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)
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:54 AM
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: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, maybe, who knows? But that house was extremely "basic", two bedrooms, one bath, living room and small kitchen with metal cabinets and hardly any counter space. That's it! No garage, in a climate with a harsh winter.
But why would you base a typical 50s home from just one home? I could keep mentioning details on my parent's home but that's cherrypicking.

As for garages, many homes around here don't have attached garages and some none at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:53 AM
 
854 posts, read 1,113,918 times
Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828 View Post
That is totally in the eye of the beholder. To me houses built in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even some of the 80's are ugly- with the nicest looking ones being from the last 5-10 years.
I just don't see the appeal in cookie cutter homes like this. Pretty much all houses built from the later 90s to present have this design.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 01:08 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Ever see a street of bungalows in say Chicago or Denver? They all look alike; they all have the exact same floor plan. When I was a visiting nurse I never had to ask where the bathroom was in those homes. They're all in the same place!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 01:12 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,897 posts, read 42,143,850 times
Reputation: 43304
Quote:
Originally Posted by spicymeatball View Post
I just don't see the appeal in cookie cutter homes like this. Pretty much all houses built from the later 90s to present have this design.
Pretty much all the workforce housing built from 1910 to the 1960s, too. Especially in towns dominated by one industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in America
12,304 posts, read 10,771,871 times
Reputation: 20540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You don't get stained-glass windows, hardwood floors, or ornate stairwells in old houses either, unless the original owners were rich or someone put them into the houses themselves. Where does the idea come from that ALL old houses were built like that? Most people were living in tenements, or something just a step or two up from that!

I do not know of very many old houses that actually have a "functional" attic, though functional depends on how you define it. Is it for storage, or for living space? Can you stand up in it? The house we rented that was built in the 50s had a slab foundation, but frankly, I have looked at many houses to buy over the years and also at many "Tour of Homes" and just new developments over the past 30 years, and I haven't seen a ONE that was built on a slab. Out here, most have basements, and most of the rest have crawl spaces.
Houses built in the late 1800's and early 1900's didn't have much choice for flooring. Hardwood floors WERE your flooring! Linoleum came into fashion later. Tile was big as well. Not tile like today. Tile back then was actually hand made and hand painted/glazed. No pixel 16 cent tiles at the Depot. Oh and you didn't have to be rich to have tile in your house in the Victorian period. Same for stained glass. It was VERY common. Same with ornate stairwells.

Old houses especially Victorians had/have functional attics. They just weren't finished with plaster/sheetrock. You could most definitely stand up in one of them! Many people I know made them into playroom for kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,681,041 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Pretty much all the workforce housing built from 1910 to the 1960s, too. Especially in towns dominated by one industry.
I think there was a build an apartment kit in Oakland, in the denser areas. We have blocks and blocks of 3-5 story buildings, some condo, some apartment. With garages on the ground, sometimes enclosed, sometimes motel styled (think Melrose Place). And all of the units have one of about 3 designs for each unit type.

The only difference is the type of courtyard and the exterior finishing. All have matching wood cabinets (if they haven't been replaced) and doors.

It doesn't matter which era it is, if a bunch of stuff was built at once, it all looks the same.

Last edited by jade408; 04-02-2014 at 02:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 02:19 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,897 posts, read 42,143,850 times
Reputation: 43304
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I think there was a build an apartment kit in Oakland, in the denser areas. We have blocks and blocks of 3-5 story buildings, some condo, some apartment. With garages on the ground, sometimes enclosed, sometimes motel styled (think Melrose Place). And all of the units have one of about 3 designs for each unit type.

The only difference is the type of courtyard and the exterior finishing. All have matching wood cabinets (if they haven't been replaced) and doors.

It doesn't matter which era it is, if I bunch of stuff was built at once, it all looks the same.
I understand that. You understand that. It sometimes appears that others do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 06:58 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Comparing your 50s house to your 70s house is like comparing apples to oranges.

When I think about houses like this, I use the old GM hierarchy of: Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and finally Chevrolet, to think about who they were built for. And, there are exceptions that, IMO, still don't fall on this scale. A tar-paper shack would be well below the level of "Chevrolet," and the Biltmore Estate would be far above the level of "Cadillac."

Your 50s house sounds like it would be a low-end Chevrolet of its time, and your 70s house sounds like it might have been a Pontiac or Oldsmobile of its time.
Our 50s house may have been a low-end Chevrolet, but the 70s house was an "entry level" home. By the 70s, houses had gotten a little bigger in general. Our house was 1300 sq. ft. [Before anyone (not necessarily you) goes shrieking about what a big house compared to whatever, I will point out that at one time we had four people living in it. We had far fewer sq. ft. per person than some singles and DINKs have in their city condos].

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
But why would you base a typical 50s home from just one home? I could keep mentioning details on my parent's home but that's cherrypicking.

As for garages, many homes around here don't have attached garages and some none at all.
You said yourself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Why would housing built in the last 20 years would be less durable than Levittown-era housing, which was meant to built as cheaply as possible?
The house we lived in was of the same ilk. Point being, all this yammer about houses of one particular era being better than the houses from another era, is silly. There were crappy houses built in the 50s, and better built ones. Ditto the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s, the 10s, etc.

My in-laws lived in a house that was built in 1936, one of these rare depression era houses. When built, as best I can calculate, it had about 800 sf in the original house. It had a living room, 2 bedrooms big enough only for single beds that opened directly off the living room (no hallway) and a kitchen in the original house. By the time my in-laws bought it, 10 years later, it had an addition consisting of a bathroom (that's right, it was built w/o a bathroom, my MIL said it was probably outside), and a master bedroom. A side porch was closed in to make a place to put the refrigerator, since homes in 1936, even in urban Omaha, Nebraska, did not have refrigerators. It had a garage that was actually part of the basement, was probably itself a remodel. Now it was a serviceable house. My in-laws raised 3 kids in it. But is the original house something any of us would want to live in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 07:00 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,011 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33075
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss20ts View Post
Houses built in the late 1800's and early 1900's didn't have much choice for flooring. Hardwood floors WERE your flooring! Linoleum came into fashion later. Tile was big as well. Not tile like today. Tile back then was actually hand made and hand painted/glazed. No pixel 16 cent tiles at the Depot. Oh and you didn't have to be rich to have tile in your house in the Victorian period. Same for stained glass. It was VERY common. Same with ornate stairwells.

Old houses especially Victorians had/have functional attics. They just weren't finished with plaster/sheetrock. You could most definitely stand up in one of them! Many people I know made them into playroom for kids.
My parents owned a house built in 1918. The style is called "foursquare". It had softwood pine floors. It had no stained glass or ornate stairwells.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 07:06 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,838,412 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
My parents owned a house built in 1918. The style is called "foursquare". It had softwood pine floors. It had no stained glass or ornate stairwells.
Sure, and in other areas in that time you'd have a shotgun shack, similarly unornamented. Tile and stained glass were most certainly for the wealthy.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top