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?

#261

Post by Marazan » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #93

pjc50 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Peter's_Seminary,_Cardross It's a beautiful ruin, but it seems never to have been a properly functioning building. Artistic success, total waste of resources for church that built it.

Oh yes that's quite the nasty bit of concrete.

I would love to know the mindset and thought process of Brutalist architects and admirers who see that and see beauty whilst the majority of the rest of the world sees a broken down leaking eye sore.

We are so far apart it is like trying to understand and alien.

I have seen a scant handful of Brutalist building that I consider fine works of craft but the gob smacking majority are pitiful piles of concrete and exposed trusses.

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

#262

Post by Gibbon1 » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

beardicus wrote: post #108

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…

> After FDIC, customers looked to the government for that Or an alternate theory: bank owners used to be local businesspeople, who would have been (rightly) embarrassed and ashamed to erect a shoddy and short-lived structure in their hometown. Now banks are at least regional, if not national or global, and care more about saving a few pennies for shareholders than they do about the communities they inhabit. Combine t…

This is close to what I think. To a great extent buildings have been commodified. And businesses typically do not own buildings, they are tenants.

The bulldozed in 30 years attitude is post war nihilism in a nutshell. (In thirty years will be living on mars or dead from nuclear fire)

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

#263

Post by mreiland » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

k_sze wrote: post #241

spronkey wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the issues with the better woods in particular is sustainability of growth. Basically every house built today in NZ will be using Pinus Radiata, which is a less dense wood that grows very very quickly, and is very sustainable. In the past, e.g. 1960 and earlier, houses used Rimu, and potentially Kauri - both of which are very hard, very dense woods that will test even the best drill bits - but they're…

There are two approaches to sustainability: 1. Use quality material that is slow to come by, but build stuff that lasts for decades, or even centuries. 2. Use "sustainably" produced material, but build utter shit that doesn't last and that you expect to throw away in a few years. For stuff like houses, I prefer the first approach.

sustainable implies you can continue doing it indefinitely, but the first approach is more likely to fail that test due to increasing demand.

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

#264

Post by oh_sigh » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 10:54 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #141

oh_sigh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't I be regulated as to when I can open my windows then too? (as in, not in winter)

Well, "should" or "shouldn't" can get too complex to analyze. There's no god given set of rights -- what we get to do is what the era/society/legal system we live in allows us. And what's moral/good to do even outside or against what's allowed, is a matter of philosophy. People expected to be able to smoke even on an airplane in the 70s. Nowadays not so much. Asking someone not to smoke "within 30 ft of this building…

The difference being that I don't pay a tax to the people who are inconvenienced when I smoke. Suppose everyone in an area set a price that they would be willing to smell cigarette smoke during their meal. If I pay them all that price, why shouldn't I be allowed to smoke? And some people would set it at +infinity, which is fine too, which would mean I don't get to smoke.

With heating, the government is placing a +infinity price on heat retention for buildings(with ceilings > 8'), but isn't actually enforcing that price in any other manner. Why not just charge progressively increasing amounts for electricity/gas expenditure? Right now, I can have a 100% legal, heat-efficient home, and heat it day and night by leaving the windows open. I wouldn't do that because I don't like to waste money, but that is just like I would not live in a house that was extremely energy inefficient.

Basically, if I want to pay for tall ceilings in my house, shouldn't I be able to, assuming I pay the appropriate amount?

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

#265

Post by oh_sigh » Sat, Nov 07, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #215

speeder wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Which is unsustainable in the aggregate.

Isn't that just implying that most energy is artificially cheap, relative to its externalities?

Why can I own two new homes with 8' ceilings and heat them both(even if I don't live at one for 90% of the time), but I can't own one new home with 12' ceilings?

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

#266

Post by roel_v » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 1:11 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #265

roel_v wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Which is unsustainable in the aggregate. Isn't that just implying that most energy is artificially cheap, relative to its externalities? Why can I own two new homes with 8' ceilings and heat them both(even if I don't live at one for 90% of the time), but I can't own one new home with 12' ceilings?

"Isn't that just implying that most energy is artificially cheap, relative to its externalities?"

Yes it is. But if you're going to charge 'real' price (even assuming you can), people with the least disposable income will have to pay disproportionally more for their energy, which is a a basic need in 2015. Plus it would cause ripple effects that are impossible to predict. So the prudent way of mitigating this is with targeted policies, like building efficiency. It's a political decision. Of course one might say 'we should charge everything at the full rate and let the market sort it out', which is a fine position (one I personally lean towards, for as much as that matters) but it's irrelevant to the fact that there are many groups that don't agree. So what we have now is a system with many groups pushing in various directions, and 'patches' for situations where that causes unwanted effects that all parties can agree on (well, a majority can agree on) should be mitigated somehow.

"Why can I own two new homes with 8' ceilings and heat them both(even if I don't live at one for 90% of the time), but I can't own one new home with 12' ceilings?"

So to come back to the issue at hand, I can also buy a 10MW heater, put it outside in my garden and have it 'waste' energy 24/7. We don't have laws against that (afaik). But our policies rely partly on the assumption of economically rational actors, which to a degree and in the aggregate is the empirically verified reality.

In other words, for ever policy I'm sure one can think of 100 ways to stay within the law yet violate the spirit of the policy. That's just the nature of governance, and it works fine in the vast majority of cases. Law is not a closed rule-based system like computers are, and that's fine.

(actually that last part is up for debate; even Montesquieu (who was the guy to come up with the original theory of 'balance of three powers') was of the opinion that perfect law should be just that, and that judges should do nothing but apply rigid rules to facts. But that's getting way more off topic than is reasonable...)

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

#267

Post by danielam » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 3:28 AM UTC

spc476 wrote: post #223

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yup. When Hurricane Andrew blew through South Florida in 1992, homes in the direct path that were built prior to modern building standards survived, while more modern homes (I think post-1980) were unlivable (or totally gone, depending on the area). Part of that was declining building standards (go too long between hurricanes and yes, people get complacent). But another aspect, I think, is a shift in home ownership--…

I've heard this hypothesis before, but I don't think frequent moving is the correct explanation. After all, moving out of a house means moving into another one. Furthermore, Europeans today continue to build with brick and other masonry and, if I were to guess, relocate at rates that are comparable enough to those in the US. The more likely explanation has to do with American culture. Not only do Americans value quantity relative to quality to a higher degree than Europeans, but when American land was being settled, it was a. heavily wooded and b. occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries, a time when stone and brick urban fortifications were being torn down in Europe. By contract, Europe was by this time heavily deforested (e.g., England imported its wood from countries such as Poland to meet the needs of its growing navy).

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

#268

Post by alricb » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 3:41 AM 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…

You should never have to shovel your roof; you should have a vented attic or enough insulation to avoid ice dams, and the structure should be strong enough to support the snow load.

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

#269

Post by spronkey » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 8:47 AM UTC

k_sze wrote: post #241

spronkey wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the issues with the better woods in particular is sustainability of growth. Basically every house built today in NZ will be using Pinus Radiata, which is a less dense wood that grows very very quickly, and is very sustainable. In the past, e.g. 1960 and earlier, houses used Rimu, and potentially Kauri - both of which are very hard, very dense woods that will test even the best drill bits - but they're…

There are two approaches to sustainability: 1. Use quality material that is slow to come by, but build stuff that lasts for decades, or even centuries. 2. Use "sustainably" produced material, but build utter shit that doesn't last and that you expect to throw away in a few years. For stuff like houses, I prefer the first approach.

The time scale "decades" is reserved for the materials we use today. To use better woods, for example, you need timescale of many centuries.

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

#270

Post by coldtea » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 9:03 AM UTC

louithethrid wrote: post #229

Retric wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He got voted cancelour by a majority. That is as democratic as it gets. And yes, this should attack anyones assumption that the people always vote for the best. Thats why there are non-voted pillars of power in a good democracy, that can not correct a bad course, but can at least keep it in check.

>And yes, this should attack anyones assumption that the people always vote for the best.

In democracy people are not meant to "vote for the best".

They are meant to vote for what they want, as they judge it for themselves.