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.
I once had a set of construction encyclopedias from the 1920's.
A two bedroom one bath one story bungalow built to the specifications shown in those books would cost in excess of 500K to build today, just considering labor alone.
Actually, it could not be built today; the materials (lumber, especially) it calls for are simply not available! For instance, back then "knotty pine" was a high priced grade of lumber, valued for the appearance of the tight knots in the wood. Today, it is what you get, whether you want it or not. Lumber with few or no knots is very rare, and highly valued!
My house was built in 1991. I was shocked to find that the floors were one thickness of 3/4 inch OSB! That explains why they don't feel solid! The main things this house has going for it are 6 inch exterior walls, well insulated, and a ground source heat pump for heating/air conditioning. Other than that, in many ways it is pretty sad!
It is very true, they do not build them like they used to. In some ways it is a good thing. Nobody wants a coal fired furnace in the basement these days! But, I do miss the materials that were available in the "good old days", as well as the labor intensive construction practices that were used back then!
I hate the cheap looking "faux rock" look they are putting on a lot of new homes in my area. I mean who are we kidding here? You are in a cookie-cutter housing development, not a sky chalet. There is a development not far from me where they had to do some tear-down because water was getting behind the fako rock exterior and causing water damage. Just an example of putting something cheap on a home that could be a nice feature - if it was the real thing.
I was shocked to find that the floors were one thickness of 3/4 inch OSB! That explains why they don't feel solid!
No, it doesn't! What it does explain is the designer/engineer didn't take into consideration the amount of deflection "designed" into the subflooring ALONG with the floor joist design/deflection-
Then again, everyone's interpretation of a "solid" wood framed floor is different.
The 3/4" OSB subflooring is pretty much industry standard now. It has a much better overall rating than plywood.
I've been looking at photos of 1960's/1970's houses being built (in progress), and the construction process looks EXACTLY the same as today's houses. The way those houses were built, generally, looked identical to today's houses (the building process). I'd be hard-pressed to notice any differences. I also looked at old newspapers through Google archives, and OMG, there were exactly the same complaints in the 1970s as today with newly built houses. "Squeaky floors, uneven doors, leaks, flooding, wobbly baththubs, sloppy paint jobs, breaking roofs" were among common complaints in 1970s newspapers about new houses at the time. Even a 1950s article cautioned about and gave tips for first year problems with newly built houses, pretty much pointing out similar problems nowadays' new houses face, such as leaks and general sloppy workmanship. One article even spoke about the possibility of those houses not lasting 30 years.
Now, look at those same houses, 30-40 years later. We herald those same 1950s-1970s houses as rock solid, built well, etc., and moan loudly about today's houses being poorly built, etc. However, those 50s-70s houses have lasted and are still standing, and pretty much have matured into age. I'm positive the same will happen to today's houses, and 30-40 years down the road, people will be complaining about how 2050s houses are poorly built, and heralding 2010s houses as rock solid.
What do you think? Why does it seem like today, all people do is complain about their new houses and moan how things aren't built like they used to be? It seems to be a bigger deal than it was in the old days. Is this because of social media? Are houses REALLY being built worse than they used to? Hard to believe, given much more strict codes and laws are.
Curious for your opinions.
It was the same, except now we have better technology to better use materials while providing a stronger end product as well as better tools and fasteners. Generally houses today are as well built as ever structurally. With the one exception maybe of when they use the 1/4" vinyl sheathing instead of plywood or osb under vinyl siding. But plenty of 60s and 70s products such as Masonite and aluminum wiring mentioned already are causing issues now.
I used to have a much older house (older than 60's or 70's) and I think it was better constructed than my current 1998 house. Plaster walls instead of drywall, real wood doors instead of some hollow crap, real wood trim and moldings as opposed to particle board, real hardwood floors instead of some engineered crap, just to name a few things.
I built my house in the 90's. Real wood trim, solid wood doors throughout, real hardwood floors-not engineered. You can still get houses like that, the only factor is $$$$$.
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.
No, it doesn't! What it does explain is the designer/engineer didn't take into consideration the amount of deflection "designed" into the subflooring ALONG with the floor joist design/deflection-
Then again, everyone's interpretation of a "solid" wood framed floor is different.
The 3/4" OSB subflooring is pretty much industry standard now. It has a much better overall rating than plywood.
That may be true for a SUBfloor, but the ONLY flooring? 3/4 OSB with pad and carpet on top, IMO, barely qualifies as a "floor"!
I helped my mother and step-father build a house in the 1950's. He was a Journeyman Carpenter. HIS idea of a floor was 2X12 floor joists on 16 inch centers, 1X12 pine at a 45 degree angle to the joists, then 60 pound felt paper (tarpaper), then 1X8 ship-lap at right angles to the joists, then 60 pound felt paper again, then 1/4 in tempered Masonite, then linoleum or carpet. There was NO deflection in that floor AT ALL!
No, they don't build them like THAT these days!
And why would we? That type of floor construction is "overkill" at best! And by that description, a disaster in the making. The encapsulation of wood with the felt paper is a guarantee of rot.
That's the other part of the equation when it comes to residential construction- SCIENCE. So much for the "more is better" attitude.
All the nostalgia over what most mistakenly thought was "better" stuff, cars, house construction, clothing, furnishings, etc, began with the notion of antiques and their utility value as a thing greater than anything "modern." The early nineteen hundreds construction methods for high end homes was better, but only at the high end, low priced homes in America never were a bargain and many had no foundations or good roof truss designs.
I worked in California housing construction in the early sixties, poorly built existing dwellings were the California norm, and those were built in the fifties or right after the war. Today I can go to Portland Oregon's better older neighborhoods and see the well built stuff from the 20's and thirties still standing straight, foundations still in good condition, roof lines straight and upright, no sagging, but---that is in those neighborhoods where the old money once lived, and they paid dearly for those homes.
The American proletariat wanted new and better housing after the war, instead they got the likes of Levittown, cheap, thrown up homes that were offered as a kind of miracle of home ownership, not attainable just a few years prior. Some of today's material is better, engineered wood products are often better when overall strength is considered, and the cost is in that area of affordability for the average family. Composite material used in modern day roofing is definitely better, but in the end it's really about the cost, American's, for all their ballyhooing about their being number one have been fooled into thinking that their McMansions are really the equivalent of those grand old homes of yesteryear's millionaires, but, they're not.
From reading and observations as a home buyer and owner, I think one of the differences is in the kinds of materials used and quality of the materials. The materials that used to be used because the cost wasn't too high and they were plentiful are now too expensive or hard to get. Example: wood. Wood is more scarce now, so the quality wood that used to be used is less now. Trees that are farmed are younger, and the like.
Another difference is that some materials are now made in China and elsewhere. Remember reading about the drywall issue a few years ago? Drywall from China turned out to be defective, which when put into the new highly insulated homes, caused a lot of damage to the homes. The drywall crumbled and invited mold to form behind it or something.
I saw on the news this week that new homeowners in an area here in Dallas have a problem with the land under the sidewalk at front of their yards is sinking, creating a sinkhole beneath the sidewalk. Seems as if the ground wasn't properly prepared before building that subdivision.
One of the advantages of buying an older home, though, besides quality of build, is that enough time has gone by so that any serious problems or defects, if they exist, have probably shown up by now. With a new house, it has not been proven yet whether there will be foundation or other structural trouble down the line, or other problems (plumbing, electrical, etc.).
I live in a 1950s cottage. I lived before in a 1990s condo. I also lived before in an inexpensive 1960s house. I lived for years in old apartments (early 1900s, 1930s) and in new apartment complexes. It does seem to me that the old structures were built better. The 1990s condo had a lawsuit against the builder because of the numerous problems with the build of the complex. The 1950s cottage I have seems well built, but the plumbing and electrical are not up to snuff, of course. The 1960s house I lived in had slight foundation trouble, and the back yard was often muddy, so the house had not been built on properly prepared ground for the area.
The old apartments in old houses I lived in (early 1900s) were very solidly built. You can tell they were built to last.
So I think maybe the 1st half of 20th century (maybe include the 1950s) and before were better built, but you lose the modern energy efficiency and practicality for today's lifestyles. Certainly not enough electrical circuits to support modern living. But AFTER WWII, when there was a population boom, and housing was being built at a fast clip, the quality went downhill.
My mom's house built in 1962 that I grew up in was a custom house and very well built. My sister lives in it. It's still quality. Real wood doors, the structure is solid, foundation in great shape, good bricks, etc.
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.
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.
