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.
...and that has what to do with construction methods?
Well, typically rental properties are built sturdier because they are investment properties designed to be structurally sound to avoid capital improvement costs, and higher maintenance costs. Still, there is reason we use a thirty year depreciation, at least in the U.S. These properties are used harder than the typical family owned home, and require major renovation to keep them economically viable. Still, they are built in a more solid fashion, typically.
A friend of mine in Ireland was a home builder. He always said american homes were flimsy, especially the roofing. He also said timber (wood) was to expensive to build a home with in Ireland. He was impressed by the sizes of american homes, their appliances, water pressure, and garages but he claimed they could not live up to weather conditions (wind and rain) in Ireland.
I've got news for your Irish friend - we don't have the same weather in most of the US as he has to deal with in Ireland (and thank God for that). If we did, we'd built accordingly. When in Rome and all that jazz...
Well there's the American house that got hit with a oak tree. The repair was $30k. The house in the ME was around $1k for nearly the same square footage.
The point you are making then is that US construction is so much better that the a same repairs would cost 30 times as much to carry out here? Sounds actually like some home-vs-hovel sort of situation to me.
American construction is noteworthy for its durability and longevity - NOT ! Americans suffer from overpriced underperforming marketing gee-whiz housing and builder grade schlock... all code approved! Even "luxury" homes are built to fall apart, on schedule. Planned obsolescence and high maintenance is great for the economy, but not so great for the home owner.
. . .
Given the opportunity, American housing constructors will do the best thing for profits and ignore the long term consequences. To illustrate, after the devastation of Katrina, the Gulf and New Orleans area was rebuilt - with - WOOD FRAMING. (ARGH). This area is infested with TERMITES, at risk from FLOODING, high winds and flying debris, susceptible to FIRE, and they rebuild it with ephemeral wood framing?
. . .
Why not build out of sturdy, durable, resilient materials like concrete, stone, rammed earth?
Why not use fire resistant metal roofing?
Why not use superinsulation to reduce the cost of HVAC operation?
Why forbid dry composting toilets or discourage installing bidets?
The Defenders of the Status Quo won't allow - usurers, politicians, and trade groups. The government / banker / industry defined building code still specifies engineering minimums that are pitiful. In fact, they contribute to the increased consumption of fuel and resources, due to the lowest common denominator mentality that bureaucrats embrace. Ditto, for planned obsolescence, ephemeral appliances and maintaining the demand for continuous consumption.
The net result is overpriced, underperforming, overtaxed, underwhelming, wasteful shelter that costs the mortgaged owner 3 to 4 times its selling price.
Very good post.
Same here in Canada, builders usually only build to code, they do the minimum required.
Anything more is an expensive "upgrade". If you choose upgrades that is gravy to them,
like charging $250 per pot lite (when the actual lites only cost $25).
[anecdote flag on] Back in the late 1970s, I tried to get bank financing for a solid, disaster resistant, superinsulated surface bonded concrete block house based on an old fashioned "four square" floorplan. Each bank officer told me that they do not fund "White Elephants."
To the stalwart defenders of the Status Quo, you can't encourage the muggles to build frugal houses that are termite proof, endure temperature extremes, high winds, flying debris, water, fire, and last hundreds of years, without needing expensive upkeep and repair. Tis not good for the bottom line nor morale.
The point you are making then is that US construction is so much better that the a same repairs would cost 30 times as much to carry out here? Sounds actually like some home-vs-hovel sort of situation to me.
You can read in anyway you want. It's a wood frame home vs a concrete home. Neither is a hovel.
US homes are all shabby and loaded with insects.
The know how, the quality materials don't exist to build even a simple proper masonry constructed house.
it's like comparing GM (Cadillac) and Mercedes. Quality is not ingrained in the general US culture. Look around any town and you'll see what i mean. Streets, cars, buildings, food ect.. All of poor quality.
American homes are built poorly. Solution: Minimize the effect of shoddy workmanship by buying a 1200-1600 sqft house.
What a friggin' preposterous statement!
The subcontractor that set a toilet wrong in a 1200sf house will most likely set the toilet wrong in a 5ksf house.
That's not really minimizing anything.
Want a better built house? Be a part of the solution, not a part of the complaining- support schools that offer trades training. Or, if you're so insightful become a teacher/instructor.
If you really believe your statement- try a tent! (made in China)
You are the type that will win every battle but still lose the war.
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.
