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?

#91

Post by enjo » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:27 PM UTC

stephenboyd wrote: post #79

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…

In Portland, Oregon, there are whole neighborhoods of 80-90% buildings from the 1880s through the 1930s. There still may be some survivorship bias on a whole-neighborhood level since those were mostly the middle-class areas with higher building quality. But if you compare those buildings to those built recently for the middle-class market, the craftsmanship is obviously different. And urban buildings for wealthy peop…

The craftsmanship is obviously different, but is it better? I hear the argument that modern houses are all going to be just awful in a few decades. Yet I heard the same argument in the 70's and 80's, and those houses seem to be aging just fine (aesthetic choices aside). A stick built house built in 1970 is 45 years old at this point!

Today's track houses have MUCH improved insulation, much stronger moisture barriers, and are much more efficient than even the nicest houses built 100 years ago.

I just don't believe that construction has regressed the way we all seem to think it has. Of course I type this from a 103 year old house which is awesome, but drafty :)

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

#92

Post by carsongross » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:27 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#93

Post by Gibbon1 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:32 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #64

Marazan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brutalism gets everywhere in modern british arcitecture. The idea that any archtiect should be designing a flat foor bulding in, say, Scotland is totally bonkers.

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.

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

#94

Post by jonknee » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:35 PM UTC

tobico wrote: post #85

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…

Shorter ceilings are better for climate control, though. No need to heat up a bunch of air that just floats around over your head.

Not a huge concern in most parts of Australia... Having high ceilings (and fans) is actually an advantage.

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

#95

Post by Gibbon1 » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:38 PM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #80

There are some modern construction techniques that make me nervous: One is pre-stressed concrete. This has replaced I-beams for highway bridges. The problem here is how do you inspect them? With steel I-beams you can use your eyes. With concrete maybe you need some kind of ultrasound equipment to check the tension cables? Do you trust those responsible for long-term maintenance to do it? Another is engineered wood I-…

Scuttlebutt I've heard. If a modern stick house built with plywood beams catches fire, the fire department will not try to save it because it's too dangerous to send a man up on the roof to cut access holes. This is because in a fire the glue in built up beams loses strength very quickly and the thing de-laminates.

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

#96

Post by nkurz » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:42 PM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #80

There are some modern construction techniques that make me nervous: One is pre-stressed concrete. This has replaced I-beams for highway bridges. The problem here is how do you inspect them? With steel I-beams you can use your eyes. With concrete maybe you need some kind of ultrasound equipment to check the tension cables? Do you trust those responsible for long-term maintenance to do it? Another is engineered wood I-…

  If there is a fire the house is gone because the floor 
  joists will be ruined by the water to put the fire out.

Do you have more information on this? I've known about the increased direct risk from fire, but haven't seen anything about damage from temporary water contact.

The only information I can find doesn't seem to agree with this, although it doesn't specifically prove otherwise: www.woodbywy.com/document/tb-213

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

#97

Post by stevewilhelm » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:42 PM UTC

shimon wrote: post #61

dworin wrote: post #23

There are some other great explanations in this thread (survivor bias seems very plausible), but I'll throw out another based on my experience with other construction trades: economics. If you look at old buildings, you tend to notice that they also have a lot of intricate plaster-work that you never see anymore. Why? Because it used to be much cheaper to hire skilled labor than it is today. You can see a similar tre…

I think you're on the right track but your comparison fails to take into account the productivity of the bricklayer. A good bricklayer today ought to be more productive than an 1891 bricklayer, because he has motorized mixers, vehicles to move bricks to the right place, laser lines to level his rows, etc. Even in a craft that seems legendarily nontechnical, you have to give some credit to technological advancement. B…

You couldn't possibly hire the bricklayer directly today. The bricklayer would be hired as a subcontractor by the general contractor who would apply a surcharge.

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

#98

Post by tempestn » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:43 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #34

Animats wrote: post #17

Is the brick actually holding up the building? In many modern buildings, it's just a veneer, about 1cm thick. The steelwork holds it up. The new Box.net HQ in Redwood City looks like a brick building, but it's not; it's steel and concrete with about 1cm of brick on the outside. There's some nice work being done with brick today.[1] Some of this is gentrification, built to fit in with existing brick buildings, or to i…

The article uses the word "façade" 7 times in reference to both the older and newer building. My takeaway is the emphasis on "technology" in the article is on form rather than function.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facade

The article is using definition #1. I don't think the word is meant to imply anything beyond the literal, "the front of a building".

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

#99

Post by yetanotheracc » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:45 PM UTC

carsongross wrote: post #92

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…

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?

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

#100

Post by sliverstorm » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 11:46 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…

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.