question about residential construction in the past versus now

[steve2470]

Through the years, I've gotten the impression that residential home construction quality, in general, has gone down. I have no hard data on that and I've never been in the industry. I know codes in certain locations (like Miami for hurricanes or California for earthquakes) have gone up.

Is this just urban legend-ish stuff I've been exposed to, or is there some truth to that ? Thanks for your patience with my sincere question.

Steve

[NYC_SKP]

1. What's the urban legend stuff to which you refer? Architect and builder here.

Well, I have a professional degree in architecture, not a license, and years in the trades, and done construction in the East and the West.

Pretty qualified to answer, if I do say so myself.

Homes today in California are more well designed and built, typically, than most homes in California build from the 60's into the 70's or so.

Our progressive building standards, especially related to energy efficiency, are largely responsible for that.

However, I'll take a well designed home from, say, 1910 through 1920 over either other era.

I had a home built in 1907, thick walls, lots of light, full basement, thick foundation walls, good passive solar.

It had been remodeled in the 30s to replace the wood lath and plaster with rocklath and plaster, a gypsum board with holes then scratch and finish coats of plaster. Crazy solid!

In some ways, the cheap stuff is cheaper than the cheap stuff was in the past: Cheap hollow-core doors and MDF cabinets didn't exist back then, so what we had was better.

Today we have very efficient windows and doors, on the other hand, so that's better than it was.

Urban legend? Tell me more!

[steve2470]

2. oh, just muttering over...

"the walls are thinner" or "everything is built like a crackerbox now" or "things were built to last back then".

That sort of stuff. I've never heard anyone defend current building standards and methods, so I'm glad to read your post! That's why I asked, dispel my ignorance.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Frankly, they're correct about thinner walls and some component's ability to last.

If we're talking about tract home quality or average middle-low quality, they're sort of correct.

A 1920 home would have had significantly larger framing members. A two by four was actually two by four inches.

Subfloors were tongue and grove, one inch or better, then hardwood floor over that.

Ceramic tiles were laid in a thick bed of mortar, seriously thick and sturdy!

Tubs were cast iron, not fiberglass.

As engineers learned how to trim here and there, they did that and the utility of things didn't suffer that badly.

Today, the best built homes are using bigger framing members, 2 x 6's, and the tile is set in thick mortar, and they'll use 5/8 drywall.

Just like the old days!

[steve2470]

4. my condo is exhibit A, sort of

I would have gladly paid a bit more to have soundproofed walls and floors. Maybe I'm in the very small minority, but I think quiet is a basic component of a residence. It was built in 1984, so I have no idea how the more recent condos are built.

[NYC_SKP]

6. You can put a fist through a modern wall. Don't try that with a pre-war home.

And, your mileage may vary from state to state, region to region.

Over the past 50 years, modern is generally better.

However, even today, some states like N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Alaska, W. Virginia Wyoming and Mississippi and others resist energy efficiency codes.

http://aceee.org/state-policy/scorecard

https://energypriorities.com/2014/10/best-worst-states-u-s-energy-efficiency/

[steve2470]

7. the resistance is because the local industry is afraid it will hurt sales ?

Did I guess that right ?

[NYC_SKP]

9. Part of it is frontier resistance to big government, and the energy lobby.

Every one of those states has a stake in the energy industry.

Coal in Appalachia, petroleum in Alaska and Mississippi, natural gas in the Dakotas.

They're Red states, and fiercely resistant to regulations, even when they're in their best interest.

True, better buildings cost a little bit more but after the investment is recovered in just two to eight years, it's more cost effective.

They don't think long-term.

Though the folks I've met in Alaska are smarter than that, they build smart.

[steve2470]

10. Thanks for your time with this, NYC_SKP

You definitely nailed it there. Hopefully my son's generation (he's 19) will force through better codes and more energy-efficient homes and solar power! All forms of renewable energy and not fossil fuel. I think price will be the real driver in all that.

[NYC_SKP]

11. You're welcome. I now work entirely in the realm of energy efficiency and renewables.

I even joined Governor Granholm in being a speaker at an energy conference in Anchorage.

She was keynote and we had time to chat. I was on a panel.

Here's a pic of me and her from that:



OMG she is so smart and pretty!!!

[steve2470]

12. she is!

Keep up the good work!

[Warpy]

5. Generally speaking, standardized building codes

and mandated inspections have made it safer.

However, industry has managed to ram through a few things that are now biting homeowners on the butts, expensively, like PVC tubing within concrete slabs as water supplies. Settling and age are causing it to fail and some homeowners are facing having the whole house replumbed above ground with copper.

I lived in New England, where I saw some pretty amazing things in old construction to the point I was wondering why the place was still standing. Often reclaimed lumber picked up after storms was used in those old houses. You never knew how close the studs were because it varied from stud to stud and everything was hidden behind lath and horsehair plaster. If you didn't have covered wiring running along the baseboards, you knew it was knob and tube or worse, like wiring insulated with tar that would flake off if a truck rumbled by outside.

Give me new construction any day, thanks, or enough money to gut an old house down to the studs and exterior sheathing and rebuild it.

[murielm99]

8. I think we all know that older homes

can be money pits. I have never lived in anything else, and maybe I have been lucky.

We looked at buying newer places, and found them lacking.

My dad always said that my first house, built in 1951, and the farmhouse I live in now were more well-constructed than anything he bought, built much later.

I live in a farmhouse that is more than one hundred years old. When we have refurbished, we had a hard time finding the quality materials we wanted. We had a hard time finding the people to do the work, too. Many of them wanted to do things the cheap and easy way. But the right people are out there.

One of the great things about my house is the natural ventilation. It was built with that in mind. In the summer, if we open the front and back doors and run the ceiling fan, we don't have to use the air conditioning all the time.

The woodwork is another great thing. We have refinished the floors and replaced some doors. Otherwise, it is solid and beautiful.

Heating can be a drawback. In an older home, there was not always central heating. We have had problems keeping the upstairs cool enough or warm enough for modern standards. Many people with homes like mine put in window air conditioners in the upstairs bedrooms. They use more blankets in the winter. They understand that an older home is is going to be like that, unless they invest in redoing the heating and cooling ducts extensively. We invested in new windows and sealed the foundation.

If you live in an older home, there can be drawbacks. But I will keep my house.

[Mosby]

13. I suspect that there are a lot of regional differences

I live in Phx in a house built in 1972, it's has block walls, copper plumbing and 12 gauge copper wiring. The sheet rock is thick, roof is 3/4 plywood. When I replaced a faucet in the shower I found hand done mortar behind the tile not blue/green board.

In the '80s a lot of questionable building materials were used, paper/composite main drains (which is insane considering the amount of oleander in people's back yards), aluminum wiring and almost all framed walls with stucco.

Try upgrading windows in a stucco home, you have to basically cut through it, put in the new windows, re-mortar it and then paint your house.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

14. To yer question

Been in the construction industry for a good number of years and I have never seen a home built by a construction company man that
gets built in the same manner with the same shabby methods used in general construction-or the buyers market. !

You would label such a project a custom built home but what it is ,is a structure built the way it should be using quality materials .
All phases of construction in such an endeavor take as long as is required in the interest of quality and perfection, as it once did in the old days. For a craftsmen, it's a rare opportunity these days to turn yer hand in yer craft when yer not fighting the clock or forced to cut corners.

OK, so what it comes down to is the big name construction outfits will build mile long rows of houses on end for market sales,but
living in such a thing is out of the question for them !

When expense is not spared on the material end and the time it takes to do quality work is not sacrificed to meet the budget,you will have an end result that is more-so a likeness to that old house built in 1907 -of a type where the buyers had some money to spread on quality. In effect you get what you pay for.

On the other hand it you don't do your research and you don't know much about quality construction verses built it fast and sell it fast,
than you get what is there .

So yes ,a lot of pre fab these days, build it quick.

This is why quality custom home design and construction has emerged in market.

What it comes down to is you get what you pay for.
But you have to know exactly what you want and how you want it.
A good master builder can also design.

Myself, I'll agree with N.Y. Skp. the old house stands firm and solid, but, it's a lot of work.


So yes, quality has dropped off in the building industry.I won't go into the why's and what the hells.

[steve2470]

15. thank you so much for your input

"You get what you pay for" is so so true, in so many phases of life. Like I said above, I would have paid more to have sound-proofed walls and floors. I don't know how much more it would have cost the builder to do that, but my layman's guess is that it was not done because of the added cost.