed a 2 kW vacuum cleaner would clean in half the time, and there's plenty of data that suggests otherwise.

The claim that cleaning time is linear to motor effect is unrealistic at best. There is an optimum effect for the nozzle. A 10 kW engine wouldn't clear your floors any faster than a 1 kW one, and definitively not ten times faster. The best (household, not for garages or anything like that) vacuum cleaner commercially available on the market is likely closer to 1 kW than 2 kW.

You think only "average" people falls for marketing tricks, but this superficial knowledge of the engineering involved actually makes you an easier prey for the marketing trick that more powerful motors makes for a better product. That bigger numbers are better is one of the easiest marketing schemes ever.