4 ms·

Myth of ‘We don’t build houses like we used to’

3 points by smacktoward 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago
>Often, when people talk about how much better old houses are than new houses (in the U.S., “old” refers to houses built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, since there aren’t many surviving houses from the 18th century or earlier), they invoke a change in the nature of labor: The houses of yesteryear were built by “skilled craftsmen,” and today’s houses are built by “unskilled labor.” These descriptions elide the fact that many of the “great buildings” in our canon of architecture were built by under- and even unpaid laborers. That's irrelevant as to whether "we don't build houses as we used to" is a myth or not. Not to mention today's houses are also commonly built by "under-paid laborers" (depending on the country lots of underpaid immigrants, including illegal ones work in construction), but they're still different. >Another reason—perhaps the biggest reason—these materials are disliked is because they were frequently sold as being “low or no maintenance,” when the truth is there’s no such thing as a no- or low-maintenance material. Spoken like someone who hasn't lived or worked in an excellent condition 16th-17th century house with minimal maintenance over the centuries... (Coming from someone from a country with many very old houses, in a UNESCO heritage city). In any case, the whole article misses the point. First, it doesn't prove that "We don’t build houses like we used to" is a myth -- just that we have our reasons for doing it differently. Second, it's not the materials and craftsmanship people dislike, it's the results (modernist and later architectural trends being butt ugly and cheap looking). You can make great looking and sturdy houses with modern materials too -- but few architects and builders bother.
Koshkin 8y ago
No it's not a myth, and modern skyscrapers and residential high-rise buildings look pretty awe-inspiring.

3 points by smacktoward 8y ago

>Often, when people talk about how much better old houses are than new houses (in the U.S., “old” refers to houses built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, since there aren’t many surviving houses from the 18th century or earlier), they invoke a change in the nature of labor: The houses of yesteryear were built by “skilled craftsmen,” and today’s houses are built by “unskilled labor.” These descriptions elide the fact that many of the “great buildings” in our canon of architecture were built by under- and even unpaid laborers. That's irrelevant as to whether "we don't build houses as we used to" is a myth or not. Not to mention today's houses are also commonly built by "under-paid laborers" (depending on the country lots of underpaid immigrants, including illegal ones work in construction), but they're still different. >Another reason—perhaps the biggest reason—these materials are disliked is because they were frequently sold as being “low or no maintenance,” when the truth is there’s no such thing as a no- or low-maintenance material. Spoken like someone who hasn't lived or worked in an excellent condition 16th-17th century house with minimal maintenance over the centuries... (Coming from someone from a country with many very old houses, in a UNESCO heritage city). In any case, the whole article misses the point. First, it doesn't prove that "We don’t build houses like we used to" is a myth -- just that we have our reasons for doing it differently. Second, it's not the materials and craftsmanship people dislike, it's the results (modernist and later architectural trends being butt ugly and cheap looking). You can make great looking and sturdy houses with modern materials too -- but few architects and builders bother.

Koshkin 8y ago

No it's not a myth, and modern skyscrapers and residential high-rise buildings look pretty awe-inspiring.