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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-29-2014, 09:07 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,209 times
Reputation: 1439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
No but the problem is they use the ikea ones and call it "luxury." I went to these really really overpriced condos not long ago. They were in a transitional area that was both sketchy, underutilized and disconnected to the rest of the city. IKEA level counters, coriander counters, pergo floors. Hilariously they were 20% more than condos in the middle of downtown in a safer and more established area. Not surprisingly the downtown ones sold in about 18 months and those Tom 5-6 years to sell out and had tons of price cuts and incentive. The downtown ones, were in an undeveloped pocket have lots of new bars/restaurants etc. and the other ones are still petitioning for a regular bus stop.
That is capitalism for you. Advertise luxury but install el Cheapo. There are lots of instances of people attempting to charge more that what something is worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2014, 09:11 PM
 
3,708 posts, read 2,197,064 times
Reputation: 4161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^Actually, the crank windows are supposed to be "better", apparently b/c you can open the whole window. We have crank windows on the front of our house, and, oddly, in the two bathrooms, but sliders in back. I don't really have a preference one way or the other. They're all pretty big in my house.
Yes, except my one add on is placed where I can conk my head on it while hanging laundry. it's not very big, but you're right, the whole thing opens.

I don't like the way they look either, but that's my opinion.

At one point I was looking at retrofitting full size screens on a few windows upstairs so I can open from top or bottom depending on the weather, but I never really finished my research. I'd probably have to make something. If they hadn't put the damn vinyl siding on, I'd have more options. I really wish I could get rid of that!! How to ruin an old house, UGH!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 09:16 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,830,658 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^Actually, the crank windows are supposed to be "better", apparently b/c you can open the whole window. We have crank windows on the front of our house, and, oddly, in the two bathrooms, but sliders in back. I don't really have a preference one way or the other. They're all pretty big in my house.
Casement windows seal better than other types also, you can have a solid gasket all the way around rather than a brush. But they're not really a distinguisher between old houses and new houses; all types have been around for a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 10:14 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,565,237 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Redwood siding, yes, especially in California. Redwood framing, not all that common. Mostly softwoods, even 100 years ago (note that both cedar and redwood are softwoods)


A serious issue if you keep your walls wet or regularly have floods. Personally I prefer to avoid both.


And in most cases, not an improvement.
My house was pretty modest (2 bedrooms, a block from a brewery, owned by a clerk) and the framing is redwood. The siding is cedar. I have some dry rot on one bit of the cedar siding that was a 1920s addition, the rest is fine even though it gets soaked by rain every year: the house is designed to leak and have water pass through to the ground, rather than being built like a beer cooler as an airtight container. I had a serious water leak when we first moved in--in a house with drywall I would have had to rip out the whole kitchen to avoid a serious mold problem. Instead I just let it dry out for a few days with no problems.

And yes, as mentioned upthread, it isn't just the building that is "disposable" but the neighborhood. Sprawl is based on continuous consumption. The fashionable, upscale neighborhood becomes the run-down ghetto in a generation or two, spurring the wealthy or at least upwardly mobile to keep moving to new neighborhoods as the neighbors become less desirable. So even if the house lasts, its appeal doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2014, 10:50 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
My house was pretty modest (2 bedrooms, a block from a brewery, owned by a clerk) and the framing is redwood. The siding is cedar. I have some dry rot on one bit of the cedar siding that was a 1920s addition, the rest is fine even though it gets soaked by rain every year: the house is designed to leak and have water pass through to the ground, rather than being built like a beer cooler as an airtight container. I had a serious water leak when we first moved in--in a house with drywall I would have had to rip out the whole kitchen to avoid a serious mold problem. Instead I just let it dry out for a few days with no problems.

And yes, as mentioned upthread, it isn't just the building that is "disposable" but the neighborhood. Sprawl is based on continuous consumption. The fashionable, upscale neighborhood becomes the run-down ghetto in a generation or two, spurring the wealthy or at least upwardly mobile to keep moving to new neighborhoods as the neighbors become less desirable. So even if the house lasts, its appeal doesn't.
Do you have any evidence that the scenario you describe actually happens? Because I don't see that going on out here in suburbia. Where do these ideas come from, Hollywood? Atlantic Cities? It sure as beck isn't from observation of actual neighborhoods. What's with this carp about calling the neighbors undesirable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2014, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,659,080 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
My house was pretty modest (2 bedrooms, a block from a brewery, owned by a clerk) and the framing is redwood. The siding is cedar. I have some dry rot on one bit of the cedar siding that was a 1920s addition, the rest is fine even though it gets soaked by rain every year: the house is designed to leak and have water pass through to the ground, rather than being built like a beer cooler as an airtight container. I had a serious water leak when we first moved in--in a house with drywall I would have had to rip out the whole kitchen to avoid a serious mold problem. Instead I just let it dry out for a few days with no problems.
A neighbor was telling me about his brother-in-law who built a new house. (he was thinking about buying and renovating a house in the neighborhood, but got scared off by the amount of work needed) The brother-in-law went away for a week or so. While he was gone, there was a plumbing leak, and every bit of sub-floor that got wet, had to be replaced.

Quote:
And yes, as mentioned upthread, it isn't just the building that is "disposable" but the neighborhood. Sprawl is based on continuous consumption. The fashionable, upscale neighborhood becomes the run-down ghetto in a generation or two, spurring the wealthy or at least upwardly mobile to keep moving to new neighborhoods as the neighbors become less desirable. So even if the house lasts, its appeal doesn't.
I was also going to talk about this a little more. It's not so much that the neighborhoods are disposable, but that we live in a "throw-away" society. When problems develop in one's current neighborhood, most people believe it's easier to just move to a new neighborhood.

This is happening in Youngstown, and its southern suburb of Boardman. (and, to a lesser extent, its western suburb of Austintown, and northern suburb of Liberty) When I first joined this site, the anti-city regulars just told potential newcomers to be sure to live in the suburbs. But now, the same anti-city types tell people to live in certain parts of the suburb that are sufficiently far away from the city. This is because the problems caused by disinvestment (increased number of renters, increase in crime, etc.) are spreading into the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2014, 08:38 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Perhaps we should keep the discussion to housing instead of suburbanites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2014, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,659,080 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Perhaps we should keep the discussion to housing instead of suburbanites.
Sure, but you asked for evidence in your last post, so I gave one example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2014, 08:44 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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And yes, as mentioned upthread, it isn't just the building that is "disposable" but the neighborhood. Sprawl is based on continuous consumption. The fashionable, upscale neighborhood becomes the run-down ghetto in a generation or two, spurring the wealthy or at least upwardly mobile to keep moving to new neighborhoods as the neighbors become less desirable. So even if the house lasts, its appeal doesn't.
Rarely are the better off neighborhoods of decades ago decline so far as to become future ghettoes. You could probably find some examples, but it's not the norm and usually from some other greater regional or demographic shift. Generally, the cheapest neighborhoods are the most likely to decline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I was also going to talk about this a little more. It's not so much that the neighborhoods are disposable, but that we live in a "throw-away" society. When problems develop in one's current neighborhood, most people believe it's easier to just move to a new neighborhood.

This is happening in Youngstown, and its southern suburb of Boardman. (and, to a lesser extent, its western suburb of Austintown, and northern suburb of Liberty) When I first joined this site, the anti-city regulars just told potential newcomers to be sure to live in the suburbs. But now, the same anti-city types tell people to live in certain parts of the suburb that are sufficiently far away from the city. This is because the problems caused by disinvestment (increased number of renters, increase in crime, etc.) are spreading into the suburbs.
The usual in the Massachusetts forum is tell people to always avoid Springfield, and then it has a few, often veracious defenders. A bit sad, but a bit understandable.

The expanding zone of decay is only common in certain cities. I was skeptical this situation really existed:

How to convert sprawl to urbanity?

A Spanish urban planning site labelled it a doughnut city:

Glossary: Doughnut City | Urban Attributes - Andalusia Center for Contemporary Art

Perhaps this pattern is worthy of its own thread; it's already been mentioned in two separate threads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2014, 08:50 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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
- I was recently able to compare the end grain of a modern 4x4 post and the 112 year old railing from my front porch. The modern 4x4 only had about 4-5 growth rings. The porch railing (about 5" wide, and 3" deep) had dozens of growth rings. This would hold true for most wood used in a new house vs. wood in an old house.

Those Levittown houses may have been built as cheaply as possible, but the basic materials were still inherently better than their equivalent counterparts of today.
But does the less solid wood frame of modern homes actual make much of a difference for longevity? Or matter much to the owner?
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