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.
Ok. I stopped reading after your asbestos line. While that may technically be true you would have to be drunk and an idiot to buy anything with asbestos (or lead paint, if you have a baby).
You don't know anything about lead or asbestos.
My house was built in 1957. It was tested for the presence of lead paint when I had new windows installed in 2010. None was found. Lead isn't dangerous unless you eat the paint chips or make it airborne by sanding it. If you buy an old house and are paranoid about wood trim having lead paint on it, guess what you do with it? PAINT OVER IT. PROBLEM SOLVED.
As for asbestos, again you don't know what you're talking about. My house has asbestos on a flue pipe in the attic. Nobody ever goes into that part of the attic anyway, so the asbestos is never disturbed. It is only dangerous if you disturb it. There is some old kitchen tile underneath the vinyl floor in the kitchen that may contain asbestos; I don't know; but I don't care. It's only dangerous if you disturb it. When I pull up the vinyl in preparation for a ceramic tile floor, if I suspect that those tiles have asbestos I will leave them in place and tile over them. Problem solved. It's not necessary to remove them...in fact, removing them disturbs the asbestos. You have to hire asbestos abatement professionals who are very expensive and then you have the paranoia of knowing that asbestos fibers have potentially been airborne in your home. You have to trust those abatement professionals with your health. Personally, I'd rather just leave it be.
Plenty of people in my neighborhood have either raised families or are currently raising families in these 'death traps'. I guess they're all idiots in your estimation.
As for the build quality of my house...it is rock solid. The quality of the craftsmanship is unbeatable in a suburban tract home. To get the same quality in build/materials, I'd have to go high-end or custom which would be out of my price range if I was building new. I'll take my '57 'death trap' over some shoddy McMansion any day.
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 sub-floor. 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.
If you had a 1920s house and the lumber was the exact same size as new lumber, then your house was rebuilt at some point in time. An old 2x4 is 2" by 4" a new 2x4 is roughly 1.5" by 3.5" The lumber is also crummy species today. Likewise, if it was not framed with old growth timber, then the wood was replaced. Old growth timber is what was produced. No one would go out and pay more to have crappy lumber made out of small soft trees when better wood was readily available and mass produced as a lower cost than soft wood. They did not bother with wood from the species we use today except to make pallets or a tree fort. If you talk with a structural engineer who knows about lumber they will tell you new lumber cannot be strength rated because the strength is so inconsistent, however it has a fraction of the strength of lumber from the past. There really is simply no arguing this. It is very easy to compare the two, or ask anyone in the business. New lumber is very poor quality and strength and it gets worse every few years. Fortunately, it appears we will be moving away from lumber for structural framing before it gets much worse.
The wood you are referring to could have been redwood, cypress is possible if it was in the south. However if it was not true dimensioned, then it had to be new lumber and it was probably Carolina pine on the east coast or fir on the west coast. A lot of new lumber is sappy and wet simply because they do not dry it out properly anymore (too expensive).
No insulation was common in many older homes in warmer climates. In cold climates many homes had something. Sometimes just burlap. Luckily it is not terribly expensive to have insulation blown into the walls of an older home and the insulation is 30% fire retardant and 70% cellulose. Thus, it helps with issues related to the lack of fire-stops in balloon framing.
The "open all the way up" framing you are referring to is called balloon framing. It has advantages and disadvantages compared to modern stick framing. It is stronger for some types of loads (wind) and weaker for other types. Mostly it is simply too expensive to use today and the lumber needed is not generally available anyway. Not all older homes are balloon framed and have open walls all the way up. Some are brace framed and have giant 12" timbers between floors. Those are more fire resistant the modern homes. As least as far as fire traveling between floors. If you have balloon framing there are a few options available to increase fire safety. One is to install insulation as mentioned. Another is to retrofit fire-stops. However fire traveling between floors quickly is not the greatest danger in a house fire, the greatest danger is smoke. The most toxic smoke is from plastics. Guess which type of house has little or no plastics? Frankly I thin it is a push as to which type of house is more dangerous in a house fire. Just make sure you have smoke detectors and a pre-planned escape route. That is the best bet for fire safety in either type of house.
While joist hangers are a good idea, they cannot improve the strength or quality of the wood, only the connection. Thus if they tear out of the soft wood, they do not good. While hangers are better than toe-nailed connections they are not better than notched wood connections, especially pinned connections. Much of what we do today with technology allows us to push materials to the limits This while we can get away with weak 1.5x3.5" lumber and 6" or 8" masonry walls, in the past they had less understanding of where the limits were so they went for overkill. Thus a 14" thick stone wall may hold up better in some conditions than a reinforced 6" masonry wall (not earthquakes, reinforced masonry or stone is terrible in earthquakes). Again, this depends on the type of load you are considering. Old brick however tense to be somewhat soft and the old high lime mortar was pretty weak. Newer brick and mortar is stronger, especially when it is reinforced. However it is not commonly used anymore (too expensive), mostly they built with lumber and stick a brick facia on the front.
The fact is, new homes including McMansions are terribly prone to structural problems. That is a big part of how I make my living (defending and prosecuting construction defect litigation). Sometimes the problem is materials, sometimes it is rushed and unknowledgeable labor, or corner cutting by managers. Sometimes it is because all the good locations ground wise are already taken and they are trying to use technology to build in souls they never would have attempted before. (Sometimes it is just whiny a$$ homeowners who are unhappy with the choices they made or the market trends and want to try to get some money back).
Some old houses were undoubtedly pooly made, but not many. Those houses have fallen or been torn down long ago, What is left are the well built ones, or they woudl not still be here.
Another interesting tidbit. Do you know what the strongest holding nails are? Not ring shanked - square nails are. Round nails do not hold as well. I cannot tell you why, but someone can. We actually bought some square cut nails and used them in parts of our house when we restored it, but they cannot be used in nail guns.
Someone else inquired about earthquake stability. New houses are going to win here if they were built to code and if the old house remains unmodified. New hoses are securely tied to the foundation so they do nto slide off (somewhat common for older houses in earthquakes). They make up for lack of framing strength by the use of a lot of shear wall (plywood fastened to framing members), cripple wall foundations are braced. While balloon framing is more flexible than stick framing, and the wood is stronger, an older house needs to be pinned to the foundation to keep it from sliding off.
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.
First let me say that your house sounds beautiful! You have visited a McMansion - I have LIVED in one but currently live in an older home. The McM was NOT LIVABLE! Let me tell you whu.
I too live in a 1920s house. It's built similarly to yours. It's cool in the summer and we haven't yet had to turn on the central air. ( yes, that was added) It's approximately 2,100 square feet and has ten rooms. The inside is a typically craftsman in layout, which I consider to be the perfect blend of what people on TV call "open concept" and discrete rooms. It has a wonderful circular flow that really lends itself to entertaining.
People gather on the porches, the sun room, the livingroom, the dining room and family room and move freely from one place to another. All of my rooms are comfortable and used.
The kitchen was remodeled in 1959. I know this because a sales receipt was found in the cabinets in the basement workshop with the exact date. I am keeping the old cabinets. No need to rip them out. They are serviceable and attractive. Their addition and the time that they were installed are "organic to the house", as it were. 1920s Kitchens were not that usable or attractive from my research. The swinging door to the kitchen tells me that there was most likely a house keeper who did the serving.
Original to the kitchen is a deep and well designed pantry.
There is enough work space and storage space.
Could I open up a dance studio in there? No. But it serves it's purpose as a kitchen and is a frequent gathering place when we are alone or have a small number of friends over. It's cozy and very inviting!
The kitchen isn't huge or flashy. It's adequate.
The McMansion was 4000 plus suare feet. The outside really looked like a Victorian. They did a good job of that! The inside looked and felt like a typical McMansion.
Walk into a foyer, dining room on the left, small and never used formal living room on the right.
In the back of the house was a vast Uni-room. That's all I can call it. A flashy kitchen with a center Island and a breakfast bar set up around it. An informal dining room that led to a family room wirg the requisite gas fireplace.
The only rooms we ever used as a family were the kitchen, and the family room. That's it.
When we had guests, no one ever entered the formal living rooms or dining rooms. The only used the Uni-room.
As the cheief cook, I found the openness to be annoying. Guests would be able to wonder in and out of the kitchen at will, while I was cooking. We would set up the food and the bar in the "dining area" but since the whole place was open, they walked where they wanted.
They never entered the formal rooms even though we would place food in the other rooms. hey weren't inviting.
In fact, the whole place had a sterile feeling. The only "warm and inviting rooms" were the family room - because of the gas fireplace and the book case lined walls ( we put those in ) and the kitchen because of the bar stools that lined the breakfast bar. The kitchen cabs were warm and dark, I think this also contributed to the warm, and inviting feeling.
Three quarters of the first floor was essentially never used. There was zero livability, IMO; because no one used most of the rooms.
The formal center hall colonial style was similar to ones built in the late 1940s to 1980s but magnified. The nice durable slate entryway found in those homes was removed and replaced with cheap hardwood - not a great material for the floor of an entry way.
Simply blowing up a floor plan without tweaking it doesn't make any architectural sense.
In short, was nothing livable about living in a Mc Mansion. Heating and cooling rooms that you never use isn't livable. Speaking of heating and cooling, doing either one was exorbitant. We frequently joked that the house didn't have insulation at all.
There is no comparison. Having lived in both, I can say that guests were frequently blown away by the Mc Mansion. I mean, hey it was opulent, flashy, it had a turret that in the winter could be seen all over our small town. It had a Jacuzzi and three sets of French doors. It was dizzying in it's size.
We were blown away by it when we first saw it!
Then we lived in it. It wasn't so dazzling as the house literally fell apart in our hands and under our feet. I fully do not think that the Mc Mansion will be around in 20 years.
Our circa 1926 home? I'll give it at least another eighty. Times three.
First let me say that your house sounds beautiful! You have visited a McMansion - I have LIVED in one but currently live in an older home. The McM was NOT LIVABLE! Let me tell you whu.
I too live in a 1920s house. It's built similarly to yours. It's cool in the summer and we haven't yet had to turn on the central air. ( yes, that was added) It's approximately 2,100 square feet and has ten rooms. The inside is a typically craftsman in layout, which I consider to be the perfect blend of what people on TV call "open concept" and discrete rooms. It has a wonderful circular flow that really lends itself to entertaining.
People gather on the porches, the sun room, the livingroom, the dining room and family room and move freely from one place to another. All of my rooms are comfortable and used.
The kitchen was remodeled in 1959. I know this because a sales receipt was found in the cabinets in the basement workshop with the exact date. I am keeping the old cabinets. No need to rip them out. They are serviceable and attractive. Their addition and the time that they were installed are "organic to the house", as it were. 1920s Kitchens were not that usable or attractive from my research. The swinging door to the kitchen tells me that there was most likely a house keeper who did the serving.
Original to the kitchen is a deep and well designed pantry.
There is enough work space and storage space.
Could I open up a dance studio in there? No. But it serves it's purpose as a kitchen and is a frequent gathering place when we are alone or have a small number of friends over. It's cozy and very inviting!
The kitchen isn't huge or flashy. It's adequate.
The McMansion was 4000 plus suare feet. The outside really looked like a Victorian. They did a good job of that! The inside looked and felt like a typical McMansion.
Walk into a foyer, dining room on the left, small and never used formal living room on the right.
In the back of the house was a vast Uni-room. That's all I can call it. A flashy kitchen with a center Island and a breakfast bar set up around it. An informal dining room that led to a family room wirg the requisite gas fireplace.
The only rooms we ever used as a family were the kitchen, and the family room. That's it.
When we had guests, no one ever entered the formal living rooms or dining rooms. The only used the Uni-room.
As the cheief cook, I found the openness to be annoying. Guests would be able to wonder in and out of the kitchen at will, while I was cooking. We would set up the food and the bar in the "dining area" but since the whole place was open, they walked where they wanted.
They never entered the formal rooms even though we would place food in the other rooms. hey weren't inviting.
In fact, the whole place had a sterile feeling. The only "warm and inviting rooms" were the family room - because of the gas fireplace and the book case lined walls ( we put those in ) and the kitchen because of the bar stools that lined the breakfast bar. The kitchen cabs were warm and dark, I think this also contributed to the warm, and inviting feeling.
Three quarters of the first floor was essentially never used. There was zero livability, IMO; because no one used most of the rooms.
The formal center hall colonial style was similar to ones built in the late 1940s to 1980s but magnified. The nice durable slate entryway found in those homes was removed and replaced with cheap hardwood - not a great material for the floor of an entry way.
Simply blowing up a floor plan without tweaking it doesn't make any architectural sense.
In short, was nothing livable about living in a Mc Mansion. Heating and cooling rooms that you never use isn't livable. Speaking of heating and cooling, doing either one was exorbitant. We frequently joked that the house didn't have insulation at all.
There is no comparison. Having lived in both, I can say that guests were frequently blown away by the Mc Mansion. I mean, hey it was opulent, flashy, it had a turret that in the winter could be seen all over our small town. It had a Jacuzzi and three sets of French doors. It was dizzying in it's size.
We were blown away by it when we first saw it!
Then we lived in it. It wasn't so dazzling as the house literally fell apart in our hands and under our feet. I fully do not think that the Mc Mansion will be around in 20 years.
Our circa 1926 home? I'll give it at least another eighty. Times three.
We had 2 modest homes, one a simple victorian and the 2nd a post WWII home. My uncle owned a
70's mcmansion (personally too big for my taste) and after he sold it the new owners more or less
demolished it to build a 6000 sq ft home that kim k. would love but not my cup of tea.
Feel exactly as you. I also appreciate the craftsmanship of an older home as well as its character.
I too do not want an open concept kitchen or the current style of kitchens today, very predictable.
When we grew up and in our first home there were pantries. Now they seem to be making a comeback
in more expensive new construction. They made sense...too hard to reach for items in the tall upper
cabinets or dig deep into the lower ones. Some one can lose a pet or child in there.
Anyway, eventually I would love to get a Chicago bungalow but they are being grabbed up and
many have been updated similar to the interior of a mcmansion. I would like one that hasn't been
changed other than updated electrical and plumbing.
Here's 2 links of my dream home. Note: I'd prefer the smaller bungalows you see in the row
and the other link is my kitchen of choice. It may not appeal to everyone but I'd love to
have that and the old stove too.
We had 2 modest homes, one a simple victorian and the 2nd a post WWII home. My uncle owned a
70's mcmansion (personally too big for my taste) and after he sold it the new owners more or less
demolished it to build a 6000 sq ft home that kim k. would love but not my cup of tea.
Feel exactly as you. I also appreciate the craftsmanship of an older home as well as its character.
I too do not want an open concept kitchen or the current style of kitchens today, very predictable.
When we grew up and in our first home there were pantries. Now they seem to be making a comeback
in more expensive new construction. They made sense...too hard to reach for items in the tall upper
cabinets or dig deep into the lower ones. Some one can lose a pet or child in there.
Anyway, eventually I would love to get a Chicago bungalow but they are being grabbed up and
many have been updated similar to the interior of a mcmansion. I would like one that hasn't been
changed other than updated electrical and plumbing.
Here's 2 links of my dream home. Note: I'd prefer the smaller bungalows you see in the row
and the other link is my kitchen of choice. It may not appeal to everyone but I'd love to
have that and the old stove too.
My wife was raised in this 1910 "Craftsman" built by her contractor grandfather. Off the back part of the kitchen it had a pantry completely lined with glass-front cabinets on the walls and base cabinets with drawers & metal-lined bins. It also had a butler's pantry between the kitchen & dining room.
Her grandparents raised 5 kids there. Their surviving daughter (my wife's aunt) will turn 100 at the end of July.
Every board in that house was hand-selected by the grandpa. There was nothing fancy about the house, which passed out of family hands 40 years ago. He just built it well, and built it big (about 3,500 sq.ft. plus sleeping porches) to raise his large family. Lots of happy memories.
The McMansion was 4000 plus suare feet. The outside really looked like a Victorian. They did a good job of that! The inside looked and felt like a typical McMansion.
Walk into a foyer, dining room on the left, small and never used formal living room on the right.
In the back of the house was a vast Uni-room. That's all I can call it. A flashy kitchen with a center Island and a breakfast bar set up around it. An informal dining room that led to a family room wirg the requisite gas fireplace.
The only rooms we ever used as a family were the kitchen, and the family room. That's it.
When we had guests, no one ever entered the formal living rooms or dining rooms. The only used the Uni-room.
As the cheief cook, I found the openness to be annoying. Guests would be able to wonder in and out of the kitchen at will, while I was cooking. We would set up the food and the bar in the "dining area" but since the whole place was open, they walked where they wanted.
They never entered the formal rooms even though we would place food in the other rooms. hey weren't inviting.
In fact, the whole place had a sterile feeling. The only "warm and inviting rooms" were the family room - because of the gas fireplace and the book case lined walls ( we put those in ) and the kitchen because of the bar stools that lined the breakfast bar. The kitchen cabs were warm and dark, I think this also contributed to the warm, and inviting feeling.
Three quarters of the first floor was essentially never used. There was zero livability, IMO; because no one used most of the rooms.
The formal center hall colonial style was similar to ones built in the late 1940s to 1980s but magnified. The nice durable slate entryway found in those homes was removed and replaced with cheap hardwood - not a great material for the floor of an entry way.
Simply blowing up a floor plan without tweaking it doesn't make any architectural sense.
In short, was nothing livable about living in a Mc Mansion. Heating and cooling rooms that you never use isn't livable. Speaking of heating and cooling, doing either one was exorbitant. We frequently joked that the house didn't have insulation at all.
There is no comparison. Having lived in both, I can say that guests were frequently blown away by the Mc Mansion. I mean, hey it was opulent, flashy, it had a turret that in the winter could be seen all over our small town. It had a Jacuzzi and three sets of French doors. It was dizzying in it's size.
We were blown away by it when we first saw it!
Then we lived in it. It wasn't so dazzling as the house literally fell apart in our hands and under our feet. I fully do not think that the Mc Mansion will be around in 20 years.
Our circa 1926 home? I'll give it at least another eighty. Times three.
I don't think I've ever read a more long-winded explanation of how it was the house's fault for being too big
If you had a 1920s house and the lumber was the exact same size as new lumber, then your house was rebuilt at some point in time. An old 2x4 is 2" by 4" a new 2x4 is roughly 1.5" by 3.5" The lumber is also crummy species today. Likewise, if it was not framed with old growth timber, then the wood was replaced. Old growth timber is what was produced. No one would go out and pay more to have crappy lumber made out of small soft trees when better wood was readily available and mass produced as a lower cost than soft wood. They did not bother with wood from the species we use today except to make pallets or a tree fort. If you talk with a structural engineer who knows about lumber they will tell you new lumber cannot be strength rated because the strength is so inconsistent, however it has a fraction of the strength of lumber from the past. There really is simply no arguing this. It is very easy to compare the two, or ask anyone in the business. New lumber is very poor quality and strength and it gets worse every few years. Fortunately, it appears we will be moving away from lumber for structural framing before it gets much worse.
An old 2x4 was a 2x4 until it was surfaced. It was pretty much impossible to get an unsurfaced 2x4 by 1920, so no, it wasn't a 2x4. Considering that it cost more to ship the wood in 1920 than the wood cost, there was a tremendous advantage of surfacing at the mill. In 1920, it would have depended what lumber association you were getting your wood from, but it would have been 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 or 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 most likely. National standards didn't come around until the late '20s.
An old 2x4 was a 2x4 until it was surfaced. It was pretty much impossible to get an unsurfaced 2x4 by 1920, so no, it wasn't a 2x4. Considering that it cost more to ship the wood in 1920 than the wood cost, there was a tremendous advantage of surfacing at the mill. In 1920, it would have depended what lumber association you were getting your wood from, but it would have been 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 or 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 most likely. National standards didn't come around until the late '20s.
This. It was the original plaster and lathe with embedded horse hair and original studs that came out of that wall. I'm the first one to ever modify the layout, and even then it's just a slight change.
The 2x4s were a lot rougher and had square edges, but the 1 or 2 studs I bought to turn that straight wall into an "L" shaped wall fit in with no noticeable effect on anything when it came time to put up sheetrock. The wall was a mix of new and old wood since I was able to cut the nails without damaging the lumber.
These are some new custom homes from my home town, they're a fair bit more expensive than your typical McMansion though. The first couple are way too much for me though. :P
This one seems to have done a good job at going for the historic look.
This one's not quite as new (1980).
Last edited by memph; 06-16-2013 at 04:57 PM..
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.
Lead isn't dangerous unless you eat the paint chips or make it airborne by sanding it. If you buy an old house and are paranoid about wood trim having lead paint on it, guess what you do with it? PAINT OVER IT. PROBLEM SOLVED. 
