Home Construction (Cleveland: crime, schools, move to)

[pepe1]

The reason you see fewer brick homes in the Twin Cities is entirely related to cost (it is not a function of insulation values as brick is a poor insulator). Around 50% of brick production in the United States is concentrated in the southeastern states. This concentration leads to lower material costs for builders in the southeastern states. Not only is the material more expensive here, the masonry trades have traditionally been strongly unionized in the Twin Cites, leading to much higher installation costs.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by pepe1

The reason you see fewer brick homes in the Twin Cities is entirely related to cost (it is not a function of insulation values as brick is a poor insulator). Around 50% of brick production in the United States is concentrated in the southeastern states. This concentration leads to lower material costs for builders in the southeastern states. Not only is the material more expensive here, the masonry trades have traditionally been strongly unionized in the Twin Cites, leading to much higher installation costs.

I was going to say this as well, brick needs to be shipped here vs being made in the south so way back when only the most expensive houses had brick (Summit Ave is a good example). Since the cost was so much more, it just isn't something people were willing to pay extra for. Another reason is we don't have termites here so wood siding isn't at risk like it is in the south.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Just watch out for prefab brick paneling -- it's not the same as the kind that is layed by hand! This would be more common in the outer suburbs in new construction.

[uptown_urbanist]

There are more historic brick buildings (and brick is and was manufactured here -- but now, I believe, by only one brick company. There used to be far more of them), so if brick is a must then you will probably want to be open to older homes. On the plus side, those also tend to be closer to downtown, so you'd have an easier commute. Even in the earlier years, though, brick just has never been a strong part of the Twin Cities' vernacular architectural history. There have certainly been historic brick homes, but nothing like what you find in some other parts of the country. They're definitely out there (both new and old), though. I used to live in a brick apartment building in Minneapolis. Maybe if brick buildings were the definitive architectural style of choice there would be either more of an interest in importing bricks, or perhaps there would be more brick manufacturers based locally.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

It has a LOT to do with Chicago and its "Second City", after the Great Chicago Fire. Many cities in that era built homes with brick to prevent massive fires. Minneapolis' heyday was, for the most part, well after this.

[Libby01]

The term "brick construction" is a misnomer and is not what is really being talked about here. It's really just brick veneer -or brick-facing. DirtMagurt touched on the idea that brick houses typically have a wood frame. Very true.

Historically, Minnesota had a number of brick manufacturing plants. (UU is right on that one). IF you consider all the brick pavers used for roads, there was plenty of demand for brick products. Chaska Brick was a large facility that was well known and there was a plant right along the Mississippi in Lilydale. All of the plants were located in areas where there was abundant clay. Many of those clay resources are now tapped out, thus the plants don't exist anymore. Ochs Brick is the one remaining brick manufacturing plant in Minnesota- but there are plenty of other brick manufacturers in the Midwest. Access to brick products was not a problem in Minnesota.

Brick is obviously more fire-resistant than wood siding, thus is the material of choice for places likes Chicago, that have had a major fire in their history. It does have more insulation value than wood siding, so it did help quite a bit, historically anyway. Nowdays, it's more about the actual insulation used, rather than the siding. I think the biggest advantage is that it doesn't have to be painted and only requires occassional maintainence of the mortar joints. It's really an ideal material for siding, but will cost you a bit more in the upfront.

[pepe1]

Originally Posted by Libby01

Brick is obviously more fire-resistant than wood siding, thus is the material of choice for places likes Chicago, that have had a major fire in their history. It does have more insulation value than wood siding, so it did help quite a bit, historically anyway. Nowdays, it's more about the actual insulation used, rather than the siding. I think the biggest advantage is that it doesn't have to be painted and only requires occassional maintainence of the mortar joints. It's really an ideal material for siding, but will cost you a bit more in the upfront.

Brick is a terrible insulating material (4" common brick has a R-value around 0.5). Wood is actually a marginally better insulating material than brick (though it should be noted that wood is also a lousy thermal insulator).

Correctly installed brick does indeed have an advantage of requiring minimal maintenance. Brick construction also gives buildings a energy efficiency advantage by way of its thermal mass (the abilbity of clay masonry products to absorb and store heat enrgy).

[Libby01]

Originally Posted by pepe1

Brick is a terrible insulating material (4" common brick has a R-value around 0.5). Wood is actually a marginally better insulating material than brick (though it should be noted that wood is also a lousy thermal insulator).

Correctly installed brick does indeed have an advantage of requiring minimal maintenance. Brick construction also gives buildings a energy efficiency advantage by way of its thermal mass (the abilbity of clay masonry products to absorb and store heat enrgy).

I would agree with you that both materials are lousy insulators!
I wasn't clear in my statement regarding brick being a "better" insulator- because it's actually about the same as typical wood siding. (Not sure where you got your information on .5 for brick, but most information out there has it at a .8 value for 4" thick material??). I was thinking about the thermal mass properties you described, which can be helpful when I alluded to brick being better than wood.
It does depend on the actual brick thickness as compared to wood siding thickness- which can potentially vary (although not as much in modern construction as in historic conditions). I will note that your statement about wood being a better insulator than brick is very much true- if the thickness of materials are the same.

[audadvnc]

There is an old mansion / boarding house right along Hwy 94 in downtown Minneapolis ( (N side of hwy, about a block off Chicago, IIRC), where the redeveloper built over the existing brickwork, laying down a layer of Tyvek, and then another layer of brick over that! I'd never seen that done before.

[Camden Northsider]

Although the majority of the homes in my neighborhood tend to be stucco with stone accents (cottage revival), wood-sided bungalows, etc.- there do seem to be a number of all brick homes in the area as well. There are a handful of areas that were redeveloped in the 50s (churches torn down, etc.) in which the midcentury ramblers that were built all seemed to be exclusively brick-sided, and there are a number of older (or perhaps newer?- with brick it's sometimes hard to tell) homes on Victory Memorial Parkway and just off of it that are fully sided with brick.

I agree with others that you'll need to target areas that were largely built up sometime between the Victorian and Midcentury eras, and you'll likely find a higher proportion of brick homes being built in both of those periods than times inbetween them (although you will still see a minority of brick homes built throughout these periods).