Quality decline in residential construction over the last few decades... (hardwood floors, shingles)

[al_roethlisberger]

I've actually given this a lot of thought over the years given my interest in older structures, albeit my "research" is purely anecdotal

And like many things, there are likely a myriad of reasons, some specific to a given structure, why some older and even newer structures are well built. But I think that there are four general reasons why we see many old structures standing the test of time.

1) Workmanship: I'm not going to restate Cosmic's treatise above on small-town, family, and community based builders and the importance of building and protecting their reputations, as well as just taking pride in their work and contribution to the community they are helping to build. I think the posts above addressed this well, and I too think this is one major component.

My father was in the "National Home Builder" business for my entire youth(1970s-1990s), and those houses were built to spec, and built with absolute profit in mind, not longevity or quality.

However I think it is also unreasonable to expect that all old buildings were better built just by the nature of age, noting my points below. It is also unfair to characterize all new buildings as being of lesser quality. After all, given the motivation, one could replicate an old building exactingly today, or even "better" if that was the goal. It would just take a concerted and determined effort to do so, as opposed to what was likely more the default decades ago for the reasons I suggest here.


2) Materials: We often hear tales of old craftsman only using the best materials with which to construct older structures, and is therefore why we see such longevity and durability. I tend to agree that the result is true, but I'm not 100% convinced that their motivation was always so "pure"

Certainly, just as today, there were "craftsman" that put extra effort into doing things the right way, using quality materials, and perhaps even overbuilding the structure with longevity in mind. But as much as I'd like to believe this was always the case, my experience with the human condition tells me that there was and always has been those that would cut corners or have other priorities such as fiscal limitations, expediency, etc.

And specifically in regard to "superior" materials such as solid stone, old growth lumber/timbers, real metal flashing, tile or slate roofing, real mortar bed tiling, etc.... one has to remember, that is all they had!

It wasn't so much that they always chose these "superior" materials over vinyl, asphalt, aluminum, etc.... They simply didn't have many of those options. And we can find materials of the day that builders thought were great, but today we now know weren't the best choice. Cloth covered wiring, rolled asphalt siding, and galvanized pipe are good examples.

I honestly believe that if they had lower cost, lighter(as opposed to boulders!), and more convenient building materials of a "lesser" quality available, some would have elected to use these materials.

Because keep in mind that although one could argue that people owned homes longer in days past and therefore the structures were built with longevity in mind, they still weren't building all houses with any expectation that it would last "100 years" as many people rarely made 50 years old. They needed to build something they could afford, just as today.

Fortunately for us, many of these structures do still exist as a result of these limited choices in materials, and their inherent durability. Today the cost(go price real stone, not veneer) and availability(old growth solid timber) now make those once abundant and relatively inexpensive natural materials impractical in many cases.

So succinctly, I think we have a positive unintended consequence(benefit) of an actual shortage of materials choices from which older buildings were constructed


3) Attrition: I also think that the theory that "the solidly built structures are the ones we are left with today" is also a reasonable contributor to the theory that all old buildings are better built. It is undoubtedly true that not all old structures were well built, and many of those poorer structures have likely disappeared through deterioration or demolition.

But see point #2 above. With that in mind, I would still bet that even some of the worst built "sheds" out of solid old growth timber have still held up longer before their ultimate demise than a similar structure built of many new materials would have.

A good example are my garage window sills, which are old growth pine. They sat unpainted, exposed to the elements for at least 20 years, and I'd bet for closer to 40 before I rebuilt the windows a couple years ago. However, they were still solid and almost impossible to drive a nail into. I doubt much modern lumber could make that claim.



4) "Overbuilding"/Engineering: Another factor I think helps old buildings is that many were built prior to building code and by those without formal engineering backgrounds.

Now, reading that, one may think: "What?! Are you saying building code is bad, and that engineers can't design durable buildings?"

*laugh*, no of course not.

But what I am saying is that, with point #2 above in mind, I seem to find that a lot of builders of days past, especially rural, didn't seem to just quite know what was the "minimum" and so often used general rules of construction, common sense, experience, and then factored in a little "safety factor" or perhaps just didn't find the need to cut that 12x12 beam down to 8x10 Either way, one often ended up with a structure that was slightly, or sometimes wildly, overbuilt. Although to be fair, for the same reason one can often find curious "engineering" solutions in old buildings that definitely are not beneficial or durable

The former though was the case of an old farm house on my grandparent's land in Miss. It was build around the CW, and had ENORMOUS main beams, must have been 18x18, or maybe even 24x24. They ran the whole length of the house and were certainly far too large for the job they did. I think they just rough cut them from the nearest giant trees, and said "good enough"



So I think there are several factors, many environmental and social, probably in combination that dictated the quality and durability of older structures and the perception of defacto superior construction even though it may not be earned in every case

Al

[Coldjensens]

Not all older houses were built with high quality and craftsmanship. However that was what made a good builder/carpenter or toher tradesman in those days. The issue is that while in older times, quality and craftsmanship were important and common, now it is very uncommon to find any true concern for quality or craftsmanship. It exists, but it is rare. One thing is undisputable at elast when it comes to lumber, all old houses were built out of better materials. (Except for the new steel stud homes).

[desertsun41]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Yep.
Cheapness is a direct response to consumer demand.
We demand the most square feet for the dollar, and then wonder why we get cheap.
Consumers will not pay for great construction if it means forfeiting space.
Moving cheap into the market norm reduces the demand for real trade skills, so the pool of skilled tradesmen dwindles.

But.. We have always had bums in building.
Many old homes are still standing only because they have not found a way to collapse and haven't blown away yet.

Over my 30 years in the construction biz...do you have any idea how many real pros, real craftsmen I knew have gotten out of the biz because they felt that if they were not allowed to do it right then they did not want to do it at all.

I think about it every day. Every day I still can not wait to get to work but deep down I know that next customer will walk in with a bid from the local Chinese made cabinet shop. Then rather then educate them how we can make their kitchen beautiful I find myself wasting time educating them why putting formaldehyde infested cardboard boxes in their home will give their kids cancer. I win some and I lose some.

[desertsun41]

Originally Posted by al_roethlisberger

I've actually given this a lot of thought over the years given my interest in older structures, albeit my "research" is purely anecdotal

And like many things, there are likely a myriad of reasons, some specific to a given structure, why some older and even newer structures are well built. But I think that there are four general reasons why we see many old structures standing the test of time.

1) Workmanship: I'm not going to restate Cosmic's treatise above on small-town, family, and community based builders and the importance of building and protecting their reputations, as well as just taking pride in their work and contribution to the community they are helping to build. I think the posts above addressed this well, and I too think this is one major component.

My father was in the "National Home Builder" business for my entire youth(1970s-1990s), and those houses were built to spec, and built with absolute profit in mind, not longevity or quality.

However I think it is also unreasonable to expect that all old buildings were better built just by the nature of age, noting my points below. It is also unfair to characterize all new buildings as being of lesser quality. After all, given the motivation, one could replicate an old building exactingly today, or even "better" if that was the goal. It would just take a concerted and determined effort to do so, as opposed to what was likely more the default decades ago for the reasons I suggest here.


2) Materials: We often hear tales of old craftsman only using the best materials with which to construct older structures, and is therefore why we see such longevity and durability. I tend to agree that the result is true, but I'm not 100% convinced that their motivation was always so "pure"

Certainly, just as today, there were "craftsman" that put extra effort into doing things the right way, using quality materials, and perhaps even overbuilding the structure with longevity in mind. But as much as I'd like to believe this was always the case, my experience with the human condition tells me that there was and always has been those that would cut corners or have other priorities such as fiscal limitations, expediency, etc.

And specifically in regard to "superior" materials such as solid stone, old growth lumber/timbers, real metal flashing, tile or slate roofing, real mortar bed tiling, etc.... one has to remember, that is all they had!

It wasn't so much that they always chose these "superior" materials over vinyl, asphalt, aluminum, etc.... They simply didn't have many of those options. And we can find materials of the day that builders thought were great, but today we now know weren't the best choice. Cloth covered wiring, rolled asphalt siding, and galvanized pipe are good examples.

I honestly believe that if they had lower cost, lighter(as opposed to boulders!), and more convenient building materials of a "lesser" quality available, some would have elected to use these materials.

Because keep in mind that although one could argue that people owned homes longer in days past and therefore the structures were built with longevity in mind, they still weren't building all houses with any expectation that it would last "100 years" as many people rarely made 50 years old. They needed to build something they could afford, just as today.

Fortunately for us, many of these structures do still exist as a result of these limited choices in materials, and their inherent durability. Today the cost(go price real stone, not veneer) and availability(old growth solid timber) now make those once abundant and relatively inexpensive natural materials impractical in many cases.

So succinctly, I think we have a positive unintended consequence(benefit) of an actual shortage of materials choices from which older buildings were constructed


3) Attrition: I also think that the theory that "the solidly built structures are the ones we are left with today" is also a reasonable contributor to the theory that all old buildings are better built. It is undoubtedly true that not all old structures were well built, and many of those poorer structures have likely disappeared through deterioration or demolition.

But see point #2 above. With that in mind, I would still bet that even some of the worst built "sheds" out of solid old growth timber have still held up longer before their ultimate demise than a similar structure built of many new materials would have.

A good example are my garage window sills, which are old growth pine. They sat unpainted, exposed to the elements for at least 20 years, and I'd bet for closer to 40 before I rebuilt the windows a couple years ago. However, they were still solid and almost impossible to drive a nail into. I doubt much modern lumber could make that claim.



4) "Overbuilding"/Engineering: Another factor I think helps old buildings is that many were built prior to building code and by those without formal engineering backgrounds.

Now, reading that, one may think: "What?! Are you saying building code is bad, and that engineers can't design durable buildings?"

*laugh*, no of course not.

But what I am saying is that, with point #2 above in mind, I seem to find that a lot of builders of days past, especially rural, didn't seem to just quite know what was the "minimum" and so often used general rules of construction, common sense, experience, and then factored in a little "safety factor" or perhaps just didn't find the need to cut that 12x12 beam down to 8x10 Either way, one often ended up with a structure that was slightly, or sometimes wildly, overbuilt. Although to be fair, for the same reason one can often find curious "engineering" solutions in old buildings that definitely are not beneficial or durable

The former though was the case of an old farm house on my grandparent's land in Miss. It was build around the CW, and had ENORMOUS main beams, must have been 18x18, or maybe even 24x24. They ran the whole length of the house and were certainly far too large for the job they did. I think they just rough cut them from the nearest giant trees, and said "good enough"



So I think there are several factors, many environmental and social, probably in combination that dictated the quality and durability of older structures and the perception of defacto superior construction even though it may not be earned in every case

Al

Hmmm all good points and a different way to look at things. Sooo why dont you come round here more often and post in the home and design forums?

Good post!

[al_roethlisberger]

Originally Posted by desertsun41

Over my 30 years in the construction biz...do you have any idea how many real pros, real craftsmen I knew have gotten out of the biz because they felt that if they were not allowed to do it right then they did not want to do it at all.

I think about it every day. Every day I still can not wait to get to work but deep down I know that next customer will walk in with a bid from the local Chinese made cabinet shop. Then rather then educate them how we can make their kitchen beautiful I find myself wasting time educating them why putting formaldehyde infested cardboard boxes in their home will give their kids cancer. I win some and I lose some.

Yep, it can be frustrating from both perspectives, that's for certain.

Maybe the solution is to get consumers(DIYers) like myself together with real craftsman. I've spent plenty of time on the "flipside" trying to educate contractors on the benefit and market opportunity of "doing it right".

But it is true that finding the right customer is key as well.

I find that skilled contractors that specialize and advertise directly to historic home renovations and similar tend to have more luck finding the kind of work they want to do, and customers that want to spend a little more $$ to get it done right.

Al

[al_roethlisberger]

Originally Posted by desertsun41

Hmmm all good points and a different way to look at things. Sooo why dont you come round here more often and post in the home and design forums?

Good post!

I didn't know it existed until a couple weeks ago... honestly I never scrolled down beyond the "state" forums, thinking they were all politics or forum support

I post regularly to the NC forum, and over at oldhouseweb.com among others. But I'll be keeping an eye on this forum as well now too

Al

[desertsun41]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Actually the decline started just after WWII. A lot of GIs came back from the war with money and desire for their own home. There was a huge boom in demand for houses, especially starter homes. Someone developed mass production techniques that could be applied to home building. Mass production home building started in the late 1940s (Lveittown etc) and then became more and more popular.

Ha...you are right about that. Levittown Homes. And my Mom still lives in one. All mass produced cape cod homes for the GIs coming home from the war. Her house is straight as an arrow after all these years. Looks ugly as hell and completely unfunctional with one bathroom for 4 bedrooms but it worked at the time.

[oberon_1]

A few points to consider:
1) Many "old time" houses were poorly built. They were also dysfunctional by todays standards: 1 bathroom per house, low ceilings, no garage or one car garage only, small rooms, no provision for A/C etc. Many of these were knocked down and you cannot see them anymore, others were retrofitted and improved.
2) With the housing bubble and the crazy demand, many houses that were initially summer houses, or built by the lake, were transformed into permanent homes. Their quality is questionable.
3) The excellent houses of yesterday are still with us and we admire them thinking that everything was alike.
4) Don't know why, but I am not fan of houses built in the last 15 years in new developments. These houses are usually built very close, with no space, in a rush.
5) There are new houses, custom built by contractors to owner specs. I think these are usually better then the mass buildings in developments.
6) As someone already mentioned, the 90s saw a boom in house building. The focus shifted from functional (and building for years) to the showy. They figured out that in the economic climate of the last 15 years, people move frequently and do not live long in one place (like in the past).
7) Houses aren't different then other things in our life. The culture of instant and disposable rules today. The cloths we wear, the gadgets we buy, our cars, are all the same.

[iluvcj]

Originally Posted by Jillaceae

Definitely one reason the condo pool has decreased in quality is that the practice of turning apartment buildings into condos increased in the 90's. In general, buildings built in as condos are built much better and with higher quality materials than buildings built to be apartments. This makes sense: one item is something someone is going to purchase, the other item something someone could potentially be living in for a short amount of time and trash. Yes, buildings turning from apartments to condos usually get "renovated", but this almost always only cosmetic. (This is different than, say, rehabbing an old warehouse. A lot more work goes into something like that.) When purchasing from a complex, find out what kind of homes the units were originally designed to be.

Here in the bay area lots of apartments were converted into condos and sold. The last apartment I lived in I could hear my neighbor cough

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by desertsun41

I once again agree with Barking Spider on his points. Maybe not so much on the union issue though but wont go into that.

Quality not as good today? Can we also say that about cars? Sure cars are more dependable today but built better? Nope. My Dad always used to say in the old days those cars were made of steel. Those cars used to bounce off walls and body shops were not needed.

Today there may appear to be some things inferior in the building of a home but that is due to what the consumer wants. Today it's a never ending battle to get cost down to be competitive. Much savings are by labor. Just as little as 10 years ago framers for example were paid $25/hr. Today the Builder can hire 3 south of the borders for $8/hr each and get 3 times the work output and may the quality be damned. The average consumer can not tell the difference in quality so why should the Builder try and offer any? If the public really was concerned about quality then the Walmart parking lots would be empty now wouldn't they.

I personally watch with my own eyes entire homes built without the use of a level or a square. Ever see those old Superman movies where they hold up kryptonite and Superman starts to melt and die? That is what happens to those mostly illegal framers when you hold up a level to them.

I face this every day when people bring in an estiimate from one of those new Chinese made cabinet shops that are poping up everywhere. How the hell can I compete with those clowns when they are selling whole real wood cherry kitchens for $900???!!! I educate the people by explaining how they are very dangerous to their familys health because they are heavily laden with formaldehyde which is banned here but still legal to import. The Chinese steal their wood from a Russian state so they do not pay for materials. Then they pay their people 10 cents per day for 15 hour shifts. Oh and these cabinets are falling off walls in pieces because they are trash.

So I repeat. It's what the consumer wants. Suppliers and Builders are just offering it to whom ever wants to buy it.

refering to the above statement about the square or level.

This happened frequently even as far back as the 1800's. I have done some sets of as-built plans from very early homes, and there is not a 90* angle in the entire home. In the past builders did not have to worry about meeting code, submitting plans for 10-20k at a pop. meeting energy requirements on top of code or many of the other things that they do now. So they could spend a little more time building the home. Submittal for the city are NOT cheap in the slightest, and with the spec builders, they have to make that lost money back somewhere.

A rule of thumb in my mind, if the builder advertises things like
"get more for less" run for the hills, there are cuts going on somewhere.