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.
Advances are made in building practices all the time. That doesn't mean we tear down everything that isn't built with the most modern techniques. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter, the houses in question were built decades ago.
I never suggested one should tear down homes just because they were older. If the homes have been kept up over the decades they should be still in relatively good shape, there are many homes like that in Pittsburgh. But there are also many homes in Pittsburgh that have not been kept up and are either vacant or so run down to be worthless.
So the question is what do you do with these? I suggest you tear them down if they have no architectural value. That is primarily the old "working class" homes and factories. But often there is not a big enough block of these homes/factories to tear down to make a park, so the city in this case would have to have some sacrificial lambs and perhaps relocate some people. This of course would be wildly unpopular, but its the only way to remove the decay without decent growth.
Private developers really do the same thing, except that the previous residents get pushed out due to the raising costs of the neighborhood. This works particularly well when you have a property tax system like the one in Pittsburgh.
Modern homes are not built with unreinforced masonry, contrary to what you think is "needed". . . . We are talking about masonry buildings, you can't build an unreinforced masonry building anymore. . . . You seem to not get that modern masonry buildings are not built the same way as they were in the past. . . . Are you under the impression that no advances have taken place in building methods, building materials, structural engineering, etc since then? . . . . Just to let you know...much has changed. Welcome to the 21st century.
At this point, I am just going to ask you to please explain exactly what you mean. What exactly do you think modern building codes require of load-bearing brick walls in low-rise applications in non-earthquake areas? Because in all these many statements I quoted above, and ones like it previously, you have never actually specified what you are talking about.
Quote:
Water damage is the most common cause of damage to a foundation, last time I checked how much water you have in the area is related to your weather.
That's an obvious stretch, but if you need it to save face, fine. Ground water, as opposed to weathering, is indeed an issue for foundations.
Quote:
Stone foundations do the worst in this case as the water breaks up the mortar.
Actually, the sandstone typically used in Pittsburgh foundations allows built up ground water to come through, which makes for damp basements but prevents a lot of this sort of problem.
Quote:
Also, in Pittsburgh the basement is often just part of the foundation.
But there are also many homes in Pittsburgh that have not been kept up and are either vacant or so run down to be worthless.
I think we can agree that it is possible that with a long enough period of neglect, a house can get to the point that it can't be saved (this is often a much longer period for well-built brick homes than wood frame homes, but that is a side issue). And at that point, what I tend to call the point of no return, I would agree such houses should be demolished. Indeed, the issue then is often finding the funding for demolishing such properties, which isn't a negligible cost.
The contentious issue is whether you should do that with houses that have not yet reached that point, but are merely currently vacant, or not even vacant but merely "unkempt". And my point has always been that demolishing homes for those reasons alone is often short-sighted, because the circumstances leading to a home being vacant or "unkempt" could change before it reaches the point of no return defined above. And so if you prematurely demolish those homes, you may well have destroyed something that could have been valuable in the future for no particular purpose.
At this point, I am just going to ask you to please explain exactly what you mean.
I already did and a simple google search would reveal what is meant by "reinforcement" in this case. You are thinking of a particular type of reinforcement, but the word is more general than that. For example, using rebar in a brick wall is a form of reinforcement. The point of reinforcement is to improve the integraty of the masonry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
That's an obvious stretch, but if you need it to save face, fine. Ground water, as opposed to weathering, is indeed an issue for foundations.
Ugh...yes I'm the one that "needs to save face". Dude, a simple search on this topic would reveal that weather plays an important role in foundation selection and foundation problems over time. The pressence of ground water is a soil issue (although, often related to the local weather), not a weather issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
The contentious issue is whether you should do that with houses that have not yet reached that point, but are merely currently vacant, or not even vacant but merely "unkempt". And my point has always been that demolishing homes for those reasons alone is often short-sighted, because the circumstances leading to a home being vacant or "unkempt" could change before it reaches the point of no return defined above.
Right, the pack rat mentality. "Maybe one day....I'll use it". Meanwhile your home is filled with a bunch of junk. Pittsburgh is filled with a bunch of junk real estat, keeping it around greatly reduces the aesthetic of the city today.
Old "working class" track homes have little aesthetic value, they are brick boxes with some windows. Although, the brick structure itself may still be okay the home in other ways is likely to be completely outdated. The cost difference between modernizing the home vs just tearing it down and rebuilding are not that much different. The only reason Pittsburgh has so many in this state are its declining population and its high number of low income residents. These things would have been demolished years ago if they were in one of the growing cities.
For example, using rebar in a brick wall is a form of reinforcement.
I'm not aware of any code requiring rebar in low-rise residential brick construction in non-earthquake zones. Rather, the codes tend to specify thickness for a given load, and you only need to use something like rebar if you want to go thinner. But perhaps you can show me the code you have in mind.
Quote:
Right, the pack rat mentality. "Maybe one day....I'll use it". Meanwhile your home is filled with a bunch of junk.
Bulldozing homes or entire neighborhoods requires a slightly more serious level of consideration than a spring cleaning and yard sale.
Quote:
Old "working class" track homes have little aesthetic value, they are brick boxes with some windows.
In Pittsburgh, the working class homes often had interesting brick work, skilled carpentry, and so on.
Quote:
These things would have been demolished years ago if they were in one of the growing cities.
Or renovated years ago: former working class neighborhoods have been renovated in many cities.
I'm not aware of any code requiring rebar in low-rise residential brick construction in non-earthquake zones.
Who are you responding to? I hope not me....because I never suggested this. Rather I said the use of rebar is a form of reinforcement. Rebar is not always used, it was an....ahem example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Bulldozing homes or entire neighborhoods requires a slightly more serious level of consideration than a spring cleaning and yard sale.
Not really, its the same issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
In Pittsburgh, the working class homes often had interesting brick work, skilled carpentry, and so on.
Again, I don't suggest tearing down buildings or homes with architectural value. I don't think a brick box with windows has architectural value though and is what the majority of the "working class" homes from this period amount to.
Who are you responding to? I hope not me....because I never suggested this. Rather I said the use of rebar is a form of reinforcement. Rebar is not always used, it was an....ahem example.
You claimed above that "you can't build homes with unreinforced walls and foundations anymore." To my knowledge, rebar is not required in modern residential brick homes. So I am still waiting for you to provide an example of what you originally claimed.
Quote:
I don't think a brick box with windows has architectural value though and is what the majority of the "working class" homes from this period amount to.
You claimed above that "you can't build homes with unreinforced walls and foundations anymore." To my knowledge, rebar is not required in modern residential brick homes. So I am still waiting for you to provide an example of what you originally claimed.
Again, who are you responding to? I never stated that rebar is required to be used in any residential brick homes, and the suggestion does not make much sense to begin with. You don't use rebar with solid brick. Whether rebar is required depends what is being used. If you for example built a wall with concrete blocks you'd have to use rebar. If you have a solid concrete foundation, you're going to have to use rebar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
That is simply untrue in Pittsburgh.
No, its simply true. Point me to a "working class" neighborhood in Pittsburgh that is not filled with brick boxes.
Again, who are you responding to? I never stated that rebar is required to be used in any residential brick homes, and the suggestion does not make much sense to begin with.
I'm asking you to explain and support your prior statement that "you can't build homes with unreinforced walls and foundations anymore" as applied to residential brick walls. I think we are both quite clear now on the fact that you mentioning rebar didn't actually count as explaining or supporting that statement.
So I am going to try to make my question as clear as possible. Suppose I draw up plans to build a brick house, and the load-bearing walls are traditional double brick in design. I submit my plans to the relevant authority in order to get a building permit. Will they tell me no, I can't follow that plan? If so, what exactly will they tell me I need to do to "reinforce" my planned walls, and what building code provisions will they cite?
I'm sorry to be so pedantic, but I honestly cannot figure out what "reinforcement" of residential brick walls you think is required by modern building codes. We agree reinforcement with rebar isn't required, so what is?
Quote:
No, its simply true. Point me to a "working class" neighborhood in Pittsburgh that is not filled with brick boxes.
Your claim is specifically that they are brick boxes without any architectural value. As I explained before, many of these "brick boxes" include interesting brick work, carpentry, or so on.
I know this isn't your personal aesthetic, but this post is full of brick rowhouses, most in former working class neighborhoods:
I think we are both quite clear now on the fact that you mentioning rebar didn't actually count as explaining or supporting that statement.
Again, I have to ask who you are having a conversation with. Because, I did not make that comment in the context you are suggesting. That is, it was never stated "as supporting...". It was an example of vertical reinforcement that is often (but not always) required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Suppose I draw up plans to build a brick house, and the load-bearing walls are traditional double brick in design. I submit my plans to the relevant authority in order to get a building permit.
Things like metal ties, truss mesh, etc. The details are different from state to state, but every where requires some sort of reinforcement on load-bearing walls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
We agree reinforcement with rebar isn't required, so what is?
Talking to someone else again. What I said is that rebar is not required in all cases. Most modern double wall brick structures are built with the outside in your standard solid red brick and the inside with concrete hollow bricks. The inner wall will need to use rebar and of course the bricks will have to be filled with mortar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
As I explained before, many of these "brick boxes" include interesting brick work, carpentry, or so on.
And as I've stated many times, I'm not talking about homes with architectural and/or aesthetic value. I'm talking about the houses that are essentially brick boxes with roofs. There is little to no decoration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I know this isn't your personal aesthetic, but this post is full of brick rowhouses, most in former working class neighborhoods:
Why are you posting pictures? I know what the city looks like and I have never claimed that ALL old lower end homes from the boom period are junk, just a good deal. I'm not going to pondificate whether they majority are or the majority aren't...I really don't know. What I know is that there are many neighborhoods filled with ugly boxes that are extremely run down, often vacant, etc.
But even looking at those pictures, the majority of those homes are not in "working class" neighborhoods from the boom period. Again, you like to ignore conjunctions, I've explicitly stated that the stuff before the boom is often nicer (in architecturally terms). You also, avoided the question. I asked you to name a "working class" community from Pittsburgh's boom days that has nice homes with architectural value.
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.
