Another list: Pittsburgh among 10 Cities Primed for a Real Estate Recovery (how much, houses)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Then you aren't talking about most of the structures built during Pittsburgh's boom period. Pittsburgh was fortunate in its boom period to have brick as its main building material, and to have gotten a lot of skilled tradesmen immigrating from Europe.

Its like you are talking about a different city. Using brick does not mean the structure is well built. The homes and many factories where built quickly and cheaply, the stuff is ugly and built poorly. Its largely falling apart now.

Homes like these found in Bloomfield:

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TAU2592.jpg

Are poorly built junk.

I'm not suggesting that all of the buildings built in this period are junk, just a lot of them and they contribute to the decay in Pittsburgh.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by user_id

Using brick does not mean the structure is well built.

No, but well-built structures made of brick are less subject to decay over time than wood-frame structures.

Homes like these found in Bloomfield . . . [a]re poorly built junk.

Generally that is incorrect: even the working-class rowhouses (as pictured) in neighborhoods like Bloomfield, Lawrenceville, and so on were often well-built. And of course lots of the homes in Pittsburgh's economically depressed neighborhoods are not rowhouses, but in fact detached single family homes, often American Foursquares.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Generally that is incorrect: even the working-class rowhouses (as pictured) in neighborhoods like Bloomfield, Lawrenceville, and so on were often well-built.

Yes yes of course. Basic rapidly built unreinforced brick buildings are well built...right. I mean, who cares if part of the structure falls off. You can make a window out of it!

I really do dream of the day I can own one of those beauties.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by user_id

Basic rapidly built unreinforced brick buildings are well built...right.

Brick structures the size of rowhouses don't need to be "reinforced" (I'm not even sure what you have in mind).

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And even if you are looking close in size, probably the most obvious comparable is Cleveland. I just don't know Cleveland real estate in any detail because I didn't consider living there. Also, my impression is that their real estate market has really crashed with the bubble popping and the economic woes in Ohio, so relatively speaking things are in significant flux: I think back during the bubble they were higher than Pittsburgh in median-median comparisons, but they seem to have slipped below now.

Cleveland's real estate must have been hit fairly hard. I'm blown away by the Cleveland housing prices on Howard Hanna. I checked the under 140k range because that's a typical range we check for people moving here. (I don't look at real estate in Pittsburgh except for people who are asking for help on City Data.) You can get a lot more house for under 140k in Cleveland than Pittsburgh. Furthermore, there's an unbelievable amount of houses for sale in the Cleveland area---like thousands available under 140k. People coming to City Data looking for a house in that price range in Pittsburgh only have a few hundred to chose from, if that. There's a HUGE difference between the quality of house available for under 120. You can get way more house for your money right now in Cleveland, but the number of houses for sale tells me that the job market must be terrible there.

[BrianTH]

According to the Case-Shiller Home Price Index and the National Association of Realtors sales data, prices have indeed dropped significantly in Cleveland, particularly in the lower tiers. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in the Cleveland Metropolitan Area was up to 10.1% in June according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (it was 9.5% nationally, 7.7% in Pittsburgh). Cleveland also had an above-average foreclosure rate in RealtyTrac's Midyear 2009 report (1.36% of units, compared to 1.19% national, 0.53% in Pittsburgh).

So yeah, it seems like Cleveland housing has recently become more affordable than Pittsburgh housing, but not for terribly good reasons.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Brick structures the size of rowhouses don't need to be "reinforced" .

Ugh... Except of course you can't build homes with unreinforced walls and foundations anymore?

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not even sure what you have in mind

How about vertical and horizontal reinforcement? You know, the sorts of things used in modern buildings and homes....

Anyhow, the mortar in these cheaply built structures from Pittsburgh's boom period (actually the country in general) starts to degrade over time and shifting in the ground weakens the structures significantly. Of course, its most obvious in places like California, who prohibited the use of unreinforced brick masonry in ahem.....the 1930's. I mean c'mon, so many of these homes have problems with their unreinforced foundations. In Pittsburgh case its the weather that has slowly degraded the masonry and many of the homes have not been properly taken care of....so they are prime for tear down.

Unless the structure has architectural value it is not cost effective to fix them, you can build a modern brick box with windows for less. The only reason there are so many of them in Pittsburgh is because the people living in them are low income and don't have the money to fix them in the first place.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by user_id

Ugh... Except of course you can't build homes with unreinforced walls and foundations anymore?

Again, I'm not even sure what you mean. The standard usage of "reinforced" as applied to a brick wall is when you put steel framing into the gap in a typical cavity wall setup and then fill the gap with mortar. That is definitely NOT required by modern codes for brick construction of low-rise homes, and is only really necessary in high-rise construction because otherwise the load bearing brick walls would have to be way too thick.

How about vertical and horizontal reinforcement? You know, the sorts of things used in modern buildings and homes....

You are seriously going to have to explain what you mean. The most common home-building technique in the U.S. today is light framing, of either the platform or (older) balloon variety. Mostly that is done with wood, although sometimes metal studs are used--but those are really just engineered as a replacement for wood. There is no special reinforcement typical in these homes.

By the way, the reason light framing became dominant in the U.S. is not because of any inherent superiority to the method, but rather because lumber and nails were cheap but skills were in short supply. And that is the chief advantage of light framing: there isn't much learning curve to put it together (to the point that outfits like Sears could ship the materials and instructions to some farmer and he could actually put together a house). However, that in turn has led to a lot of shoddy construction in some modern master-planned developments, particularly when you don't have a knowledgable person constantly supervising and maintaining quality control and speed is a major goal.

Again, the brick homes built in an earlier era in Pittsburgh were usually constructed by skilled immigrants who actually knew what they were doing. And there is nothing inherently inferior about the method.

Anyhow, the mortar in these cheaply built structures from Pittsburgh's boom period (actually the country in general) starts to degrade over time and shifting in the ground weakens the structures significantly.

You definitely have to repoint brick, usually every fifty or so years. Compared to the frequent repainting and repair that wood siding requires, that is a trivial cost. As for the ground, it is stable in most parts of Pittsburgh.

Of course, its most obvious in places like California, who prohibited the use of unreinforced brick masonry in ahem.....the 1930's.

Oh, I see: you are confusing general reinforcement with earthquake measures. It is true that brick structures have a nasty habit of shattering in earthquakes unless you take special precautions. That isn't particularly relevant to Pittsburgh.

I mean c'mon, so many of these homes have problems with their unreinforced foundations. In Pittsburgh case its the weather that has slowly degraded the masonry . . . .

You are still throwing this word "unreinforced" around in a way I don't understand. In this case, typical Pittsburgh stone foundations are no less sound than modern concrete block or poured concrete foundations.

Anyway, settling will trash any foundation, older or modern. At least with foundations where there is a basement, you can usually stabilize the foundation if the settling isn't too bad. With the slab construction you will find in many cheap modern developments, you have to do something like jack up the house to try to repair a bad foundation--not a cheap solution and not great for shoddy light frame houses. By the way, somewhat obviously, weather isn't a typical foundation issue.

Unless the structure has architectural value it is not cost effective to fix them, you can build a modern brick box with windows for less.

First, that isn't necessarily or even frequently true: repointing, a new roof with insulation, maybe some new electric circuits, and maybe new windows is all a lot of these structures need, and that can be much less expensive than demolishing and rebuilding (demolition isn't cost free, of course). Moreover, many of these homes do have "architectural value" in the form of skilled work that simply cannot be duplicated at a reasonable price these days.

The only reason there are so many of them in Pittsburgh is because the people living in them are low income and don't have the money to fix them in the first place.

It is true that the only reason many of these potentially great homes haven't been fully renovated YET is that they are currently occupied by low income people.

But that is precisely why it would be extremely short-sighted to bulldoze them simply because they are "unkempt" (except in cases where the structure really is past the point of no return). The City of Pittsburgh has gone through a tough stretch following the steel bust, but recently per capita incomes have been trending up, and population in general has at least leveled, and I suspect it is actually increasing again. And so these homes are just waiting for their turn at full renovation, which is already happening house by house in many neighborhoods. Accordingly, destroying all this housing stock for no particular purpose (generic "parks" not counting) makes no sense.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, I'm not even sure what you mean. The standard usage of "reinforced" as applied to a brick wall is when you put steel framing into the gap in a typical cavity wall setup and then fill the gap with mortar.

The standard usage in your mind perhaps, but not in the building world or even the dictionary. Reinforce refers to any act of stabilizing concrete/brick structures, for example the use of rebar for vertical ahem....reinforcement. Modern homes are not built with unreinforced masonry, contrary to what you think is "needed".

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You are seriously going to have to explain what you mean. The most common home-building technique in the U.S. today is light framing...

C'mon....We are talking about masonry buildings, you can't build an unreinforced masonry building anymore.

Wood frame homes obviously have a rather different set of building codes.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, the reason light framing became dominant in the U.S. is not because of any inherent superiority to the method, but rather because lumber and nails were cheap but skills were in short supply.

I don't recall suggesting it was superior, heck, I don't recall mentioning them at all!

You seem to not get that modern masonry buildings are not built the same way as they were in the past.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, the brick homes built in an earlier era in Pittsburgh were usually constructed by skilled immigrants who actually knew what they were doing. And there is nothing inherently inferior about the method.

"knew what they were doing" historically speaking? Sure...in modern terms? No. Are you under the impression that no advances have taken place in building methods, building materials, structural engineering, etc since then?

Just to let you know...much has changed. Welcome to the 21st century.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Oh, I see: you are confusing general reinforcement with earthquake measures.

Nope, rather pointing out the short falls of unreinforced masonry have been known for a long time. Obviously, in the Pittsburgh area the issue is not as pressing. But you still have issues due to ground settling and weather related issues.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, somewhat obviously, weather isn't a typical foundation issue.

Okay, I'm going to stop here as its clear you've likely never even picked up a hammer. Water damage is the most common cause of damage to a foundation, last time I checked how much water you have in the area is related to your weather. Stone foundations do the worst in this case as the water breaks up the mortar.

This is also not to mention that different types of foundations are often used depending on local ahem.....weather! Weather and soil type are the most important considerations when picking a foundation type.

Also, in Pittsburgh the basement is often just part of the foundation.

[greg42]

Advances are made in building practices all the time. That doesn't mean we tear down everything that isn't built with the most modern techniques. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter, the houses in question were built decades ago. Surely if they were built now they would be built differently. So what? That alone doesn't mean you go level whole neighborhoods. Leveling existing neighborhoods is a good way to screw things up in your town for a long time to come....