4 ms·

This was a good article but I think the authors assignment of blame is misplaced. In my opinion the reason contemporary brick construction is not up to par wit

This was a good article but I think the authors assignment of blame is misplaced. In my opinion the reason contemporary brick construction is not up to par with 100 year old brick construction is the same reason contemporary washing machines are not up to the standard of washing machines 100 years ago: The emphasis in making things now is on speed and cheapness, the emphasis 100 years ago was on quality. The college dorm building was certainly thrown up in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the price with a fraction of the labourers, than the bank building.

finnh 11y ago
I will gladly trade a 100 year old washing machine (rusty and hand-powered, I assume) for a Miele. I'm sure you have an argument here, but I don't see how washing machines further it.
- everyone 11y ago
  You assume too much. Also this article is addressing the construction quality and longevity of brick facades. I was referencing the construction quality and longevity of washing machines, pre-war vs modern. https://youtu.be/baFaEvBywGc?t=22m40s https://youtu.be/baFaEvBywGc?t=22m40s
  - roel_v 11y ago
    Back then, you could only buy expensive high quality ones. Only a few people could afford it. Nowadays, you can buy cheap crappy ones, as well as expensive high quality ones. What's the argument here? If someone will let me spend the equivalent amount of what these old houses cost back then on a new brick building, I will have them build just as good as the old ones. Actually, I'll have them build better, because the woodworking of the windows will be much better, the moisture barriers will be better, the insulation will be better, the quality of the mortar will be better, the concrete slab will be better (actually, 'it will have a concrete slab'), the roof tiles will be of better quality, the heating system will not suck, I can go on and on...
bsder 11y ago
> the emphasis 100 years ago was on quality I would argue that the emphasis was on "repairability".
- everyone 11y ago
  Hm, I'd say both but quality first. The engineers aim was to make something that would last forever, the goal was that nothing would go wrong with it, but inevitably over the years something would and in that case it'd better be convenient to repair as the its so damn expensive you cant just buy another.
douche 11y ago
I'm not so sure... Some of the superior brick dorms on that campus built in the 20s and 30s averaged around a year of construction, and cost about $200,000, which adjusted for inflation, is ~ $2.5 million. The most recent addition to the East Wheelock cluster (couldn't find the cost of the building in question) cost $8 million over two years. The newer McLaughlin cluster, with six dorms, took three years to build and cost over $40 million in 2006.

finnh 11y ago

I will gladly trade a 100 year old washing machine (rusty and hand-powered, I assume) for a Miele. I'm sure you have an argument here, but I don't see how washing machines further it.

everyone 11y ago
You assume too much. Also this article is addressing the construction quality and longevity of brick facades. I was referencing the construction quality and longevity of washing machines, pre-war vs modern. https://youtu.be/baFaEvBywGc?t=22m40s https://youtu.be/baFaEvBywGc?t=22m40s
- roel_v 11y ago
  Back then, you could only buy expensive high quality ones. Only a few people could afford it. Nowadays, you can buy cheap crappy ones, as well as expensive high quality ones. What's the argument here? If someone will let me spend the equivalent amount of what these old houses cost back then on a new brick building, I will have them build just as good as the old ones. Actually, I'll have them build better, because the woodworking of the windows will be much better, the moisture barriers will be better, the insulation will be better, the quality of the mortar will be better, the concrete slab will be better (actually, 'it will have a concrete slab'), the roof tiles will be of better quality, the heating system will not suck, I can go on and on...

bsder 11y ago

> the emphasis 100 years ago was on quality I would argue that the emphasis was on "repairability".

everyone 11y ago
Hm, I'd say both but quality first. The engineers aim was to make something that would last forever, the goal was that nothing would go wrong with it, but inevitably over the years something would and in that case it'd better be convenient to repair as the its so damn expensive you cant just buy another.

douche 11y ago

I'm not so sure... Some of the superior brick dorms on that campus built in the 20s and 30s averaged around a year of construction, and cost about $200,000, which adjusted for inflation, is ~ $2.5 million. The most recent addition to the East Wheelock cluster (couldn't find the cost of the building in question) cost $8 million over two years. The newer McLaughlin cluster, with six dorms, took three years to build and cost over $40 million in 2006.