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.
The thing is, that until the Post WWII period, most homes were built for people of means.
With the exception of coal miner's company homes and the like, people who owned homes mostly were solidly middle class.
Even middle class first generation immigrants took huge pride in their first homes, investing money in leaded stained glass windows with the family last name initial on them.
Pre WWII homes are quality homes.
After WWII, I'd say that the quality continued through the early 60s.
As for Mc Mansions, I had one. At 15 it began to self destruct.
I've been following this thread with interest. Some posters have strong opinions! I don't know what age house most of you are calling old, but I've lived in houses built in 1956, 1965, 1978 and 2002. The best one of all is the 2002--by far.
The oldest was solid. It had radiant heat--that is copper tubes in the slab floor that heated the place, and tight wooden windows. But it also had asbestos and asphalt tile--neither fun to mop--no window sills, and terrible ventilation in the winter. Because the hot air in the floor was not pushed with a fan, the house stayed warm and stale. That's where I learned to open a window at night, no matter the temp.
For the time, it had a good kitchen, with built in appliances. The floor plan wasn't that great. Only one short hall. You just walked through the rooms to get anywhere, and the front doors (double doors) were hollow core, as were the interior doors.
I think the worst quality house was the 1965 two story that had aluminum wiring, and no drywall under the paneling in the family room. The decorative beams simply rested on the 1/4 inch paneling and during a reno, one actually fell. We also found a place in the duct work where there was an opening that was never closed. That was why one bedroom was always cold!
Our house built in 1979 was built better. It wasn't stylish, but it had several nice features and none of the weirdness of the previous house. But the walls were not square. But it wasn't going anywhere. No shifting, no torquing of the walls.
Mys house is the best. It is obviously built by people who liked to build homes, and has interesting if not luxurious features. It has provided some surprises, but overall it suits and I feel it is solid. The windows are metal, covered with white plastic or enamel. They are the best windows I've ever had! Who knew. It boasts some hardwoods, generous hallways, and gorgeous trim.
I don't think you can generalize about older vs newer homes because there are so many variables. It is OK to prefer older homes, but you can't say an older home is categorically better than any newer home. I have family members living in older homes, and they aren't that great! Obviously some older homes are lovely.
^^^ 1965 heralded the mid 1960s and the very beginning of poor construction quality.
That does not mean that all homes built after the early 60s were of poor quality, but I'd take a random home built in the 1950s or before, over anything built in the 1970s.
The thing is, that until the Post WWII period, most homes were built for people of means.
With the exception of coal miner's company homes and the like, people who owned homes mostly were solidly middle class.
Even middle class first generation immigrants took huge pride in their first homes, investing money in leaded stained glass windows with the family last name initial on them.
Pre WWII homes are quality homes.
After WWII, I'd say that the quality continued through the early 60s.
As for Mc Mansions, I had one. At 15 it began to self destruct.
I'm not so sure. I live in a 1932 house that's made with that old growth dimension lumber. Yeah, that lumber is strong and solid (it's a pain to cut even with a demo blade on the sawzall) but there's good reason we dont have old growth lumber anymore.
And the house is not square, the doors aren't plumb, and the plaster is cracking from age. I'm firmly of the opinion that just because a house is old, doesn't mean it's good. I love the basic layout of the house and some of the detailing, and the location, but I won't say it is better constructed than new, or better constructed than the addition we put on it. There are good older homes, and there are average older homes. Most fall into the latter category.
This has been my experience as well having owned a couple of places from the early '20s, although the lumber has always been the exact same size that new lumber is and was not old growth. It was made from an unusual type of wood with a lot of resin that termites stayed away from - I think cypress. One of them also had no insulation whatsoever, and exterior walls are always open from one floor to the floor below so a fire would spread quickly and easily. Also, there's nothing more fun than repairing joists that were notched and hung on a ledger board that's pulling away from a center beam and I almost forgot crumbling piers made from brick that was not intended for use in damp areas
So with regard to things like fireproofing, insulating, Simpson straps, joist hangers + ring shanked nails, reinforced concrete and other structural stuff I think the McMansion wins purely because building science has come a long way over time. They'll lose every time though at the things you interact with on a daily basis - the trim, doors, hardware, brickwork, style and location. There's a lot to be said about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
Where did they commonly use plywood in construction, before the 1930s or 40s? My 111 year old project house had no plywood in its original construction. My other 98 year old house had no plywood in its original construction. (It was still common to use solid wood sheathing even into the 1950s, but maybe other regions switched earlier/later.)
I've run into it in the above houses in the subfloor. They weren't cheap construction - the neighborhood is now in the National Historic Register. The plywood was in like new condition so I let it be.
Last edited by scuba steve; 05-19-2013 at 07:46 AM..
The thing is, that until the Post WWII period, most homes were built for people of means.
With the exception of coal miner's company homes and the like, people who owned homes mostly were solidly middle class.
Even middle class first generation immigrants took huge pride in their first homes, investing money in leaded stained glass windows with the family last name initial on them.
Pre WWII homes are quality homes.
After WWII, I'd say that the quality continued through the early 60s.
As for Mc Mansions, I had one. At 15 it began to self destruct.
Not necessarily true; think how many pioneers lived in their own hand-built log cabin? Most of the surviors of yesteryear are the quality high-end homes; there were plenty of "lesser homes" that just didn't last.
I own a 1920s stone colonial. The quality is outstanding. The exterior walls are two feet thick, the interior plasterwork is as hard as nails and the house is full of beautiful and subtle detailings from wood panelling to herringbone brick floors. The original 1920s tilework in the bathrooms is beautiful.
This was a house built by a prosperous doctor and is approximately 3,500 square feet in a solidly upper middle class neighborhood. A comparably sized brand new house cannot match the quality of the craftsmanship, simply because that level of quality is not financially feasible anymore. To find that kind of craftsmanship you now need to look into the genuinely high end houses worth millions, and they are out there.
However, I will have to say this: in terms of livability the McMansions wins, hands down. My house has a large living room and dining room which are rarely used, but a small kitchen where we spend much of our time. The new houses owned by my friends have large kitchens and family rooms that are genuinely comfortable to hang out in, and there's something to be said about the open floor plans common in new houses these days, compared to the more rigid separation of room uses in older houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuba steve
This has been my experience as well having owned a couple of places from the early '20s, although the lumber has always been the exact same size that new lumber is and was not old growth. It was made from an unusual type of wood with a lot of resin that termites stayed away from - I think cypress. One of them also had no insulation whatsoever, and exterior walls are always open from one floor to the floor below so a fire would spread quickly and easily. Also, there's nothing more fun than repairing joists that were notched and hung on a ledger board that's pulling away from a center beam and I almost forgot crumbling piers made from brick that was not intended for use in damp areas
So with regard to things like fireproofing, insulating, Simpson straps, joist hangers + ring shanked nails, reinforced concrete and other structural stuff I think the McMansion wins purely because building science has come a long way over time. They'll lose every time though at the things you interact with on a daily basis - the trim, doors, hardware, brickwork, style and location. There's a lot to be said about that.
I've run into it in the above houses in the subfloor. They weren't cheap construction - the neighborhood is now in the National Historic Register. The plywood was in like new condition so I let it be.
In three years our small Foursquare will be 100 years old. It was built for the family of a security guard at a car body plant. (I've done my house history homework.)
It tickles me to know that some McMansion dwellers are sleeping in a "home" where the workers shat between wall studs during construction. How's that for "executive-grade!"
I must have had a McMansion in Chesapeake VA. 4x4s, Sheetrock and vinyl siding. It was a transition home for $160k before the hoopla. It went up to $380k at the boom but I had long since sold it before then. Houses like that weren't built to last.
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.
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.
My 111 year old project house had no plywood in its original construction. My other 98 year old house had no plywood in its original construction. (It was still common to use solid wood sheathing even into the 1950s, but maybe other regions switched earlier/later.)
