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.
Interestingly enough, this whole conversation was started because the roof on my apartment complex was getting replaced. I was watching some of the workers and realized that the roof on American residential construction is only a thin piece of plywood, plus some felt and a layer of shingles nail gunned in place. It just seems to cheap to me. It's funny to think that my computer desk is built out of better wood than my roof.
Someone here mentioned truss connector plates. I really can't see how truss connector plates would be better than nails. What happens if there is a fire? I'd imagine that because of the heat expansion, that portion of the house is going to collapse. I'm guessing that nails were ditched because they are more expensive and time consuming.
As we've found out in this thread, construction materials are chosen based on materials available and "because that's how it's always been done". I'm okay with that. A European-style home wouldn't be right in the US, nor would an American home be right in Europe.
However, let's compare the average European interior to the average American interior. A modest home in the US will probably have cheap floors in the kitchen, and crappy carpet throughout the rest of the home. Faucets and other accessories will come from the lowest bidder. You have to pay a lot more for a luxury home to get decent floors and accessories.
Couple of things:
1) The 30 year and 15 year mortgage is almost an American exclusive. Mortgages do not exist in many countries, so homes are bought with cash - cash that took years and years and years to save up. As a result, homes are passed down and kept in the family. Or people rent forever.
2) Because they are sold more often, many American home are poorly maintained. If a home is properly maintained it should last virtually forever. Who needs a 50 years roof when a 15 year roof costs 1/5 as much and can be easily replaced?
When our homes need maintenance many of us simply move.
This thread has basically confirmed my suspicions on why newly American built homes are so cheaply made, and feel like they are made from paper mache.
In the U.S., our mentality is let's build things faster, cheaper= higher profit. American companies obsess over profit gains more so than I believe other big corporations around the world. There's nothing wrong in making money, but if GREED is the sole focus of your operation, then that business is doing a disservice to their customers by building poorly made products, be it from a vacuum cleaner, a dishwasher, to a house.
I've noticed that older homes constructed in the U.S., 1800's-1940's, were made very study and also looked great (NYC is perfect example). Knock on a wall of newly built house, and you can hear the hollowness a mile away. Do the same on an older pre 60's home, and you hardly hear a thing, it's a "thud" sound or nothing at all.
In Europe, you guys have all this wonderful, BEAUTIFUL ancient buildings that is very well made. All that stone and marble is just amazing to see, and how the architects, and artist in those days were able to cut and carve some of those old gothic figures on the outside is mind boggling to me!
You can tell in those days they built those structures to last hundreds of years, those same principles are long gone in the construction industry today. Plus the cost alone for materials would put those companies out of business.
I've been in one of my friends semi-new condo which was built in 2009, and man o man, the walls, the doors, even the cupboards all seem so thin and cheaply built. The doors alone have ZERO weight to them including the main door, and you easily hear sounds from outside on the street (cars driving by, airplane noise, people talking) that you wonder how in the heck where the builders able to actually have people fall for buying these poorly constructed condo's? What lies were being told to prospective buyers?
I don't care how damn ECO friendly the place is, if it can't block out noise, keep things nice and cool during the summer, and warm in the winter, feel at least some quality was put into everything, I don't want it!
But this goes for almost everything now days that is built. More plastic which breaks easier and eventually will need replacing often. Appliances and even the small things that you buy aren't as well made anymore.
I own some very old blenders built in the 50's and 60's that still work great today, but they're all metal. Including some vintage fans, and an old Kirby vacuum cleaner, all going strong while most of the new stuff I have purchased several years ago has already crapped out.
Yes, but the insulation sucks. My fathers 1950s concrete block house in Florida cost's him 600 dollars to heat and cool a month.
Wooden structures are some of the best to have in an earthquake. Stone, concrete and brick some of the worst unless they've had retrofitting done or are newly built to meet earthquake building codes. Unlikely that any small Italian villages would have buildings retrofitted for earthquakes as it would be cost prohibitive.
Myth busters showed what happens to a cinder block structure during an earth quake. It fell apart. What happens to cinder block in a tornado? Falls down and kills people. I do see concrete as a better option for coastal hurricane prone areas.
America loves new things including new houses. A house that is 20 years old, in some areas, is considered old.
This is very different than some other countries, including Europe, where the obsession for newness is not as marked and where homes are literally handed down to future generations.
Given this, it does not make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money to make homes that last for many decades.
Also homes that were built in the 50s and earlier were not built to be energy efficient because at that time the cost of electricity and gas was a fraction of what it is today. Things changed with the oil crisis in 1974 and then in 1979. Energy efficient equipment ranging from air conditioners to water heaters came into vogue over the past 20 years or so.
When we sold our 25 year old house in Northern Virginia - a very well constructed home that had held up well - we were told that one of the negatives is that the house was old! It also did not have the open plan that is popular nowadays, etc.
Look at real estate websites and when it comes to the age of a house there are a couple of sites that identify the age of houses in 5 year periods and once one reaches 1990, there is a catch-all for houses older than 1990!
Interestingly enough, this whole conversation was started because the roof on my apartment complex was getting replaced. I was watching some of the workers and realized that the roof on American residential construction is only a thin piece of plywood, plus some felt and a layer of shingles nail gunned in place. It just seems to cheap to me. It's funny to think that my computer desk is built out of better wood than my roof.
If the living space were directly under the roof surface, that would be true. Otherwise, a heavy roof surface is just a lot of extra weight to be born by the walls. A roof that is merely thicker sheathing doesn't necessarily wear any better.
There are superior coverings to asphalt shingles--and they can make a world of difference--but as mentioned elsewhere, for people who expect to move within 20 years, the superior coverings are not cost effective.
Quote:
Someone here mentioned truss connector plates. I really can't see how truss connector plates would be better than nails. What happens if there is a fire? I'd imagine that because of the heat expansion, that portion of the house is going to collapse. I'm guessing that nails were ditched because they are more expensive and time consuming.
Nope, truss connector plates have proven superior through severe wind storms. They are not a cost-saving measure, they are truly better. And remember that tremendous wind storms are common in the US--par for the course over the life of any house through most of the country.
Quote:
As we've found out in this thread, construction materials are chosen based on materials available and "because that's how it's always been done". I'm okay with that. A European-style home wouldn't be right in the US, nor would an American home be right in Europe.
However, let's compare the average European interior to the average American interior. A modest home in the US will probably have cheap floors in the kitchen, and crappy carpet throughout the rest of the home. Faucets and other accessories will come from the lowest bidder. You have to pay a lot more for a luxury home to get decent floors and accessories.
I suspect the cost is close to the same, barring the differences of locally available materials. The difference is most likely that in the modern American market people don't expect to live in a home for very long.
I my current area, for instance, the soil condition requires slab concrete foundations and the weather conditions guarantee that within 20 years the slab will need major repair work (unless the soil moisture content is conscientiously maintained through all weather conditions). The saying around here is, "If the house is 20 years old, it either needs slab repair or it has had slab repair."
But if the original builders would simply take the same measure as slab repair requires (sinking perimeter piers below the level of soil movement), the slab would not require either maintenance or eventual repair. I suspect that would raise the cost of building the house by about $5,000...but when the original owners don't plan to live in the house for 20 years, they don't want to spend $5,000 extra.
I my current area, for instance, the soil condition requires slab concrete foundations and the weather conditions guarantee that within 20 years the slab will need major repair work (unless the soil moisture content is conscientiously maintained through all weather conditions). The saying around here is, "If the house is 20 years old, it either needs slab repair or it has had slab repair."
But if the original builders would simply take the same measure as slab repair requires (sinking perimeter piers below the level of soil movement), the slab would not require either maintenance or eventual repair. I suspect that would raise the cost of building the house by about $5,000...but when the original owners don't plan to live in the house for 20 years, they don't want to spend $5,000 extra.
Texas? I've heard horrors about slab repair here. I'm originally from NC and out there, only the cheaper homes are build on slabs.
Texas? I've heard horrors about slab repair here. I'm originally from NC and out there, only the cheaper homes are build on slabs.
I was a kid in Oklahoma where most houses (even the expensive ones) are also on slabs. I was puzzled when I heard about the horrors of the slab in the Dallas area, because there hadn't been such problems in Oklahoma.
It's the local soil in northern Texas.
I do, however, much prefer a home with a good basement.
I still can't find a single source for your claim that several people a day were killed by falling roof tiles in Germany. I have never heard on German media that someone was killed by falling roof tiles. I would never deny that this never happened, but surely not several people a day. It's not uncommon that people get killed in mighty storms. Most of them get killed by falling trees and branches.
That was the result of the last devastating storm (Ela) in Düsseldorf in 2014 (3 people died in a garden shed, crushed by a falling tree):
What? Wow, talk about a subjective statement with absolutely no way to verify this sentiment. Americans are a very mobile group in general - it is in our collective psyche, in our historic background. Just because we tend to move every seven years on average doesn't mean we don't love our homes as much as any other group.
If Americans would love their homes as much as Germans (for example) do, they would put more pride into upkeeping their homes. Maybe it's different in Texas, where houses are a lot newer, but in Massachusetts for example the amount of rundown houses is shocking.
When people would love their houses, they would equip their houses right from the beginning with more distinct installations instead of just buying a house where most installations are given by the builder. The relationship to a house is much stronger when people build their house on their own instead of just buying a house. It's absurd to deny this.
Quote:
Having bought a home recently and upgraded the kitchen and bathrooms, I can assure you from personal experience that Americans enjoy a HUGE range of choices when it comes to fixtures, including toilets.
A short look at the web page of Home Depot or Lowe's reveals the contrary.
Quote:
Wow, this is so full of misinformation, I hardly know where to start...
American furniture and style designs are extremely varied, to include "sleek, contemporary design" similar to European designs (which to me seem very limited).
No, Americans are not "always wondering where to put their smartphone on the table in the living room." I don't even know where you get such ideas. And what's that about "holding your smartphone near the light switch?" I don't even know what you mean by that.
I don't even know where to start with your comment about toilets and Abraham Lincoln. So I'll just leave that there. I can assure you that in my own home, which is not particularly unusual, I have three very different toilet designs. And we're about to replace one, so we actually have a fourth sitting in our garage as I type this.
Ever heard of sarcasm or irony?
Quote:
Why do so many European homes look so similar? Why is the furniture so similar across the board? Sorry, but I don't see any more variety in European style than I see in American style.
Sorry, but that sounds so dishonest to me. Just compare the kitchens and bathrooms from listings at zillow with those at immobilienscout.
Quote:
I bolded the parts above to ask a specific question - why in your mind is it "fake" to reproduce a classic antique design, but it's OK to make fake wood?
See, your ideas are subjective. That's OK - my opinions about the style of contemporary European furniture are also subjective.
One more point - many Americans can determine whether furniture is solid wood or veneer or plastic as well. And many more, like many Europeans, can't seem to tell the difference.
I think it's safe to say that just as many Americans have good taste - and bad taste - as their European counterparts.
Reproducing antique design is for me like the Chinese that recreate a medieval European town or like an architect that draft a building in Art Nouveau. By doing so, antique furniture or old buildings are devalued in my opinion. It seems disrespectful to me towards our ancestors. But that's just my personal feeling.
Maybe I have express myself wrongly, I don't wanted to say that Americans can't distinguish between different kinds of wooden materials. I just wanted to say that I'm able to distinguish between them to show that not all Germans are dumb when it comes to wood.
I even would say that the average American knows more about wood than the average German or it's maybe more a regional thing. People in Bavaria know surely more about wood than people here in the Rheinland. Like people in North Carolina know more about furniture materials than people in Iowa.
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.
