4 ms·

Im in Mountain View and I can tell you that at least half of the problem is shoddy construction. East Coast houses are made to keep out weather and West Coast

Im in Mountain View and I can tell you that at least half of the problem is shoddy construction. East Coast houses are made to keep out weather and West Coast houses are made not to hurt when they fall on you. And this issue is going to make someone a billionaire in the future. Urbanization is well under way and people are only getting noisier and more crowded. Also, another area for huge improvements is in the legal system. Basically you're screwed if you have noise issues due to anything "normal" - e.g. music, talking, babies...etc.

anigbrowl 13y ago
West Coast houses are made not to hurt when they fall on you True, they're junk. In most places it would be smarter ot make them out of brick, and the chances that they'll fall on the occupant are very low indeed. Some of the oldest (pre 1906) houses in SF are made of brick, ditto in Oakland.
- scarmig 13y ago
  As it turns out, brick buildings are much more prone to complete collapse than wood houses during earthquakes, owing to the greater flexibility of wood. Or are you making the argument that that conventional professional wisdom is incorrect?
  - gchpaco 13y ago
    Unreinforced brick will indeed fall down in even modest earthquakes. In new construction it is possible to sink rebar into the wall, at which point it is at least the equal of concrete (and certainly more attractive); however a lot of people don't want to bother with perceived time and expense and so we go back to concrete and stick framing. Much construction in California is penny wise and pound foolish. It is routine to omit insulation from the walls in new construction, never mind that it will pay for itself in savings on heating and cooling bills. Wooden houses can be destroyed in an earthquake if the quake shakes them off their foundations; fixing this is simple and easy during construction but, again, wasn't done for a long time. I believe the only reason it is done now is code requirements—it would not overly surprise me to learn that the builders can't be bothered even in new construction.
  - wisty 13y ago
    It's not really the flexibility. Masonry is strong in compression, but heavy, and relatively weak in tensions. It tends to crumble under its own weight. But yes - brick is good in a hurricane, but a death trap in a quake..
    - pbz 13y ago
      In Europe pretty much any old house is made out of brick. They've been through many earthquakes, built hundreds of years ago and still standing; and this is without reinforcement.
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        Most earthquakes in Europe aren't all that strong. But when they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Vrancea_earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Vrancea_earthquake
        arethuza 13y ago
        And the Lisbon earthquake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake Probably associated with a new subduction zone that appears to be forming at this side of the Atlantic: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23711-will-new-tectonic-fault-system-kill-the-atlantic.html#.UhsZPj9Z7-Y http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23711-will-new-tectoni...
        pbz 13y ago
        True, but most of the casualties came from large (poorly built) buildings collapsing, not regular houses.
      - arethuza 13y ago
        "In Europe pretty much any old house is made out of brick." Depends on what is the most easily available building material - here in Scotland pretty much all old buildings are made of stone (everything from small houses up). NB Speaking of making things from stone - the 5000 year old village of Skara Brae even has remaining furniture made of stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae
- mahyarm 13y ago
  Even pacific northwest houses? Houses around there in my experience do keep out the bad weather and are far better made than most californian houses.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Oh sorry, I just meant California.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  The reason the pre-1906 buildings are made of brick isn't that brick is superior for surviving earthquakes, but that much construction of the time was brick, and that which wasn't was wood. And most of the destruction of the 1906 quake came from the fire which followed it. So the only structures which could survive were brick and masonry. Most of those brick structures have been very significantly reinforced over the years. And if you've ever been next to a brick wall as it's bulging in and out as S waves pass by, you'll likely reconsider your argument. Steel cage buildings are far preferable to either, from a survivability standpoint.
digikata 13y ago
I lived in a California Craftsman house for a few years, and plaster-on-lath construction on the inner walls was great. The higher density & mass of the material masked sound better than drywall, but also provided additional thermal mass so very little AC was required for most of the season. Just circulate outside air at night to cool the house, and close up the windows in the morning to stay cool for the day. Modern tech exists for good acoustics, it's simply a matter of cost - houses near areas that need noise-abatement routinely get fitted with it, but developers are cheap and will skip it if at all possible.
zipppy 13y ago
Wait, are you saying that the legal system would be improved if people could sue each other over loud music, talking, or babies? I could be misunderstanding. If not, that sounds insufferable.
- briancaw2 13y ago
  If your landlord shows you your apartment at 2pm while everyone is at work (or only shows a model unit) and you move in and can hear every footstep your neighbor takes and your neighbors coughing in bed at night, there should be easier ways than currently exist to solve that problem. In the future I think every apartment will come with a noise disclosure of some sort, detailing expected noise levels throughout the day. And I think people will probably be made to sign noise agreements to join buildings..etc.

anigbrowl 13y ago

West Coast houses are made not to hurt when they fall on you True, they're junk. In most places it would be smarter ot make them out of brick, and the chances that they'll fall on the occupant are very low indeed. Some of the oldest (pre 1906) houses in SF are made of brick, ditto in Oakland.

scarmig 13y ago
As it turns out, brick buildings are much more prone to complete collapse than wood houses during earthquakes, owing to the greater flexibility of wood. Or are you making the argument that that conventional professional wisdom is incorrect?
- gchpaco 13y ago
  Unreinforced brick will indeed fall down in even modest earthquakes. In new construction it is possible to sink rebar into the wall, at which point it is at least the equal of concrete (and certainly more attractive); however a lot of people don't want to bother with perceived time and expense and so we go back to concrete and stick framing. Much construction in California is penny wise and pound foolish. It is routine to omit insulation from the walls in new construction, never mind that it will pay for itself in savings on heating and cooling bills. Wooden houses can be destroyed in an earthquake if the quake shakes them off their foundations; fixing this is simple and easy during construction but, again, wasn't done for a long time. I believe the only reason it is done now is code requirements—it would not overly surprise me to learn that the builders can't be bothered even in new construction.
- wisty 13y ago
  It's not really the flexibility. Masonry is strong in compression, but heavy, and relatively weak in tensions. It tends to crumble under its own weight. But yes - brick is good in a hurricane, but a death trap in a quake..
  - pbz 13y ago
    In Europe pretty much any old house is made out of brick. They've been through many earthquakes, built hundreds of years ago and still standing; and this is without reinforcement.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Most earthquakes in Europe aren't all that strong. But when they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Vrancea_earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Vrancea_earthquake
      - arethuza 13y ago
        And the Lisbon earthquake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake Probably associated with a new subduction zone that appears to be forming at this side of the Atlantic: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23711-will-new-tectonic-fault-system-kill-the-atlantic.html#.UhsZPj9Z7-Y http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23711-will-new-tectoni...
      - pbz 13y ago
        True, but most of the casualties came from large (poorly built) buildings collapsing, not regular houses.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      "In Europe pretty much any old house is made out of brick." Depends on what is the most easily available building material - here in Scotland pretty much all old buildings are made of stone (everything from small houses up). NB Speaking of making things from stone - the 5000 year old village of Skara Brae even has remaining furniture made of stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae
mahyarm 13y ago
Even pacific northwest houses? Houses around there in my experience do keep out the bad weather and are far better made than most californian houses.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Oh sorry, I just meant California.
dredmorbius 13y ago
The reason the pre-1906 buildings are made of brick isn't that brick is superior for surviving earthquakes, but that much construction of the time was brick, and that which wasn't was wood. And most of the destruction of the 1906 quake came from the fire which followed it. So the only structures which could survive were brick and masonry. Most of those brick structures have been very significantly reinforced over the years. And if you've ever been next to a brick wall as it's bulging in and out as S waves pass by, you'll likely reconsider your argument. Steel cage buildings are far preferable to either, from a survivability standpoint.

digikata 13y ago

I lived in a California Craftsman house for a few years, and plaster-on-lath construction on the inner walls was great. The higher density & mass of the material masked sound better than drywall, but also provided additional thermal mass so very little AC was required for most of the season. Just circulate outside air at night to cool the house, and close up the windows in the morning to stay cool for the day. Modern tech exists for good acoustics, it's simply a matter of cost - houses near areas that need noise-abatement routinely get fitted with it, but developers are cheap and will skip it if at all possible.

zipppy 13y ago

Wait, are you saying that the legal system would be improved if people could sue each other over loud music, talking, or babies? I could be misunderstanding. If not, that sounds insufferable.

briancaw2 13y ago
If your landlord shows you your apartment at 2pm while everyone is at work (or only shows a model unit) and you move in and can hear every footstep your neighbor takes and your neighbors coughing in bed at night, there should be easier ways than currently exist to solve that problem. In the future I think every apartment will come with a noise disclosure of some sort, detailing expected noise levels throughout the day. And I think people will probably be made to sign noise agreements to join buildings..etc.