Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which epoch built the best?
Pre 1890's 6 14.29%
Early 20th century 25 59.52%
Postwar 2 4.76%
Tech Boom 0 0%
Current 8 19.05%
Other/none of the above 1 2.38%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2011, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,138 posts, read 22,810,657 times
Reputation: 14116

Advertisements

...springing from my other thread on the implementation of suburbia, is modern construction better or worse than earlier construction? Which epoch is best?

I chose the time periods because they encompass very different and tangible ideas/construction methods/technology. I am using my own geographic area (the intermountain west) as baseline just because I know it the best. Of course there will be overlap, and different areas/income brackets of the country will be different. This is a generalization.

Here's my "epochs" of construction:

Pre 1890's-

Fften vernacular local construction, not built with electricty/plumbing in mind, often owner-built.







Early 20th Century (1890's to 1940's)-

First to be build with utilitites/plumbing, usually built w/architect and/or planbook designs, low standards to become an architect, but high expectations from owners. Lots of mass produced lumber, hardware, other materials used in construction, early level of technology used.







Postwar construction (1940's to 1970s)

From Leavittown to shag carpet and disco, houses in this time period are usually smallish but larger than before, mass produced across the country and built in vast numbers. The first homes to include an attached garage as a standard, neighborhoods built around a car-based infrastructure.






Tech-boom construction (1970's to 2008)

During this time houses got "supersized", growing ever larger while still remaining more-or-less affordable. By now construction processes completely standardized; you could easily build one beginning to end with off-the-shelf Home depot or Lowes parts. The Mc Mansion is born and most average homes are thrown up by huge home building companies and not individual and/or small development corporations with the developer's bottom line being the most important factor of construction.







Current construction (post 2008)

Some may disagree with starting a new epoch here, but I've seen a titanic shift in styles and priorities since the collapse of '08. Suddenly homes are smaller, the focus is on energy efficiency as well as eliminating wasted space and the exterior styles harken back to what was being built a hundred years ago. High tech insulation, HVAC, water filtration and grey water recycling, internet Wi Fi, and teeny weenie lots are standard.





So when did we do our best work? Which epoch will have the most "survivors" in the future? Which do you prefer?

Last edited by Chango; 03-07-2011 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2011, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
5,509 posts, read 9,490,296 times
Reputation: 5621
This is tough to answer. There are lots of variables, too.

For example, an old brick house--pre WWII--probably uses the brick for structural purposes. Modern brick houses, if they even use real brick, only use brick as very expensive siding.

Modern wood framing techniques (i.e. platform framing vs. balloon framing) are arguably better. But, the quality of the wood used in framing isn't as good as it was in the past. Ignoring the size difference of a modern 2x4 and an old 2x4, the older 2x4 will likely have denser growth rings, making it inherently stronger.

The use of slate and copper on roofs was somewhat common in the past. That, and tile are probably the longest lasting roof systems. But, modern high-grade asphalt shingles are very good, and can last up to 40 years, if installed correctly.

I could go on like this...

Anyway, I think this thread might get moved to the "House" forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2011, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Destrehan, Louisiana
2,189 posts, read 7,051,765 times
Reputation: 3637
Well I've opened up walls in homes built 100 plus years ago and don't like seeing studs scabbed together in 4' sections throughout the house.

busta
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2011, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920
Seriously, is this how we make a decision? A poll on CD? I think this stuff can be verified somehow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2011, 09:36 PM
 
724 posts, read 1,685,579 times
Reputation: 723
Older homes seem to be built to last, especially the stone or brick homes made in the early 1900s. 2010 construction will not be here in 3010. No way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2011, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
Older homes seem to be built to last, especially the stone or brick homes made in the early 1900s. 2010 construction will not be here in 3010. No way.
No, it probably won't be around in 1000 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2011, 11:58 PM
 
8,673 posts, read 17,279,161 times
Reputation: 4685
2010 construction probably won't be around in 2060. Cheap wood held together with drywall and OSB, built as disposable products for planned obsolescence. Not every 100 year old house was built like a fortress--but odds are if it is still standing in 2010, it was built pretty well in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,511 posts, read 6,297,853 times
Reputation: 2260
Construction and architecture varied from 1940 through 1970.

Craftsman homes were common in the 1940s. Ranch and that flat-top modern look became popular in the 1950s. By the 70s ranch style homes were the norm and stucco was used in place of siding in areas with drier summer climate.


As far as quality, it varies by builder and what is quality in one area of the country may not work too well in another. I would imagine the coarse and porous stucco finishes used in the Northwest and Southwest would probably break apart from freezing temperatures in some parts of the country.

Insulation wasn't used in some parts of the country from the 20s through the early 70s. Actually, isn't uncommon to find older homes without insulation in any part of the country. It doesn't mean the construction is of poor quality. It means they didn't put insulation in what could be an otherwise solid house.

And of course, different materials were used over the years. Sometimes because it was a less-expensive alternative. Sometimes because it was superior. Asbestos, for example, was a superior and less-expensive product in many applications for years. The con is it isn't safe when used in a product that breaks down and creates dust.

With other products it probably doesn't matter. Is plaster superior over drywall when used as a partition between rooms? Both do the same job equally well. The only real difference is drywall passes more noise from room to room than plaster and the paper on drywall turns moldy when exposed to dampness while plaster falls apart.

Current building practices do quite a few things differently due to the cost of materials. Mid-century homes often used a tongue and groove board as the foundation for roofing. If you drive past any construction side you will see they use particle board. The construction industry will argue that it is better than tongue and groove roofing and that the particle board is made with a waterproof resin. I don't know if it is better or not. The older methods worked fine. I haven't seen any type of particle board last as long as solid wood, even if it is kept in cool, dry locations. My experience has been the stuff suddenly disintegrates eventually. I suppose the goal here isn't indefinite longevity, but that it lasts long enough that it can be replaced along with the shingles in 20 or 40 years, and that is what I think the outcome will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 05:21 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,467,780 times
Reputation: 15184
Bit off topic, but I noticed that few homes I've seen in the Northeast are bungalows and maybe four squares as well. I think there some American four-squares in my town as well as a few (but not many) bungalows. Haven't seen any bungalows in NYC or Long Island. These seem to be the house styles of the 30s and 20s in NYC and Long Island. Though, it's hard for me to tell if they're from that era since a lot of blocks have some newer construction mixed in. Here's two blocks from Long Island near NYC:

24848 88th Dr, Jamaica, Ny - Google Maps

660 6th Avenue, New Hyde Park, NY - Google Maps

and a block in NYC:

15202 85th Ave, Jamaica, Ny - Google Maps

Most of the older houses in my town are from about 1900. The single family homes seem to be in a colonial salt-box (or maybe 4 square?) style. But most of the old homes from that era were 2 family homes. The two family homes are all long and narrow with a porch on the bottom and usually a balcony above. I've included a few photos of streets near me.
Attached Thumbnails
Is modern construction better/worse than earlier construction?-icy-road.jpg   Is modern construction better/worse than earlier construction?-row.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Planet Eaarth
8,954 posts, read 20,677,986 times
Reputation: 7193
If the question is limited to the basic structure of the building I'd say the older buildings are better built PROVIDED quality workmanship was used. Many of these older building showcase the reason for "building codes".

While new construction must follow building codes they don't enjoy the long life of the older buildings due to the fact that quality building materials simply are not availaible anymore since the older buildings consumed that already.

At the end of the day nature will reclaim it all so new or old is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top