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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.