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

131–140 of 282 posts

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

#131

Post by mrec »

oh_sigh wrote: post #126
redcalx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 of money at wind, but I think that's been more of a handout to (traditionally Conservative-voting) landowners than a viable strategy.

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

#132

Post by hrktb »

patmcc wrote: post #116
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 Nope, that's exactly it - it's cheaper and faster for the builder to frame a house small and simply. They've found that people spend money for houses based on location, size, and the visible stuff (like nice paint jobs and shiny appliances). They could spend twice as long as 40% more in materials and the home would sell for 2% more - not worth their time.

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 in the blueprintS.

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

#133

Post by coldtea »

oh_sigh wrote: post #126
redcalx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Not when your country imports oil and you have a negative impact on its trade deficit (and/or environment).

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

#134

Post by danieltillett »

computer wrote: post #73
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…

Ceiling heights of 7 feet? Are you sure? Many tall people would only just fit upright...

Yep it totally claustrophobic if you are over 5’ in height. I really, really hate low ceilings.

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

#135

Post by peteretep »

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…

    > 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 market for these older machines.
Market being the operative word here. 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. Hard to see how this isn't a good thing, except from an environmental perspective.

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

#136

Post by oh_sigh »

coldtea wrote: post #133
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?

Not when your country imports oil and you have a negative impact on its trade deficit (and/or environment).

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

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

#137

Post by coldtea »

yetanotheracc wrote: post #99
carsongross wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the "survivor bias" argument is that it allows for a lazy denial of actual trends in things: sometimes stuff does get worse. The same applies to "every generation thinks the next generation is horrible". That may or may not be true, but sometimes there are horrible generations.

> but sometimes there are horrible generations. What do you mean?

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.

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

#138

Post by danieltillett »

nikatwork wrote: post #89
computer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ceiling heights of 7 feet? Are you sure? Many tall people would only just fit upright...

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.

This is exactly right - it is done to reduce the building cost.

Of course having a ceiling this low is terrible for natural cooling so you then have to run air conditioning all the time costing far more in the long run. I live in a 1920s building with 11’ ceilings and I don’t have or need air conditioning because the place stays cool enough even through the height of summer.

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

#139

Post by vlehto »

Spooky23 wrote: post #107
Retric wrote: post #10

Survivorship bias is a really important caveat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias Many cheap brick buildings from 100 years ago are gone, where the high quality ones are more likely to remain. Also, steel Lintel are often used over windows in brick buildings. They don't last as long, but are fine for cheap construction that is not expected to last. AKA the kinds of building that are unlikely to be aroun…

No way. Talk to anyone involved in construction. Every component in a building today save plumbling, windows and electric is inferior to its complement in 1915. The bricks are of lower quality (to the point there is a thriving market for used bricks), the wood is garbage, and quality of labor has shifted from skilled craftsmanship to glorified assembly work. My home was built in 1927 as a cheap starter home (upstairs…

I don't really disagree. But copper and mortar plumbing from 1915 might not be shabby at all.

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

#140

Post by danieltillett »

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.

From a purely economic perspective a building that lasts more than 50 years is probably not worth doing. In theory you could invest the initial savings and replace the whole building in 50 years from the income.

The downside of pushing the engineering to the limit is the builders often cut corners to make their own savings so that the building does not even make 50 years. Plenty of new buildings here in Australia are having major structural issues after only 5 to 10 years because of this.

Post reply on HN