9 ms·

Houses were much simpler 50 years ago. The building codes have changed a lot since then and modern houses have added construction complexity with better waterpr

by a-r-t 4y ago

Houses were much simpler 50 years ago. The building codes have changed a lot since then and modern houses have added construction complexity with better waterproofing, air sealing, fire proofing, bracing, and more advanced mechanical systems.

markus_zhang 4y ago
However many modern homes use inferior material for the job comparing to the older homes in the same area. Probably to cut cost. I'm not sure if it was also the case for older homes built in the 50s/60s though.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Can you give an example of inferior material?
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    I can: - Vinyl windows compared to old growth wood windows from 100 years ago. - Vinyl siding compared to cedar shakes. - Extremely poor wood quality in the lower end 2x4 and 2x6 lumber. - Sheathing that's essentially cardboard in really cheap builds. - Flooring is sad today in cheap to moderate homes. Thing is there were really badly built homes 100 years ago and they just aren't standing any longer. We do get a but of selection bias when we compare old homes. The ones that are still standing were probably built well and of quality materials and have been taken care of. You can build an awesome home today out of excellent materials like engineered wood, high quality OSB/ply/ZipSystem, and of course whatever you want to spend on flooring, siding, windows, etc.
    - rsynnott 4y ago
      Note that there's some selection bias to those 100 year old windows. The houses built cheaply a century ago aren't around anymore.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      > You can build an awesome home today out of excellent materials like engineered wood, high quality OSB/ply/ZipSystem, and of course whatever you want to spend on flooring, siding, windows, etc. Of course, there will always be different quality materials available at different prices. But I would bet the lowest quality house with the lowest quality materials and build quality 100 years ago is much worse than the same today. > Flooring is sad today in cheap to moderate homes. I never understood this lament. It has never made a lick of difference to my quality of life if the hard flooring under me was tile/real wood/granite/LVT. Whether or not it is a heated floor is the only thing that has increased the utility I get from the floor. Otherwise, the LVT I can buy at Costco gives me better utility than some fancy real wood floor. I can not give a shit about it, not spend a dime or second maintaining it, and fix it in 15 minutes. And you can change the whole look for much cheaper, and get it in whatever design/color you want.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        Why stop there? Get particle board cabinets, molded composite doors, vinyl windows, laminate counters, etc. Yeah it's all going to look awful in about 2 years but you can just replace it with more cheap junk. I get it, everyone has different tastes and budgets, and values. to me, wood floors feel nice, they look nice, and they sound nice when walked on. Laminate flooring clicks and areas that get walked on just a bit more begin to wear out and begin to lose their printed finish.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Yes, why stop there? If a material exists that better meets your requisite utility to price ratio, then go for it. > Yeah it's all going to look awful in about 2 years but you can just replace it with more cheap junk. That is the difference, it does not. The higher quality (and even decent quality) LVT performs very well, and for a long time. Even hotels use it, and in my experience, for normal wear and tear around a house, anything Costco quality and up will not noticeably degrade. I am regularly in many tract built houses from 5 to 7 years ago, and the flooring does not look worn at all. There probably is super low quality cheap LVT that does not have sufficient longevity, but my point is just because something is composite instead of “real”, or lightweight instead of heavy, does not mean it cannot do the job.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Vinyl windows/sealed windows are 400% better. Old windows suck. Cedar shakes are a fire hazard, and most people use cement board rather than vinyl. You can't have everyone use virgin forest wood. And with that said especially in non load bearing walls why use your best wood, it's just a waste. You get far more strength by use of modern fastners and straps.
      - CodeWriter23 4y ago
        > Vinyl windows/sealed windows are 400% better Until the sun or termite-treating the home degrades the vinyl.
        pixl97 4y ago
        I guess I'll worry about that in 20+ years. I'll also assume you've never pulled the putty out of the old windows and had to redo them, because it is a lot of work.
    - oceanplexian 4y ago
      Most of the contractors who like to talk about the good old days are simply spreading FUD. New homes will hold up better a hundred years from now, and have a much lower chance of catching on fire, collapsing in an earthquake, and are less harmful to the planet since they use a fraction of the energy. - Old windows from 100 years ago were single pane. I grew up with them. My bedroom was freezing cold in the winter and roasting in the summer. And they couldn't seal so they leaked water which rotted out the window frame. Not exactly a great example of old homes lasting longer. - Cedar shake is a fire hazard. Yeah, we don't build houses like that because a century ago entire towns would light up like a match. It was a regular occurrence. - New constructions (At least mine was) built with 2x6, so it has a higher R rating and better soundproofing. My energy bills are a fraction of those for an older house. - New homes are better sealed, and contain air tight vapor barriers. Water can't get in and rot the wood like with old homes. Yes, it's not old growth wood, but it will last longer. Better sealing, air filtration and HVAC will reduce your chance of getting lung cancer from air pollution. - Modern high end LVP flooring is substantially more robust than hardwood. Dogs can't scratch it, you can drop a cast iron pan on it, it's waterproof. If you want to instead spend money on hardwood there's nothing stopping you, but LVP looks great and is easy to replace.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        > Old windows from 100 years ago were single pane. Yes but you can (and should) weatherstrip them. Fully integrated weather stripping and storm windows will solve the problems you're addressing. Yes still lower R-value but old homes are leaky and putting in modern windows won't save you much in these instances. > New homes will hold up better a hundred years from now Most won't. My home is over 100 years old and I'm 100% positive it will outlast 90% of modern construction put up today 100 years from now. I've seen my house gutted in many places and it's pristine. I've seen many 20 year old homes that are full of mold and rot. > Cedar shake is a fire hazard. Depends where you live. It looks great and there are millions of homes with it. At least where I live where there is a lot of spacing between homes and we don't have forest fires like out West. > - New constructions (At least mine was) built with 2x6, so it has a higher R rating and better soundproofing. My energy bills are a fraction of those for an older house. That's how I'd do a new build. But what does it have to do with sound proofing? I can use 5/8 drywall and use rock-wool or w/e between rooms if I want. It's what I've done when I remove plaster and lath walls. Agree about energy. > New homes are better sealed, and contain air tight vapor barriers. Water can't get in and rot the wood like with old homes. Yes, it's not old growth wood, but it will last longer. Better sealing, air filtration and HVAC will reduce your chance of getting lung cancer from air pollution. Might be. Hope the guy installing it cared enough not to install some flashing wrong or didn't forget to seal something. There's so much bad workmanship and a lot of today's better materials demand it's done very precisely. Saying that, a good contractor will inspect and test, but most won't. Old homes are still standing because water was/is kept away with larger eves (ever notice homes after water barriers came out stopped having large eves or any?) and by virtue of not having great insulation. They literally dry themselves out. God, the number of windows I've seen where the vapor barrier is installed/folded wrong or the flashing is wrong; or ZipSystem walls where the taped seals aren't quite right because of a weird angle. > Better sealing, air filtration and HVAC will reduce your chance of getting lung cancer from air pollution You can install HVAC with whatever filters you want in an old house. I've done it. > Modern high end LVP flooring is substantially more robust than hardwood I think it's appropriate in a basement room but I'd never consider having it in the rest of my home. An old house in disrepair or what hasn't bene renovated is probably a pretty bad thing that isn't going to last long. But if you've put the money into it and renovated you have a home that's setup for another 100 years and simply has gobs of character and charm you'll never get in a new home. But that's all a value call.
    - sershe 4y ago
      Vinyl/plastic windows and siding might be used because they are superior basically in every way? They don't rot, don't require almost any maintenance (exterior painting, etc.), windows fit much better and are better insulated, siding is much harder to damage and easier to clean (and also doesn't need paint). Frankly wooden windows are a personal pet peeve of mine. I have old (many decades) wooden windows in my house, and also new-ish wooden windows and plastic windows that were installed at the same time by the same company during a single renovation by the previous owner, so I can compare either old-new or new-new. If aliens landed and asked me "hey, we need to identify a few idiots among your species, can you give us the most reliable way to find one? Doesn't have to be broadly applicable, but does have to be a sure bet." I'd say "Look for people ordering wooden windows." I just utterly cannot comprehend why anyone would do it.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        You don’t know what you’re talking about. Vinyl windows get destroyed by the sun in 5 years or less. They also warp a lot and that nice seal you have is gone in a couple years tops. They are such a bad product with the only redeeming feature being they are cheap. Wood windows that are clad in aluminum or fiberglass will last 50 years and perform. Same for siding. Vinyl siding fades from the sun and warps and stops doing its job after a few years and now water is getting in. There’s a reason only the cheapest construction uses these materials.
        sershe 4y ago
        The new-ish plastic windows I have are actually ~15 years old and they have none of these issues (they are new-ish compared to the older wooden windows). They are in a condition that could be described as "looks new" and keep in warmth better as confirmed with an IR thermometer around them. The wooden windows of the same age and roughly the same dimensions installed by the same company are all kinds of wonky; they slide poorly because of I guess gradual shape change and wear of the wood, and don't seal well. Also a minor installation defect caused the top of one of the windows to rot. Not a problem with plastic, if there's a defect just fix it, window is good as new. When the window guys told me I need to replace the window I just said while you're at it do you want to rip out all the other ones too an replace with plastic? :)
  - markus_zhang 4y ago
    Once a contractor told me my apartment building, which was built in 1939, has very good load bearing walls that "they don't do nowadays". I do think that it could be more of "nowadays we can use lighter material to do the same job" angle. I also vosited quite a few apartments where they used thinner material and sound proofing is not exactly great.
    - curiousllama 4y ago
      Couldn’t this just be survivorship bias? We already locked down all the cheap crap from the 60s. It’s only the rare, well-built buildings that are still around. We’re building more cheap crap, sure, but also a few rare, well-built buildings.
      - delackner 4y ago
        Here's a more real example that is not just one "feeling". In Portland Oregon there are TONS of hundred year old houses that all look fairly similar because they were all built "cheap" back then from mail order catalogs. Here's a page showing some of those mail order catalogs: https://www.thoughtco.com/foursquare-house-plans-catalog-favorites-178125 https://www.thoughtco.com/foursquare-house-plans-catalog-fav... Looking from the basement up through to the framing, or from the second story down to the flooring, EVERYTHING was built from really thick timber. If you've walked around a modern unfinished project you can see nearly everything wood is made from fast growing wood or particles of wood just glued together. And that holds true even for "high-end" home projects (aka homes sold as high end because they have fancy kitchen appliances, not solid construction).
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Some finish materials are much worse. Small (by modern standards) ordinary middle-class homes in, say, the 1950s, had the kind of interior and exterior doors, and baseboards/molding, that'd be considered luxury-tier today. Even big expensive McMansions usually don't have doors and molding that nice, now. The higher end might get the luxury-tier front door... maybe. But any back or side doors won't be that nice, and usually not the interior doors, either. Totally normal houses were still getting solid-wood molding and baseboards as a matter of course into the early 90s, while now it's almost unheard of unless you pay a huge premium for a custom job during construction. Very nice wood floors used to be more common, too. Very nice by modern standards, anyway—normal, then. "Very nice" back then would have been ultra-luxe now, like fancy patterns or parquet or something. Basically, decent wood has become incredibly expensive. Almost all our lumber sucks now, unless you pay crazy-high prices. So things like nice solid-wood doors are impractically expensive unless you salvage them (and then you have the problem of sizing and constructing framing for them, rather than for standard frame-included modern doors)
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      But do any of those things yield utility for the end user, other than being able to say it is more expensive?
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Much nicer-feeling, more durable & don't look as bad after light wear, more repairable, more modifiable without replacement. Far less need for various glues and solvents that are probably not great things to have out-gassing in your house. [EDIT] Oh and the solid doors sure seemed to do a much better job of sound-proofing than modern ones do.
    - gruez 4y ago
      Could this be survivor bias at work? All the nice 1950 stuff you see are only around because they're nice enough to keep around. If they're junk they'd be replaced in a reno or something.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It really depends by what you mean by inferior though. Yes, old homes (pre-WW2) were built using old growth wood that is rot and insect resistant. And they overbuilt the structures in many ways. Of course we have some selection bias as the old homes that were not built well (of which there are many) are simply not standing any longer. So the old homes we see today were probably built very well with the materials of the time. Saying that, those materials (old growth wood) aren't around anymore. I think the industry went through a bad patch from the 1950s through the early 90s where A LOT of construction was bad and we didn't really know what we were doing with the sudden change to engineered materials. We didn't really understand vapor barriers because old homes didn't have them and didn't need them. They dried themselves out because they were so drafty and the old wood wouldn't rot easily. So when we moved to rapidly grown pine and engineered wood and insulation we didn't account for moisture very well and those homes have rot issues. Then we came up with water barriers but didn't account for water vapor and moisture would slowly get trapped over time and begin to rot the structures. However, today we have an excellent understanding of what make for a quality dwelling. We understand insulation extremely well - where to put it, what type to use where, how to keep it dry), we understand vapor barriers very well and they are made to block liquid water but allow water vapor to pass outside, etc. Windows have excellent R-values today compared to old homes as well. But yes, you can build cheap homes today that are crap. Code does reel you in a bit but I've heard of code in some areas being so bad it would allow you to sheath a house in cardboard essentially. Insane.
jeffwask 4y ago
I also wonder if a focus on safety has slowed things some for the yolo days of just breathing in asbestos and lead.
- parineum 4y ago
  I find both your parent and your comment to be the obvious answers for why "productivity" has dropped. People are probably just as, if not more, productive. It just takes more work to complete a single house/office/job due to both worker safety and building safety. Having some experience in the field, the idea that migrant/undocumented/illegal/etc workers are spoiling the workforce is pretty absurd (as is suggested in a few other comments). There were plenty of terrible workers that I knew to be or suspected to be in that category but the rate that they were bad was no different than anyone else.
rqtwteye 4y ago
Agreed. Although it's very surprising to me that the efficiencies of mass production haven't gone to housing. They are often still created by manual labor instead of assembling prefabricated modules. I think it should be possible to build panels that are well insulated and have all the needed wiring and everything else already built in.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I do not see why it “should” be more cost effective. Moving big, costly things requires big, costly equipment and expertise. And losses can be higher in the event of a failure.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Housing is a mass customization market more than a mass production one. Most people don’t want to live in a modern Levittown. They want some space, but they don’t want the exact same set choices in their house as 1000+ other people have made.
  - potatochup 4y ago
    In older areas it's also that the plots are not identical. The land cost is so high that it makes sense to spend extra on building customization to better utilize the land rather than plonk down a cookie cutter house that doesn't make good use of the views/sun/space/etc
- troupe 4y ago
  Structural Integrated Panels (SIPs) and Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) are two examples. SIPs are made from compressed foam with pressed wood on either side and are precut in the factory to fit together at the job site. ICFs are basically giant foam legos that you assemble together and then fill with concrete.

by a-r-t 4y ago

markus_zhang 4y ago

However many modern homes use inferior material for the job comparing to the older homes in the same area. Probably to cut cost. I'm not sure if it was also the case for older homes built in the 50s/60s though.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Can you give an example of inferior material?
- nemo44x 4y ago
  I can: - Vinyl windows compared to old growth wood windows from 100 years ago. - Vinyl siding compared to cedar shakes. - Extremely poor wood quality in the lower end 2x4 and 2x6 lumber. - Sheathing that's essentially cardboard in really cheap builds. - Flooring is sad today in cheap to moderate homes. Thing is there were really badly built homes 100 years ago and they just aren't standing any longer. We do get a but of selection bias when we compare old homes. The ones that are still standing were probably built well and of quality materials and have been taken care of. You can build an awesome home today out of excellent materials like engineered wood, high quality OSB/ply/ZipSystem, and of course whatever you want to spend on flooring, siding, windows, etc.
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    Note that there's some selection bias to those 100 year old windows. The houses built cheaply a century ago aren't around anymore.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > You can build an awesome home today out of excellent materials like engineered wood, high quality OSB/ply/ZipSystem, and of course whatever you want to spend on flooring, siding, windows, etc. Of course, there will always be different quality materials available at different prices. But I would bet the lowest quality house with the lowest quality materials and build quality 100 years ago is much worse than the same today. > Flooring is sad today in cheap to moderate homes. I never understood this lament. It has never made a lick of difference to my quality of life if the hard flooring under me was tile/real wood/granite/LVT. Whether or not it is a heated floor is the only thing that has increased the utility I get from the floor. Otherwise, the LVT I can buy at Costco gives me better utility than some fancy real wood floor. I can not give a shit about it, not spend a dime or second maintaining it, and fix it in 15 minutes. And you can change the whole look for much cheaper, and get it in whatever design/color you want.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      Why stop there? Get particle board cabinets, molded composite doors, vinyl windows, laminate counters, etc. Yeah it's all going to look awful in about 2 years but you can just replace it with more cheap junk. I get it, everyone has different tastes and budgets, and values. to me, wood floors feel nice, they look nice, and they sound nice when walked on. Laminate flooring clicks and areas that get walked on just a bit more begin to wear out and begin to lose their printed finish.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Yes, why stop there? If a material exists that better meets your requisite utility to price ratio, then go for it. > Yeah it's all going to look awful in about 2 years but you can just replace it with more cheap junk. That is the difference, it does not. The higher quality (and even decent quality) LVT performs very well, and for a long time. Even hotels use it, and in my experience, for normal wear and tear around a house, anything Costco quality and up will not noticeably degrade. I am regularly in many tract built houses from 5 to 7 years ago, and the flooring does not look worn at all. There probably is super low quality cheap LVT that does not have sufficient longevity, but my point is just because something is composite instead of “real”, or lightweight instead of heavy, does not mean it cannot do the job.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Vinyl windows/sealed windows are 400% better. Old windows suck. Cedar shakes are a fire hazard, and most people use cement board rather than vinyl. You can't have everyone use virgin forest wood. And with that said especially in non load bearing walls why use your best wood, it's just a waste. You get far more strength by use of modern fastners and straps.
    - CodeWriter23 4y ago
      > Vinyl windows/sealed windows are 400% better Until the sun or termite-treating the home degrades the vinyl.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        I guess I'll worry about that in 20+ years. I'll also assume you've never pulled the putty out of the old windows and had to redo them, because it is a lot of work.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    Most of the contractors who like to talk about the good old days are simply spreading FUD. New homes will hold up better a hundred years from now, and have a much lower chance of catching on fire, collapsing in an earthquake, and are less harmful to the planet since they use a fraction of the energy. - Old windows from 100 years ago were single pane. I grew up with them. My bedroom was freezing cold in the winter and roasting in the summer. And they couldn't seal so they leaked water which rotted out the window frame. Not exactly a great example of old homes lasting longer. - Cedar shake is a fire hazard. Yeah, we don't build houses like that because a century ago entire towns would light up like a match. It was a regular occurrence. - New constructions (At least mine was) built with 2x6, so it has a higher R rating and better soundproofing. My energy bills are a fraction of those for an older house. - New homes are better sealed, and contain air tight vapor barriers. Water can't get in and rot the wood like with old homes. Yes, it's not old growth wood, but it will last longer. Better sealing, air filtration and HVAC will reduce your chance of getting lung cancer from air pollution. - Modern high end LVP flooring is substantially more robust than hardwood. Dogs can't scratch it, you can drop a cast iron pan on it, it's waterproof. If you want to instead spend money on hardwood there's nothing stopping you, but LVP looks great and is easy to replace.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      > Old windows from 100 years ago were single pane. Yes but you can (and should) weatherstrip them. Fully integrated weather stripping and storm windows will solve the problems you're addressing. Yes still lower R-value but old homes are leaky and putting in modern windows won't save you much in these instances. > New homes will hold up better a hundred years from now Most won't. My home is over 100 years old and I'm 100% positive it will outlast 90% of modern construction put up today 100 years from now. I've seen my house gutted in many places and it's pristine. I've seen many 20 year old homes that are full of mold and rot. > Cedar shake is a fire hazard. Depends where you live. It looks great and there are millions of homes with it. At least where I live where there is a lot of spacing between homes and we don't have forest fires like out West. > - New constructions (At least mine was) built with 2x6, so it has a higher R rating and better soundproofing. My energy bills are a fraction of those for an older house. That's how I'd do a new build. But what does it have to do with sound proofing? I can use 5/8 drywall and use rock-wool or w/e between rooms if I want. It's what I've done when I remove plaster and lath walls. Agree about energy. > New homes are better sealed, and contain air tight vapor barriers. Water can't get in and rot the wood like with old homes. Yes, it's not old growth wood, but it will last longer. Better sealing, air filtration and HVAC will reduce your chance of getting lung cancer from air pollution. Might be. Hope the guy installing it cared enough not to install some flashing wrong or didn't forget to seal something. There's so much bad workmanship and a lot of today's better materials demand it's done very precisely. Saying that, a good contractor will inspect and test, but most won't. Old homes are still standing because water was/is kept away with larger eves (ever notice homes after water barriers came out stopped having large eves or any?) and by virtue of not having great insulation. They literally dry themselves out. God, the number of windows I've seen where the vapor barrier is installed/folded wrong or the flashing is wrong; or ZipSystem walls where the taped seals aren't quite right because of a weird angle. > Better sealing, air filtration and HVAC will reduce your chance of getting lung cancer from air pollution You can install HVAC with whatever filters you want in an old house. I've done it. > Modern high end LVP flooring is substantially more robust than hardwood I think it's appropriate in a basement room but I'd never consider having it in the rest of my home. An old house in disrepair or what hasn't bene renovated is probably a pretty bad thing that isn't going to last long. But if you've put the money into it and renovated you have a home that's setup for another 100 years and simply has gobs of character and charm you'll never get in a new home. But that's all a value call.
  - sershe 4y ago
    Vinyl/plastic windows and siding might be used because they are superior basically in every way? They don't rot, don't require almost any maintenance (exterior painting, etc.), windows fit much better and are better insulated, siding is much harder to damage and easier to clean (and also doesn't need paint). Frankly wooden windows are a personal pet peeve of mine. I have old (many decades) wooden windows in my house, and also new-ish wooden windows and plastic windows that were installed at the same time by the same company during a single renovation by the previous owner, so I can compare either old-new or new-new. If aliens landed and asked me "hey, we need to identify a few idiots among your species, can you give us the most reliable way to find one? Doesn't have to be broadly applicable, but does have to be a sure bet." I'd say "Look for people ordering wooden windows." I just utterly cannot comprehend why anyone would do it.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      You don’t know what you’re talking about. Vinyl windows get destroyed by the sun in 5 years or less. They also warp a lot and that nice seal you have is gone in a couple years tops. They are such a bad product with the only redeeming feature being they are cheap. Wood windows that are clad in aluminum or fiberglass will last 50 years and perform. Same for siding. Vinyl siding fades from the sun and warps and stops doing its job after a few years and now water is getting in. There’s a reason only the cheapest construction uses these materials.
      - sershe 4y ago
        The new-ish plastic windows I have are actually ~15 years old and they have none of these issues (they are new-ish compared to the older wooden windows). They are in a condition that could be described as "looks new" and keep in warmth better as confirmed with an IR thermometer around them. The wooden windows of the same age and roughly the same dimensions installed by the same company are all kinds of wonky; they slide poorly because of I guess gradual shape change and wear of the wood, and don't seal well. Also a minor installation defect caused the top of one of the windows to rot. Not a problem with plastic, if there's a defect just fix it, window is good as new. When the window guys told me I need to replace the window I just said while you're at it do you want to rip out all the other ones too an replace with plastic? :)
- markus_zhang 4y ago
  Once a contractor told me my apartment building, which was built in 1939, has very good load bearing walls that "they don't do nowadays". I do think that it could be more of "nowadays we can use lighter material to do the same job" angle. I also vosited quite a few apartments where they used thinner material and sound proofing is not exactly great.
  - curiousllama 4y ago
    Couldn’t this just be survivorship bias? We already locked down all the cheap crap from the 60s. It’s only the rare, well-built buildings that are still around. We’re building more cheap crap, sure, but also a few rare, well-built buildings.
    - delackner 4y ago
      Here's a more real example that is not just one "feeling". In Portland Oregon there are TONS of hundred year old houses that all look fairly similar because they were all built "cheap" back then from mail order catalogs. Here's a page showing some of those mail order catalogs: https://www.thoughtco.com/foursquare-house-plans-catalog-favorites-178125 https://www.thoughtco.com/foursquare-house-plans-catalog-fav... Looking from the basement up through to the framing, or from the second story down to the flooring, EVERYTHING was built from really thick timber. If you've walked around a modern unfinished project you can see nearly everything wood is made from fast growing wood or particles of wood just glued together. And that holds true even for "high-end" home projects (aka homes sold as high end because they have fancy kitchen appliances, not solid construction).
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Some finish materials are much worse. Small (by modern standards) ordinary middle-class homes in, say, the 1950s, had the kind of interior and exterior doors, and baseboards/molding, that'd be considered luxury-tier today. Even big expensive McMansions usually don't have doors and molding that nice, now. The higher end might get the luxury-tier front door... maybe. But any back or side doors won't be that nice, and usually not the interior doors, either. Totally normal houses were still getting solid-wood molding and baseboards as a matter of course into the early 90s, while now it's almost unheard of unless you pay a huge premium for a custom job during construction. Very nice wood floors used to be more common, too. Very nice by modern standards, anyway—normal, then. "Very nice" back then would have been ultra-luxe now, like fancy patterns or parquet or something. Basically, decent wood has become incredibly expensive. Almost all our lumber sucks now, unless you pay crazy-high prices. So things like nice solid-wood doors are impractically expensive unless you salvage them (and then you have the problem of sizing and constructing framing for them, rather than for standard frame-included modern doors)
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    But do any of those things yield utility for the end user, other than being able to say it is more expensive?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Much nicer-feeling, more durable & don't look as bad after light wear, more repairable, more modifiable without replacement. Far less need for various glues and solvents that are probably not great things to have out-gassing in your house. [EDIT] Oh and the solid doors sure seemed to do a much better job of sound-proofing than modern ones do.
  - gruez 4y ago
    Could this be survivor bias at work? All the nice 1950 stuff you see are only around because they're nice enough to keep around. If they're junk they'd be replaced in a reno or something.
nemo44x 4y ago
It really depends by what you mean by inferior though. Yes, old homes (pre-WW2) were built using old growth wood that is rot and insect resistant. And they overbuilt the structures in many ways. Of course we have some selection bias as the old homes that were not built well (of which there are many) are simply not standing any longer. So the old homes we see today were probably built very well with the materials of the time. Saying that, those materials (old growth wood) aren't around anymore. I think the industry went through a bad patch from the 1950s through the early 90s where A LOT of construction was bad and we didn't really know what we were doing with the sudden change to engineered materials. We didn't really understand vapor barriers because old homes didn't have them and didn't need them. They dried themselves out because they were so drafty and the old wood wouldn't rot easily. So when we moved to rapidly grown pine and engineered wood and insulation we didn't account for moisture very well and those homes have rot issues. Then we came up with water barriers but didn't account for water vapor and moisture would slowly get trapped over time and begin to rot the structures. However, today we have an excellent understanding of what make for a quality dwelling. We understand insulation extremely well - where to put it, what type to use where, how to keep it dry), we understand vapor barriers very well and they are made to block liquid water but allow water vapor to pass outside, etc. Windows have excellent R-values today compared to old homes as well. But yes, you can build cheap homes today that are crap. Code does reel you in a bit but I've heard of code in some areas being so bad it would allow you to sheath a house in cardboard essentially. Insane.

jeffwask 4y ago

I also wonder if a focus on safety has slowed things some for the yolo days of just breathing in asbestos and lead.

parineum 4y ago
I find both your parent and your comment to be the obvious answers for why "productivity" has dropped. People are probably just as, if not more, productive. It just takes more work to complete a single house/office/job due to both worker safety and building safety. Having some experience in the field, the idea that migrant/undocumented/illegal/etc workers are spoiling the workforce is pretty absurd (as is suggested in a few other comments). There were plenty of terrible workers that I knew to be or suspected to be in that category but the rate that they were bad was no different than anyone else.

rqtwteye 4y ago

Agreed. Although it's very surprising to me that the efficiencies of mass production haven't gone to housing. They are often still created by manual labor instead of assembling prefabricated modules. I think it should be possible to build panels that are well insulated and have all the needed wiring and everything else already built in.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I do not see why it “should” be more cost effective. Moving big, costly things requires big, costly equipment and expertise. And losses can be higher in the event of a failure.
sokoloff 4y ago
Housing is a mass customization market more than a mass production one. Most people don’t want to live in a modern Levittown. They want some space, but they don’t want the exact same set choices in their house as 1000+ other people have made.
- potatochup 4y ago
  In older areas it's also that the plots are not identical. The land cost is so high that it makes sense to spend extra on building customization to better utilize the land rather than plonk down a cookie cutter house that doesn't make good use of the views/sun/space/etc
troupe 4y ago
Structural Integrated Panels (SIPs) and Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) are two examples. SIPs are made from compressed foam with pressed wood on either side and are precut in the factory to fit together at the job site. ICFs are basically giant foam legos that you assemble together and then fill with concrete.