Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Engineered hardwood floors, which consisted of a top of layer of hardwood glued to multiple thin layers of wood, can only be sanded and refinished 2 to 3 times in its lifetime because the the top layer is thin. In addition, some of those engineered hardwood floors are only 3/8" inch.
However, according to this website, solid wood floors have thicker top layers that can be sanded and refinished 10 times. So the solid wood floors are longer lasting in that instance.
How often do you plan on sanding floors? I've lived in my house for 20 years and the floors were done when I moved in.
Well, we were talking about structure so the hardwoods aren't really applicable. But no, you can't sand them like old school flooring, that's true. On the other hand, you can install engineered hardwood in many places you can't install old school hardwood such as a slab on grade.
I don't trust anything built in the 70s-80s. The workmanship has been much better in my experience before and after that period. Science and tech have come a long way in the past couple decades, materials are stronger and more efficient than ever, building techniques better.
Older homes may be lacking in some areas, but they generally have solid bones.
In the 70s-80s there seemed to just be a rush to build ASAP regardless of quality. The baby boomers were in their 20s/30s and were flooding the market for homes.
My home was custom built by a local builder in 1989 and it has an excellent build quality. It can definitely hold a candle against comparable new construction homes. It all comes down to the builder, not the decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
How about engineered hardwood floors.
Engineered hardwood floors, which consisted of a top of layer of hardwood glued to multiple thin layers of wood, can only be sanded and refinished 2 to 3 times in its lifetime because the the top layer is thin. In addition, some of those engineered hardwood floors are only 3/8" inch.
However, according to this website, solid wood floors have thicker top layers that can be sanded and refinished 10 times. So the solid wood floors are longer lasting in that instance.
We have both solid and engineered wood floors. Anyone who doesn't think engineered is "real" wood obviously doesn't know much about engineered flooring. It is made from wood. Plywood is still wood. The difference is called "solid" vs. "engineered" not "real" vs. "fake" wood. And sure, an engineered floor can "only be sanded" a handful of times, but I've asked numerous flooring contractors who told me that sanding is not something that you would do frequently, so a handful of times is not that bad at all. Sanding and re-finishing is also not a cheap fix either. I was told it would probably be easier just to replace an offending plank(s).
We decided to go with engineered for our kitchen because overwhelmingly people (on and offline) said that engineered flooring is the best option for installing on slab in a kitchen. The difference between the solid and the engineered was a whopping .70 per sq ft....so it wasn't a cost savings going with engineered.
Getting back to the original post, I don't think that 70s homes (or any home built in prior decades) are inherently better than homes built after that era. Again, it comes down to the builder, not the decade. My home is constructed with drywall, and I'm pretty certain the previous owner replaced that awful oak moulding with white, paint grade MDF moulding, but the build quality is excellent. The house has withstood 27 years of various families with kids living in it and will (with maintenance of course) probably hold up many more years.
I own have owned several 1922 tract Craftsman Bungalow homes... have to say they are well built and have stood the test of time...
One I bought from the original owner... still had all original fixtures... high leg stove, bathroom, kitchen, double hung wood and bay windows...
I nice, comfortable well laid out floorplan, curb appeal and NEVER a stucco crack, sagging or creaking floors... and this is in earthquake country.
Only thing I had to do on all was attend to plaster ceilings...
The Builder came from Scotland and had a nickname one nail McGregor... he used two nails when most used one.
The original Deed showed down payment of $20 US Gold with $2800 to be paid off over 10 years and people did everything during the Depression not to lose their home... take in Laundry, Borders... etc.
My first house that I bought with my starter wife was built in 1920. A side hall colonial in the Pine Hills area of Albany, NY. It was solid. The floors didn't creak. The roof was the original slate and in great shape. (We bought it in 2000). The house I last had was built in 1997 just east of Oshawa, Ontario. There was a huge difference.
I miss the build quality of the older home but the layout of the kitchen was horrid. It was also nice having some land around the house. Up here in the GTA you get a postage stamp for a front and back yard.
The big difference in new homes and old homes in the SF Bay Area is the engineering to meet seismic code...
The simplest way to explain is in the old days a foundation was used to hold a house up... today, a foundation is used to hold a house down.
The amount of steel and concrete can boogle the mind and none of it is seen... add to that the extensive use of shearwalls and load path anchors... there really is no comparison.
My current home has a lovely full Shake Roof... really adds to the curb appeal... Shake has been banned here citywide for 25 years...
I always thought that expression ("don't build them like they used to") referred to much older houses. I know my 1927 home has REAL 2 X 4s of true Douglas Fir, which is prohibitively expensive today. The roof decking is 99% original 2" thick wood planks, and the floors are mainly the original heart pine - gorgeous! I know exactly who built my house, and he also built 6 other homes in my neighborhood in the 1920s-30s, all of which are still standing. Now, these are not fancy homes (mine has the fanciest trim and moldings, because the builder also lived here), but they are solid and strong. I expect all of them will make it to 100 years at least.
As far as I'm concerned too, anything from early 1960s forward is rarely well built.
Well built to me (without getting too antique) is usually 1920s through 1950s.
My 1929 house is really solid. It was built with a sturdy fire wall around the kitchen as well.
I will say, as someone who lives in an area thats hurricane prone, I'd rather ride out a hurricane in a modern house over one that was built pre 1950 or so. I have been in those old wood houses and have actually seen the ceilings move up and down due to the pressure changes in the attic. In the old days they didn't use trusses, and they were bad about spanning lumber way longer than it should be. When it comes to the "bones" of the house, I think modern houses built to a code are better. Stuff like interior trim and doors are usually better in the older houses however.
Thats more to do with the trusses than anything. Thats why all of the old homes here in Fl have flat roofs, they didnt know how to build a high pitched roof back then that wouldnt blow away in 100 mph winds.
As others have stated. It comes down to who is paying the bills for construction. Without a doubt, we have the ability and technology to build a much much much 'better' house today then 'back then'. Codes and regulations, however, allow people to build to minimums that people frown on down the road when things go wrong, but when you get your wallet out they are on board and thumbs up to cutting corners.
If you give someone a choice to pay 250K for a house or 500k for a house, and you tell them the 250k house will meet all standards and last 40+ years, but the 500k house will surpass all standards and last 100+ years what do you think will happen? Average lifespan is ~78 years, 60 of which we can legally buy a house. Even less if you look at when one can actually afford it, and how many times people move. On top of that, by the time a house is 100+ years old even, 40 years old for that matter, technology has far surpassed its initial construction.
So would it be a smart to investment and pay twice for something when you will only live to see half of its life, and far superior products are coming out with prices that are relatively the same? Most people are in the mindset to buy a house that will last their lifetime. Why would you pay for more when you can't use it?
And lastly, can you blame them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.