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.
Many issues have been discussed in regards to old and new construction. One can say that an older tract house built in the 20s and 30s has better finishes than a newer non custom house (mouldings, hardwood floors, etc)
In regards to the framing: studs, fastening systems, sheathing. Are newer houses build better. Trusses with gussets, hurricane ties, etc. and the invention of plywood, OSB, engineered floor joists, construction adhesives. If building codes are respected, is the framing of a newer house superior to any older house.
Back in the 20s the scale of even the most ambitious "tract builders" was so tiny compared to anything that happened after WWII as to be a whole different kind of scenario. Lumber itself was quite a bit different, it was relatively common for low end housing to be built with "recycled" lumber from torn down previous homes. The skills that framers had included assessing how much 'life' was left in some of that material as the science of forestry was less evolved. The cheaper houses, built by framing crews that had no power tools, much less convenient measurement tools, and much different interaction with authorities that set minimal acceptable building codes were basically "throw away" and in many areas few such homes have survived.
The sorts of homes that have survived from that era typically were much more "custom" with standards that were probably overbuilt as the engineers of that era (that typically would have been part of the process that higher ranks clients used, along with architects and more professional builders...) had no digital analysis tools to factor the smallest possible supporting members. The result is that the surviving grand old houses tend to be massively overbuilt.
Of course when those older house were in a part of town that shifted from desirable to run-down the owners sold them to folks running 'boarding house' or landlords looking to carve 'em into multiple apartments. That might have meant hack plumbers and early generations of electricians drilling through joists to make it easy to add extra plumbing / wiring, and that changed the structure from "over built" to "compromised". Add in the ravages of overcrowded places with careless tenants and it is easy to understand how quickly a once mansion goes from "stately" to "decrepit"...
Modern building designs rely on lumber that is much more uniform. Whether you are building a dream house for a millionaire or a tract development the raw materials are likely sourced from the exact same suppliers. Those suppliers work with the various testing firms to find ways to optimize raw materials for ease of construction. Pre-engineered trusses require less on-site hassles, and speed the process of framing. Of course if the various crews are careless there is also less margin of "over engineering" and trusses impropely installed / over stressed in transit will not perform to their design standards...
I'm sure some areas will be different but around here, the old homes were either built on cedar post foundations or pier and beam foundations that used either cedar or concrete. Obviously most have had to have extensive work since they've been installed. In this area we have ultra high PI levels in our soils which means the soil moves around like the blob. Streets are crooked as well as curbs and some are like a roller coaster ride. The norm today is a post tension slab. The advantages for the builder is they generally won't break. The downside is they flex a lot which creates issues for the home owner. Using a pier and beam would be a great fix to the issue but it brings the cost up dramatically and you won't get zip for it on an appraisal. I am a fan of component framing and even teach a course on it at college level. One of the biggest issues builders around here face is finding somebody with enough knowledge to frame a house correctly, keyword, correctly. I've seen million dollar homes with staggered rafters on a ridge board and yet it passed inspection. I've seen finger joint 2x material used as purlin struts at a 45 degree angle and pass inspection even though the lumber is clearly marked for vertical use only. Due to the sporadic way the industry seems to work these days, you won't find many folks that have been in the building game long. When the industry slows to near nothing, folks have to move to other, more stable industries to feed the family. So there's not a lot of expertise in the field. Component or panel wall construction means if the crew can read the pretty pictures on the instructions that comes with the house package, they can correctly build the home. The old timers, most could not build the complex plans we have today. They built square or rectangular rooms with basic roof lines. The materials to build some of the more complex plans we have today were not available either. You won't find many of the old homes with a clear span room of 36 feet but it's common down here on the open floor plans. Materials today are far more precise than years ago. The old guys would never consider using a 2x 4 window header on a non- load bearing window opening yet it's common today. They would take the opening width, double the number and that was the 2x that was needed with zero regard for load bearing or not. (example, a 4 foot opening would require a double 2x 8)
There could be books written about this subject but since I'm from the old school where we made everything on the jobsite including cabinets, mouldings, windows, screens, doors, jambs, everything, I can talk with some expertise. The new construction is eons ahead of the old. We may have romantic ideas of the old homes but most were leaky and creaky. Most required an owner that had a clue how to work on one too. Maintenance was an ongoing process. Today, most buyers think they can move in and not worry about maintenance for ten years- wrong, obviously.
Many issues have been discussed in regards to old and new construction. One can say that an older tract house built in the 20s and 30s has better finishes than a newer non custom house (mouldings, hardwood floors, etc)
In regards to the framing: studs, fastening systems, sheathing. Are newer houses build better. Trusses with gussets, hurricane ties, etc. and the invention of plywood, OSB, engineered floor joists, construction adhesives. If building codes are respected, is the framing of a newer house superior to any older house.
Yes and no.
Many older houses were balloon framed or post and beam. There are some big advantages to balloon framing and big disadvantages. Balloon framing is no longer used because the lumber is too expensive and platform framing is much easier to build. Balloon framing is a stronger framing method for things like lateral wind loads, and earthquakes, plus the lumber was way way stronger when they still used old growth timber and true sized lumber. The biggest disadvantage is older balloon framing often did not have fire stops between floors or anywhere. As a result, fire would get inside the walls and travel between floors instantly. Fire-stops and be added but you have to tear up the plaster or exterior sheathing (siding or whatever). However in part, fire-stops can eliminate the flexibility of balloon framing which is one of the great advantages. I am comfortable using ICYNENE foam insulation or cellulose with at least 30% fire retardant in lieu of fire stops, but some people are not. If you do not have fire stops, the use of smoke detectors with fresh batteries in every room becomes even more critical.
A mixed advantage/disadvantage is the fact the floors are basically hung on the framing. IN a fire or earthquake, if all of the fasteners holding up the floor let go, the floor will collapse onto the floor below (this does not seem to happen often, in part since pretty much all of the fasteners on two or three sides would have to let go). On the other hand with a platform frame, the entire thing can fold and collapse in a fire earthquake or storm.
It is not likely you will even encounter a house with post and beam framing as it pre-dates the general use of balloon framing and is typically found only in early 19 century homes and older.
Modern lumber is very weak compared to older lumber. Many builders will no longer use lumber for certain applications because its actual structural strength is so inconsistent. A portion of modern lumber is crap and should not be used at all. the rest is slightly less crappy. For example a modern 2x6 (1.5" by 4.75") is only a fraction of the strength of an true sized old growth 2 x 4 ( One consultant told me about 1/100th, but I think he may have been exaggerating, I think it is more like 1/80th).
Trusses are a very weak method of building. Their advantage is they reduce costs and are massively easier to install than laying out rafters (which requires true skill and knowledge). The fastener plates are only 1/4" or so into the wood and trusses frequently fail in fires. Thus, some communities require all lightweight construction be recorded with the fire department so they know not to go in to try to save the building if it has wood trusses (too dangerous).
Construction adhesives can add to or reduce building strength depending on whether they are used as the primary fastening method or as a back up. Glued and screwed is obviously better than just screwed or just nailed. However adhesive only can be weaker depending on the application and whether it is properly installed. Another little problem is most or all construction adhesives are toxic when they burn.
What they call OSB is junk IMO. While true OSB where all of the strands are aligned is super strong, you will probably never see true OSB. What they sell as OSB is actually wood chips glued together. It is called OSB because the ships are "aligned" in that the chips are all lying flat. Some people swear by the chip board with "OSB" stamped on it. I would not (and did not) allow any of it to be used in my house. This has been debated at great length here and elsewhere. Make your own decision. My suggestion is simple, leave a piece of plywood and a piece of chip board with OSB stamped on it laying outside for a year. See what is left.
Plywood is good stuff and has strength advantages over tongue and groove (plywood's main predecessor) in some ways. T & G is stronger in other ways. However plywood has been around for a very long time.
The big advantages of modern construction in my opinion are in the realm of earthquake technology (primarily pinned foundations and shear wall - used mostly in California), and in out knowledge of drainage technology. Both can be retrofitted into older construction but the cost is substantial and you will have to repair any damage done by water prior to the retrofit.
Fastening systems vary. Old square nails hold much better than round nails and are a lot stronger than the wire nails typically used today. Often carpenters use undersized nails and just use a whole lot of them (nail guns make it easy). Technology allows builders to push the safety/strength factor right to the limit in order to cut costs. Older homes they usually went with way overkill because they did not know where that safety margin actually was.
One thing that is interesting to do. Find an area that got hit by a hurricane, super high winds, or tornado. Count the newer and older houses before the event and then count after. If you exclude metal buildings and steel stud construction, the percentage of surviving older homes is typically much higher than the percentage of surviving newer homes. However, that tends to reverse if you look at fire or earthquake (unless the older homes were all retrofitted and, even then, older homes tended to be made of more flammable exterior materials than newer homes). Flood survival varies, but in general fewer new homes will be washed away, while fewer older homes will collapse.
Another thing to look at is whether the home will still be there in 50 years. If the home is already 100 years old, the odd of it being there in another 50 are very high if it is maintained. If it is a new house engineered to last the life of a mortgage or a little less, probably not. Historically people wanted a well made sturdy house above all else. Today, they want a lot of square footage for the least amount of money above all else. if people cared significantly about sturdiness - all new homes would be small and made of doubled up 2x8s or steel studs.]
One side note. If you have a two story great room in a new house, make certain the great room wall is balloon framed, not platform framed. Platform framing a two story wall with no floor is a formula for failure. If can be gusseted or strengthened with metal, but this is a very common o source of problems in new homes.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 07-18-2016 at 03:16 PM..
Many issues have been discussed in regards to old and new construction. One can say that an older tract house built in the 20s and 30s has better finishes than a newer non custom house (mouldings, hardwood floors, etc)
NO.
In regards to the framing: studs, fastening systems, sheathing. Are newer houses build better. Trusses with gussets, hurricane ties, etc. and the invention of plywood, OSB, engineered floor joists, construction adhesives. If building codes are respected, is the framing of a newer house superior to any older house.
... For example a modern 2x6 (1.5" by 4.75") is only a fraction of the strength of an true sized old growth 2 x 4 ( One consultant told me about 1/100th, but I think he may have been exaggerating, I think it is more like 1/80th)....
What they call OSB is junk IMO. While true OSB where all of the strands are aligned is super strong, you will probably never see true OSB. What they sell as OSB is actually wood chips glued together. It is called OSB because the ships are "aligned" in that the chips are all lying flat. Some people swear by the chip board with "OSB" stamped on it. I would not (and did not) allow any of it to be used in my house. This has been debated at great length here and elsewhere. Make your own decision. My suggestion is simple, leave a piece of plywood and a piece of chip board with OSB stamped on it laying outside for a year. See what is left. ...
I don't know where you are getting your lumber, but when I started working in a retail lumber yard in NW Ohio in 1978, a 2 x 6 measured 1 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches. Being retired now and no longer selling lumber I don't see them as often, but the last ones I purchased last winter measured 1 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches. Even the ones my dad used when he remodeled our house back in the early 1960s when I was a kid weren't more than an eighth of an inch larger than that. The only true "2 x 4" that I have ever seen in a building was old, native lumber cut at the local sawmill, and those generally were likely to have "relief cuts" scattered throughout the wall to allow the carpenter to straighten the stud when it was installed. I have never seen 2 x 6s that only measured 4 3/4 inches wide.
As for the OSB, there is a difference between true Oriented Strand Board and waferboard and we always made sure our customers knew there was a difference and what the limitations were regarding those differences. We never had any waferboard that was labeled as OSB. Our OSB was always composed of layers where the fibers were oriented perpendicular to the adjacent layer.
Yes, when making an "apples to apples" comparison between old and new "entry-level" houses, the finishes were almost always better, with the possible exception of kitchen countertops, if you'd consider plastic laminate superior to wood or linoleum. Other kitchen and bath finishes are debatable. Some people today would consider a wood or linoleum floor a unique upgrade over cheap sheet vinyl, while others would not, for example.
As for framing, others have already noted the differences pretty well. (and yes, a 2x6 is still 1.5"x 5.5", but a 2x8 is 1.5"x 7.25") My only concerns with modern engineered lumber is how well it holds up to fire and water damage.
A neighbor told me a story about his BIL who built a new house, instead of restoring an old one in our neighborhood. Apparently, a supply line in his bathroom broke, and flooded the room. Unfortunately, they had to replace the entire floor, down to the joists. If they had a wood subfloor, as found in old houses, I don't think that would have been necessary, as long as the planks would have been able to dry.
I have a hard time believing a new house, with modern engineered framing, could withstand the same kind of neglect/abuse that the grand old houses in my neighborhood have withstood. Some of my neighbors have restored houses that had gone unheated, with leaking roofs and broken windows, for years.
I don't know where you are getting your lumber, but when I started working in a retail lumber yard in NW Ohio in 1978, a 2 x 6 measured 1 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches. Being retired now and no longer selling lumber I don't see them as often, but the last ones I purchased last winter measured 1 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches. Even the ones my dad used when he remodeled our house back in the early 1960s when I was a kid weren't more than an eighth of an inch larger than that. The only true "2 x 4" that I have ever seen in a building was old, native lumber cut at the local sawmill, and those generally were likely to have "relief cuts" scattered throughout the wall to allow the carpenter to straighten the stud when it was installed. I have never seen 2 x 6s that only measured 4 3/4 inches wide.
As for the OSB, there is a difference between true Oriented Strand Board and waferboard and we always made sure our customers knew there was a difference and what the limitations were regarding those differences. We never had any waferboard that was labeled as OSB. Our OSB was always composed of layers where the fibers were oriented perpendicular to the adjacent layer.
Sorry, miss entered the number. You are correct. Factor of 3 hours of sleep.
True oriented strand board is not made of chips or flakes. It is basically squished trees all laying in the same direction and then glued. I have never seen real OSB in stores like Home Depot or Lowes or Manns, only in specialty stores, or by special order. What they sell as OSB in home depot is not really OSB. The strands are not all oriented, they go in all different directions, all that is oriented is the chips are all laying flat.
That is what they sell as OSB but there are no strands and even the strands in each flake are not oriented. This is flakeboard. They call it OSB but it is not actually OSB. That is the fallacy the industry has created and this is the stuff I would never use. Very few people know the difference or know the industry has pawned off flakeboard as OSB. There isno difference between flakeboard and what they sell as OSB. The names are interchangable. However you are correct there is a difference between flakebaord and waferboard (depending on who is using the terminology). I am not sure anyone still makes waferboard.
I cannot find any actual OSB pictures to show you. In fact, I cannot find anywhere you can get real OSB. I bought some a while back (10 years ago I thin, could have been longer). Maybe no one makes it anymore.
Flakeboard is made by chipping trees into small pieces and then gluing the chips together (in simplistic terms). Real oriented strand board is made by aligning trees in the same direction and smashing them flat with all the strands oriented in the same direction and then gluing it all together. I think they alternate the orientation direction of each layer. Because the wood fibers are all continuous and aligned, it is amazingly strong, not entirely dependent on glue for its strength and not prone to unraveling like flakeboard. It is also more extensive than plywood (if you can find it at all). It may have been cheaper at one
It is easy to tell the difference. Flakeboard has flakes or chips like the picture. That is what is sold as OSB in stores and most lumberyards (maybe all of them). Actual OSB does not have individual chips. Many people have never seen real OSB and have no idea flakeboard is not actually OSB because it is called OSB everywhere. Someone did a great job with marketing. they took a product that is considerably cheaper than plywood, but considerably less strong/reliable, gave it the name of a better product that is more expensive than plywood and made everyone think one was the other.
Flakeboard or OSB as it is commonly named today has a lot of problems. The biggest is water - it cannot get wet. The second biggest is probably the ability to withstand certain directional stresses. Another is very poor impact resistance. It also does not hold fasteners as well as lumber or plywood. You can find hundreds of pictures of the various common failures with google if you like. You can also find eye-opening test results from various universities. One of the more shocking is the tornado test results where the fire a 2x4 at a piece of "OSB" and a piece of plywood in simulation of a tornado. The "OSB" barely slows it down. the plywood deflects it.
Until about the 1930s (I forget when, you can find it with enough poking around google), all lumber was true sized. Most lumber was made from old growth timber and it was made from better species of wood than they use today. The concern with strength is more a factor of species and how the wood was grown than size, but the ever shrinking wood sizes are also a factor in strength.
You can get true sized lumber today only from salvage outlets, or from custom shops and quaker mills. You cannot get old growth timber anywhere that I know of. I think it is illegal to cut old growth timber. Modern lumber is made of forced grown pine or fir. In general the quality is worse east of the Mississippi and slightly better west because they use different species. (Mostly Carolina yellow pine in the east). Overall, the quality is terrible. The grain is far less dense, the boards are knotty, and it is rarely fully dried and you can find a puddle of sap under a stack of lumber in a few days. I have had to send back entire loads of 2 x 4s because they turned into pretzels after sitting in the sun for a week.
There are studies by univesities testing the strength of modern lumber compared to old growth. 100X is an exaggeration, but not terribly far off. As time goes on, and lumber becomes more and more scarce, forced growth technology advances and lumber gets weaker and weaker. Some engineers will not rate structures built with modern lumber because the strength is too inconsistent and unreliable.
The industry is dong what it can with the available resources, but the days of cutting timber that took 80 or more years to grow are gone. Now they grow the trees in less than 20 years (in some cases less than 10) and use technology to force it to grow faster. The result is inferior lumber, but it is what we have. For a time, the industry was moving towards steel stud as as the new standard, but that seems to have stalled. However in the future, I believe steel and plastics will eventually replace lumber except for trim. Then we may get the kind of longevity and structural capability that can be found in older homes.
The biggest difference is that modern framing is 2X6 to accommodate more insulation.. 2X4 framing was pretty much standard in the past.
Lumber quality tended to be better in the past. Insulation and weatherization is tons better now.
You can get just shy of R-25 in a 2x4-framed exterior wall with sprayed closed cell foam. That's R-6.5 to R-7 per inch. No air infiltration. The whole thing acts as a vapor barrier. There's really no reason to frame with 2x6. Anything beyond R-20 in an exterior wall is at the point of diminishing returns. Sprayed closed cell foam also adds strength to the wall. If you need more strength to handle a long span, you use laminated beams.
The problem with old houses is you never quite know what you have until you rip it open and see what was done. My house was a mess and there is no way anybody could have known without cutting holes in the walls during the home inspection. As I gutted exterior walls, I had to re-frame everything.
My house was framed with used 2x8's turned the wrong direction and then doubled up with scrap 2x8.
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.
