4 ms·

Europeans often comment on flimsy US house construction. Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock. And also the propensity of Ame

by mturmon 13y ago

Europeans often comment on flimsy US house construction. Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock. And also the propensity of Americans to tear it down and start over. There's less reason to build for forever in this case. Another factor is seismic conditions (the OP was clearly most influenced by the Bay Area). Masonry or stone construction is incompatible with earthquakes.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
Masonry or stone construction is incompatible with earthquakes There's more to quality construction than building out of brick (although I think brick houses will ride out an earthquake a lot better than you imagine, as some of the oldest houses around the Bay Area are made out of brick). It's other things like the fact that you build houses with Tyvek instead of insulating them properly, crappy aliminum windows, and so on. People here tend to tear their houses down and start over because a lot of houses are so poorly built that they're not worth repairing, rather than out of any aesthetic impulse.
dyno12345 13y ago
Many houses in the Bay Area are about as well insulated as a wooden shed, frankly. People seem comfortable to let it get 50° inside.
- vacri 13y ago
  I once asked a Scot if they had any wooden houses back in his homeland. He replied "Yes, we keep our lawnmowers in them"...
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    Scottish house construction is definitely quite a bit flimsier now than it was 150-200 years ago though... I lived in Edinburgh for a few years, and most of the apartments I lived in were built in the 19th century (maybe the 18th; I forget the details, but there were several major housing booms in Edinburgh back then). They all had walls made of stone blocks like half a meter thick, and that was typical for buildings from that era, which account for a huge proportion of the city-center housing stock. New suburban houses I saw, on the other hand, seemed liked they'd blow over in a stiff wind (something there was a plentiful supply of), and of course were ugly to boot... [OTOH, it turned out that in one of the places I lived, the drinking-water tank was made of lead...! >< So if my comments seem kinda dumb... TT ]
vacri 13y ago
I had a friend in Charlotte show me the panelling on his house - you could remove it with your hands (he pushed it right in with a mild press), pick out the insulation, and punch through the plasterboard inside. I've never before been in a house where you could break through a wall with your bare hands.
- yardie 13y ago
  I don't think that house is up to code. At the very least there should be cement board behind the panelling. But, I don't know anything. I grew up in Miami. A hurricane (Andrew) turned an entire town to kindling because the houses were so poorly constructed. Some of them had nothing but gravity holding the roof down. One thing I do know is the next house I buy I'm building myself. I've rented far too many places that were so poorly constructed; it's indescribable. My last apartment was on 2 floors. Just walking around felt like there were giants over my head. The beams were so far apart you could feel the floor shift under your weight.
  - vacri 13y ago
    It was in a slightly upmarket housing estate type thing about 20 minutes drive out of the city - clipped lawns; all the houses look identical and made of premade plastic parts; you get a visit from some sort of supervisor if your bins are out one day too long. There wasn't that cement board - another house had lost one of its 'boards' and there was no such thing behind it. The house was certainly a rush job though - inside the power points were slightly off-plumb, that sort of thing. It was supposed to be a 'nice area' though. The house was kind of puzzling, given that.
henrikschroder 13y ago
> Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock. No, brand new houses and apartment buildings in at least the Bay Area are of shoddy quality compared to brand new houses built to Northern European standards. Same goes for older houses. Doesn't matter if it's brick or wood or concrete, there's just a huge quality gap. Some of it is explained by the climate, it always amuses me to see housing ads proudly proclaiming "double glazing!". Meanwhile, over here, triple glazing has been the legal minimum for decades, and older houses were required to retrofit it. Some of it is explained by the british heritage, they can't build houses on the british isles either. The rest, I don't know how to explain. I guess people simply don't know how good houses they could be having, and therefore don't crave it?
- sk00byd00 13y ago
  As a British person in Sweden I just had a chuckle out loud with my morning coffee reading your comment. Good stuff (I couldn't disagree more but good stuff nonetheless).
- jganetsk 13y ago
  Double glazing is huge in the UK. I never actually heard about it in the US.
- mturmon 13y ago
  Maybe lowering the cost of construction by setting the quality bar lower is one of the factors behind the higher rate of home ownership in the US? (I have relatives who, last I heard, live in trailers, err, manufactured homes, which I believe are pretty much unheard of as dwellings in northern Europe.)
flyinRyan 13y ago
Houses in the US are flimsy. Even brick homes are actually just 2x4s spaces 1.5 feet apart with insulation in between. The brick is just stack up on the outside with an air gap between. In Europe that entire space will often be completely solid. I heard of a guy who built a German standard home in a hurricane zone in Florida (must have been insanely expensive). When the next hurricane did come the only damage to his house came from the shrapnel of broken apart american-style houses.
killermonkeys 13y ago
It's a difference in approach that is tied to time: suburban American houses were mostly built after forced air central heating, and in that kind of heating insulation is "less" important (the air mass is mixed and heated thoroughly, not the structure). Europeans still use radiators which means insulation is more important (a radiator next to an outside wall is radiating half of its heat toward the outside wall). But fundamentally it seems like a US apathy toward waste more than an improvement. SF has historically shoddy construction due to the gold rush, mail order housing bought sight unseen, and a mild climate. If I built a house in the US I would have it designed by a European.
Gormo 13y ago
Housing is one of those things that varies regionally. In Florida, no one builds with wood anymore - the next hurricane will knock your wooden house over. Almost all the buildings here have solid concrete or concrete block exterior walls.

by mturmon 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 13y ago

Masonry or stone construction is incompatible with earthquakes There's more to quality construction than building out of brick (although I think brick houses will ride out an earthquake a lot better than you imagine, as some of the oldest houses around the Bay Area are made out of brick). It's other things like the fact that you build houses with Tyvek instead of insulating them properly, crappy aliminum windows, and so on. People here tend to tear their houses down and start over because a lot of houses are so poorly built that they're not worth repairing, rather than out of any aesthetic impulse.

dyno12345 13y ago

Many houses in the Bay Area are about as well insulated as a wooden shed, frankly. People seem comfortable to let it get 50° inside.

vacri 13y ago
I once asked a Scot if they had any wooden houses back in his homeland. He replied "Yes, we keep our lawnmowers in them"...
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  Scottish house construction is definitely quite a bit flimsier now than it was 150-200 years ago though... I lived in Edinburgh for a few years, and most of the apartments I lived in were built in the 19th century (maybe the 18th; I forget the details, but there were several major housing booms in Edinburgh back then). They all had walls made of stone blocks like half a meter thick, and that was typical for buildings from that era, which account for a huge proportion of the city-center housing stock. New suburban houses I saw, on the other hand, seemed liked they'd blow over in a stiff wind (something there was a plentiful supply of), and of course were ugly to boot... [OTOH, it turned out that in one of the places I lived, the drinking-water tank was made of lead...! >< So if my comments seem kinda dumb... TT ]

vacri 13y ago

I had a friend in Charlotte show me the panelling on his house - you could remove it with your hands (he pushed it right in with a mild press), pick out the insulation, and punch through the plasterboard inside. I've never before been in a house where you could break through a wall with your bare hands.

yardie 13y ago
I don't think that house is up to code. At the very least there should be cement board behind the panelling. But, I don't know anything. I grew up in Miami. A hurricane (Andrew) turned an entire town to kindling because the houses were so poorly constructed. Some of them had nothing but gravity holding the roof down. One thing I do know is the next house I buy I'm building myself. I've rented far too many places that were so poorly constructed; it's indescribable. My last apartment was on 2 floors. Just walking around felt like there were giants over my head. The beams were so far apart you could feel the floor shift under your weight.
- vacri 13y ago
  It was in a slightly upmarket housing estate type thing about 20 minutes drive out of the city - clipped lawns; all the houses look identical and made of premade plastic parts; you get a visit from some sort of supervisor if your bins are out one day too long. There wasn't that cement board - another house had lost one of its 'boards' and there was no such thing behind it. The house was certainly a rush job though - inside the power points were slightly off-plumb, that sort of thing. It was supposed to be a 'nice area' though. The house was kind of puzzling, given that.

henrikschroder 13y ago

> Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock. No, brand new houses and apartment buildings in at least the Bay Area are of shoddy quality compared to brand new houses built to Northern European standards. Same goes for older houses. Doesn't matter if it's brick or wood or concrete, there's just a huge quality gap. Some of it is explained by the climate, it always amuses me to see housing ads proudly proclaiming "double glazing!". Meanwhile, over here, triple glazing has been the legal minimum for decades, and older houses were required to retrofit it. Some of it is explained by the british heritage, they can't build houses on the british isles either. The rest, I don't know how to explain. I guess people simply don't know how good houses they could be having, and therefore don't crave it?

sk00byd00 13y ago
As a British person in Sweden I just had a chuckle out loud with my morning coffee reading your comment. Good stuff (I couldn't disagree more but good stuff nonetheless).
jganetsk 13y ago
Double glazing is huge in the UK. I never actually heard about it in the US.
mturmon 13y ago
Maybe lowering the cost of construction by setting the quality bar lower is one of the factors behind the higher rate of home ownership in the US? (I have relatives who, last I heard, live in trailers, err, manufactured homes, which I believe are pretty much unheard of as dwellings in northern Europe.)

flyinRyan 13y ago

Houses in the US are flimsy. Even brick homes are actually just 2x4s spaces 1.5 feet apart with insulation in between. The brick is just stack up on the outside with an air gap between. In Europe that entire space will often be completely solid. I heard of a guy who built a German standard home in a hurricane zone in Florida (must have been insanely expensive). When the next hurricane did come the only damage to his house came from the shrapnel of broken apart american-style houses.

killermonkeys 13y ago

It's a difference in approach that is tied to time: suburban American houses were mostly built after forced air central heating, and in that kind of heating insulation is "less" important (the air mass is mixed and heated thoroughly, not the structure). Europeans still use radiators which means insulation is more important (a radiator next to an outside wall is radiating half of its heat toward the outside wall). But fundamentally it seems like a US apathy toward waste more than an improvement. SF has historically shoddy construction due to the gold rush, mail order housing bought sight unseen, and a mild climate. If I built a house in the US I would have it designed by a European.

Gormo 13y ago

Housing is one of those things that varies regionally. In Florida, no one builds with wood anymore - the next hurricane will knock your wooden house over. Almost all the buildings here have solid concrete or concrete block exterior walls.