I got to wondering a while ago about how long a “fine” home is likely to remain fine, given the likely turnover of owners, all with differing tastes.
Then I got to wondering how much the professional builders out there think about the longevity of a home they build. I always assumed the original attraction of wanting to build homes was to create something of long lasting value – something that would be around for a good long time after the builder is dead and gone. But then I started wondering if it might not be better for one’s mental health to not think at all about what happens after construction is over. It could well be nothing but heartache.
Maybe this is two slightly different topics, but I would be interested in your opinions….
Replies
Not a 'professional builder' but a junior fixer.
Got called to 'fix' a squeaky staircase in a two storey. Went in armed with wedges and screws in a 20 year old house and find carpet over roughcut dried out pine risers with standard fir treads cut into a single 2x12 against the wall with no supports beneath anywhere. Wasn't even nailed into the wall studs. Probably had about 6 inches of meat on the stringer.
Somebody sure didn't care about fine and longevity.
Edited 9/3/2003 11:40:42 PM ET by rez
I'm sure many could share stories just like yours.
However, I want to make it clear that I wasn't intending to start a "look what shoddy workmanship I ran into" thread. I'm working on the assumption that everyone has the best of intentions and some skills to put into their work. I'm only curious about to what degree longevity is in the builder's conciousness.
And, perhaps as a side issue, how long can a home generally considered "fine" be expected to stay fine?
Elsewhere here, I've mentioned the staircase that I rebuilt once a year for five years because the owners kept changing their minds bout traffic patterns and layout.
I've gotten occcasionally discouraged about doing lifetime work when I see it get changed a few years later.
I have an old friend who used to build custom boat work but he got discouraged because people would not do minimal maintanence to keep things right. So he went into building cabinets and furniture. After too many times of seeing his fine work at the dump because of one more remodel, he finally quit doing much fine work. He's too much of an artist and easily offended.
Now he digs fence post holes. He knows ahead of time that the posts will rot off someday so he doesn't get bothered by it.
Another good craftsman killed off by attitudes of the mefirst, me now, me throwitaway for something new generation..
Excellence is its own reward!
"Another good craftsman killed off by attitudes of the mefirst, me now, me throwitaway for something new generation"
Sad to hear of your friend's experience. I'm sure it's not uncommon. But I'll bet it's not entirely new either. It certainly existed a generation ago (late '70's) and the generation before that (early '50's - note every metro area "revitalization" project now long gone). In my own city, there were dozens of garish mansions built in the mid-late 1800's that lasted an average of 30-40 years before burning down or being trashed by the next generation that couldn't afford to keep it up.
Is longevity an attraction for you in your work? Or do you try not to think about it anymore once the job is done?
It is only the attitudes of the owners that bothers me - like one enw money guy who figures, "Hey, It's mine so I can do what I want with it"
I build to a longer time frame that these owners will live so at least some of it will outlast them.
I think even a hundred years ago, fast and temporary was part of the thinking too. A typical foundation here was on posts that sat on a brick pier. That brwas laid on a pile of rubble boulders just rolled into a hole in the ground maybe 24 - 30" deep. I know because I have redone hundreds of these things. They sink anywhere from 2" to 12" over the last hundred years and that has results played out thu the rest of the house.
By contrast, the local library has a well built foundation and is a stone structure with slate roof that is still as beautiful as the day it was born.
Excellence is its own reward!
"Another good craftsman killed off by attitudes of the me first, me now, me thow it away for something new generation"
Sounds like me after 30 years I'm teaching stagecraft here at a Junior college.
I prefer to call myself a first a Carpenter second a Remodeler and last a Cabinetmaker.
But after changing out a HO's front threshold for the fourth time in five years due to their failure to paint it as agreed to save them money. After I went back and repaired damaged ceilings from leaks that the HO didn't feel needed repair,well this and much more, lets say I got tired.
Times are hard for most homeowners. Homeownership is expensive and I know as all of us do, who owns homes. My priorities are to do the 'Final Fix' for myself despite cost. But my kids are up and out now. I have a steady although much smaller check.
I realized many of the clients had more important needs in their lives and while they loved their homes they would never respect them. There is this short term relationship going on now with homeownership. People enter frivously into a 30 year mortgage thinking they'll sell in 5 years or less to get better. After all it's not a marriage or is it?
The home has been retailed, a Wal-Mart special. HGTV has assured this. While most home repairs and reconstructions are simple enough to do and any intelligent HO can do them... The bigger more difficult issue is should they? Does it respect the house or reflect the chic current thing to do?This has been going on for a long time, well before I got here but not like now.
So what do you do? I don't know, that's why I'm now frustrated and underchallenged here at a junior college. oh did I mention for fun I only have 6 college hours.
cool huh... I learned by my Dad not to get educated beyond my intelligence.
Edited 9/4/2003 10:04:21 AM ET by JAGWAH
Edited 9/4/2003 10:05:59 AM ET by JAGWAH
I hope what you said about the average home owner is an over-generalization, but I fear you might be right. I wish people sought out more "soul" in their homes - more history (or at least, with new construction, a sense that history could be made there).
For too many people a home is really just an investment they need to get x% return on xyears from now. For too many other people a home is just a place to sleep and store their stuff. I love thinking about the life that may have happened in our house over the last 80 years, and I love the idea of our children driving by some day showing their grandchildren where they grew up.
As an aside; if you enjoy the stagecraft gig, good for you. I've always been a proponent of making life changes - especially when it comes to career. In my ideal world, no one would do the same thing for more than ten years.
I hope what you said about the average home owner is an over-generalization
So do I NG. Family members, knowing my talents while not surprised ask me why I'm putting so much in my home? A brother-in-law who has a MBA say's I won't get any of it back.
I don't defend. for the past 3 years after buying the house I have just plodded along. This old house was a broken termite riddled mess. The former HO's were 90 and 92, needing money to move into a nursing home. I gave a fair price. Meaning I didn't offer less than 95% of their asking price.
While the family started out curious to the "waste of time and money" they now are converts. Last Christmas this old house hosted 32 family members at a full sit down dinner.
Now I hear,"Well, I could do what Bob does if I didn't have to pay for the labor like him"
maybe their right if I had to pay for a craftsman like me would I do what I've done?
My point is some of the HO's attitude is understandable and just an example of the times.
While I like teaching the kids...I miss contracting. Sometimes I think of myself as a contractiholic. I need meetings with others, a 12 step program to help me fight the demons trying to call me back. This place with it's post of frustrations on both sides help keep me Clean and Dustfree. 8)
I think the majority of the contractors here hate doing short term work or redoing work that shouldn't have needed it because we don't do this just for the financial rewards- we want the satisfaction from a job well done, and for that it has to last
John
Congratulations on your project and being able to have 32 people sit down for a meal in your house!
Yea, the idea that a project should not be done simply because you won't get the investment back in full really disgusts me. You should do it because it improves and/or enhances your life (and for goodness sake, don't do it if it doesn't). You should assume that the quality of your life is worth more than your house. When I finished off our basement, I turned a little 6'x8' low headroom space into a secret room/studio for myself. Accessed by pushing back a bookcase that acts as a door. I put a lot of time and energy into finishing off every square inch of that space with built-ins & stuff. It maybe cost $1,000 in materials but could have easily cost $6-8,000 for a pro to do it. I have no idea what it would do to resale value. I don't really care. I like it.
No doubt much of what you refer to is rooted in old problem of folks having too much money on their hands.
I wonder how your experiences (in relation to this thread) have differed with cliets who have had to make sacrifices to be able to afford to have you work on their home.
excellent comment!....discouraging and enlightening all at once. Times have changed. Why buy a 1500.00 dollar armoire when you canpick one up a t walmart for 125.00..the catch is that once you move or "rack" the walmart special..the fat lady sings.
Its a curious thread, don't you think?
This notion of building "fine" or building to last.
Seems to me it's more a matter of the type costruction, and materials used, than "skill". Of course I have to qualify that with if cheap flimsy materials are used no amount of craftmanship will give them durability. If Fabulous construction type are used, with questionable craftmanship, maybe they will last, or maybe not.
But, 2x4 walls, and 1/2 in drywall, and forced air heat with plastic windows, and vinyl siding, and composition roofs are one thing.
Timberframe with SIPs and slate roofs, and, in my case, 24in logs with 10in foundations in 4000# concrete with 5 bar, and french drains, and the dirt pitched carefullyl and true standing seam metal roofs. I submit those will last forever, barring natural disaster.
So, what is fine? Great materials, great design and great craftmanship. And, as always, they will last forever.
Stef
"So, what is fine? Great materials, great design and great craftmanship. And, as always, they will last forever."
Is it your assertion that what goes into the creation of a fine home is the "fine" we ought to be honoring, not the life of the end product?
If so, I can see your point, especially since no one other than the home owner has any real control over what happens to the home once the keys are turned over. But if the focus is on the fine home, itself, and not the process of creating it, then I would suggest that longevity is critical. A fine home is easy to love and homes that are loved are taken care of and not easily disposed of as soon as some new fad arrives.
Sometimes in my repairs, the HO just wants to get it good enough to sell, and so I'll do just that. But even then I'll use expensive caulk, etc, cuz the difference in price of one or two tubes is not significant. Most of the time I try to build or repair a part of a house so that it won't have to be repaired again.
One of my clients live in a 1928+- home that had been updated (central a/c, new paint, etc) beforee they bought it. It is one fine home. Some wear is visible, floor boards squeek in a few places, but you can see that it was built with care and thought the first time. Heavy front door still operates smoothly.
Do it right, or do it twice.
I suspect an old home staying "fine" is largely a matter of good luck surviving the various owners. Our 1924 bungalow has been through at least a dozen owners before we found it three years ago. Miraculously, none of them ruined the essential character of the house (and none of them finished off the basement or attic). We have done a lot to the house, but we won't substancially alter the exterior or the main level (except for the kitchen and bath). Anyone who grew up in this house in it's first years could stop by, walk through, and see everything on the main level pretty much as it was then. I like that. It probably will never happen, but it matters to me that it could happen.
I still take pride when I'm allowed to do it 'forever', and I push hard to be able to do it so.
Samt
Hi Nanny--
Having become the owner of a "once fine" home that was not maintained well for 70 (yep, 70) years, I have to say...
...you can still see that they couldn't kill the "Fine" out of this home. Though they tried :)
It has good "bones". It is a very beautifully crafted house. From each lovingly set joist to the windows and screens to the extra molding detail on the second floor where "guests" wouldn't see it. This was a family of artists (the builders daughter attended the Art Institute of Chicago in the 20's...which is pretty cool.) And, I have to say, I would much rather be restoring this house than building a new McMansion. Or restoring a 60's tract home. Although I fuss and fume, I will never regret this. In the long run :)
Unbelievably, the man whose GRANDFATHER built our house (house was built in 1914) contacted us recently. HIS great-nephew had found our site and his relative's name. Now we are in contact with that family and they are considering a visit to the house this winter. I'm a bit nervous. The house was poorly treated. I'm sure some things (like the bathrooms) will dismay them. But. In a letter to us, they were so grateful and happy that we were restoring this house...it means so much to them. Even to the members of the family who have never set a foot in Chicago.
The craft does outlive the craftsman. And if you click on the link "Bungalow Pals" (left hand column of our site), you can take a look at OTHER houses built by long ago craftsmen that are being lovingly renovated by their new owners. http://www.houseinprogress.net
I worked for 6 years at a company that I admired knowing that maybe 90% of the projects I worked on would not last beyond my leaving. Because business changes too fast. I worked for 3 other companies (before and after) that I did not admire...I actually thought they were kooks. I still crafted each project as if a book would someday be written about it. Never regretted it.
I think it's worth it. Even if it only lets you go to sleep at night knowing that you did the best job you could. It's very worth it.
Edited 9/4/2003 12:41:40 AM ET by jmo
Congratulations on you long lasting project of love. I tried to go to your web site twice - each time viewing it for about three seconds before my Microsoft Internet Explorer crashed. Some bug in there somewhere.
I know what you mean about a home having good "bones". It makes a difference even if it's not always easy for a casual observer to see. However, even in the homes featured in the FHB magazine, much of what makes the home "fine" could be obliterated by a thoughtless remodeling project or two. Given how often people tend to move, it seems unlikely that all owners will remain faithful to the "intent" of the original design.
Whoa! What version of IE are you using? I'll look into that. Thanks for the heads up!
What version of IE are you using?....
5.2 for Mac.
Yea, I know. Mac....blah blah....:-)
I can say that when I was a civil enginerring/constuction management student, this did come up. I went and found my notes from back then (fall '94, surprised I still have 'em) and this is what I've come up with. This is geared more towards commercial construction, but was instructed to apply it to residential as well. We were taught to think in terms of a project or building's "total life cycle", from concept to disposal. We would rarely be the first involved in a project, and even more rarely be involved in a new building's final phase.
Nine steps or phases of a "traditional" construction project.
1. Need/Concept
2. Feasibility study(s)
3. Preliminary design (about 40% - basics, not specifics)
4. Detailed (final) design
5. Bidding and contracting
6. Construction
7. Turnover
8. Operation
9. Disposal
"The first six steps do not have to directly follow another; e.g., a contract can be awarded awarded prior to a final design, but the steps will typically flow as listed. However, the last three steps are distinct phases in the life cycle of a building. Turnover can be a single day where the "keys are handed over", literally and figuratively, or several weeks/months as plant engineers are trained on a building's systems. Operation is typically the "actual life" of the building, when its owners/occupants inhabit the building for its intended purpose, and in some cases modify or enhance the building to better suit unforeseen needs This phase will typically last from 20 to 100 years, sometimes less, sometimes longer. Disposal is as it suggests, the act of elimination of the project. This disposal can take the form of a planned event as implosion, tear down, etc; or, it can take the form of decay through neglect or abandonment. Regardless, a construction professional should take account of these three phases while planning, rather than simply planning the acts of construction." - not my actual notes, but the thoughts behind them as taught.
Two books that (IIRC) were required reading for Architecture students, and highly suggested for C.E./C.M. students were "Why Buildings Fall Down" and "Why Buildings Stand Up", or similar titles. They investigated structural failures & successes, and I seem to remember them reccommended in regards to total life cycle, especially phase 9.
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.
I have read both "Why Buildings Fall Down" and "Why Buildings Stand Up". Both are great, easily understood books for anyone who likes building. I'm not sure how well the world of commercial construction relates here. With few exceptions, old commercial buildings are rarely well suited to modern commercial needs. The same cannot really be said of private homes. With just a little updating, a 200 year old house can function beautifully today.
Certainly "disposal" should not be a consideration in any finely designed and built home, IMO.
I guess what I was trying to say, but didn't, is I was taught nothing lasts forever. The gist of what I was taught was "build to last more than 100 years, expect it to last less than 10." That way you won't be disappointed. "Disposal" does not have to mean demolition of an entire structure. It can be taken to mean the conversion of a room to serve a new purpose, such as what was a living room 50 years ago is now the family room of today. While we can not plan for exactly what use a building will have far in the future, we can still consider the fact that a building's use can & will change.
Also, "fine" is (IMHO) a very gray area, ranging from titanium white to lamp black. A home may be fine according to our era, but what about 25, 50, 100 years from now? Not many systems are likely to be up to snuff. The frame or skeleton might survive, but what of the elcectrical, plumbing, drywall, etc? Just because a house is fine does not mean some things should last. Consider the systems of today vs. of yesteryear. Knob and tube was considered "fine" wiring back when, but certainly you'd agree that it should be modernized when possible/feasibile? A building should always be built to withstand the test of time, as best as can be foreseen, using the materials available. To do less is an affront to the concept of doing things right. But realize that better materials and methods will come along in the future. Little work of what goes into a building today will last 200 years, even though the building itself may last well over 200.
OTOH, I hate seeing an existing fine old house's architectural style gutted or eliminated, through use of nonperiod moldings, architectural details, etc; but I recognize sometimes it is unavoidable. A current owner of a 100 yr old colonial may not have the money to put towards duplication of the original intricate 6" baseboard moldings, so the "colonial" style 3.5" baseboard from HD goes in instead. Looks cheap and out of scale to the room vs. the original, but it's the best current solution. $100 materials is more appetizing than $1000 custom milled for a homeowner on fixed income. I would still put the same conscientious effort into installing the cheap baseboard as I would a custom milled profile. When I build something, be it in a house, a computer program (my most recent career), whatever I always build to the best of my ability, but with an eye towards budget, feasibility, expected life of the project, among other factors. Rarely do I find sense in putting 2000 hours of work into a project that will be disposed of two years after completion. But a scaled back version of only 200 hours, can be just as "fine" even though it will not outlive me.
Finally, I fear that tract houses or McMansions of today might survive and be considered a "fine" old house, 'they don't build 'em like they used to', etc. My mom's house is IMHO a "fine" old house from about 1906. It was built in one of the first "planned communities" in the country. But at the time, it was likely what we would call a McMansion today. They (we) don't build 'em like that anymore. Solid brick exterior walls, framed with true 2x (even 3x) clear framing lumber, 9" deep window sills, etc. In some respects, I compare it to some of today's modern methods and materials and cringe vs. vinyl siding or brick veneer, knot ridden nominal 2x lumber, 2" narrow window sills. OTOH, I rejoice that they don't build 'em like that. Knob & tube vs. romex, fieldstone foundation vs. properly poured concrete, no or little insulation, undersized plumbing, poor venting, etc.If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.
You make some excellent points, but let me quibble a bit...
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that a fine new home built today will be woefully out of date 100 years from now. It will likely be in some insignificant ways, but perhaps not in any meaningful way. Look at all the people going nuts running every cable imaginable through the framing a few years ago thinking they were cutting edge and now the trend is toward going wireless. Another example of false "progress" is new construction so tight that a sprinkle causes the house to rot. Meanwhile our 1924 breaths so well there is no sign of rot anywhere. The wood will petrify and turn to stone first (talk about longevity!).
As to yesterday's equivalent of McMansions becoming tomorrow's classic fine homes; Well, I just don't see it - for a number of reasons. Mainly because they will look a little poorer every day they stand. The only way to avoid that is to care about the house, know how to care for it, and value a sense of neighborhood - factors I rarely see in the owners of McMansions. They won't even plant a tree for goodness sake.
Just a thought and not meaning to horn in on the subject. I too don't believe there is hope for the McMansion of today. The tract home built in the last 15 years. Here in Tulsa there is a viewable degrade going on year to year on these homes.
As the population continues to move further south and east of downtown it leaves a blight. These homes wind up foreclosed on, rebought at autcion and refurbished with hope by a younger financially stressed wide eyed HGTV'er.
They struggle and after 3 or 5 years resell and move south.
There is now no long term ownership of these homes anymore and worst they wind up rentals. Worst yet here in Tulsa they become broken down meth labs.
What they have good about them is inner city location, established large old trees and close proximity to most of the downtowners work.
What needs to be done is a rebirth. Scrape the homes off the lot and rebuild. Rebuild with a vision with new designs for homes. Create a new mark on the landscape. Leave the four sided box of a home and create something new.
I'm saddened that so much here in Tulsa is blighted and so much more doesn't know yet that their next.
Sorry it's late here and I must be rambling again. Maybe I just want to go away and live in a little Hobbit house. oh the Shire. 8)
Night Bob
Edited 9/5/2003 12:42:04 AM ET by JAGWAH
Hey Bilbo,
By all means, horn in all you want - that's kind of the point of being here.
Are the homes you described really what we think of as McMansions? because your description of their life cycle makes them sound more like low cost housing.
Ironically, in both cases I suspect a large percentage of these homes will not see their 50th birthday, much less their 100th.
Which brings up another question: Just how long should a home last to be considered long-lasting?
Certainly, every new owner of that home making payments on a 30-year mortgage wants it to last long enough for the next buyer to think it will last (and so on, and so on...) but there is some practical limit. It may be difficult to judge because it is based somewhat on matters of future taste as well as the whims of civic development and other outside factors.
But what do you think? 100 years? 150?
We have the technology to restore him. Six million Dollar Man
But should we. For some areas in every city there are those neighborhoods that need to be bought out and the lots resold for new construction.
But that being said we have the technology. We will keep improving products and simplifying labors.
For those who care about their home they will be able to maintain it while those around them who care not to don't.
I recently read some average housing longevity stats:
US 42 years
Europe 75 years
Japan 25 years
US 42 years
Europe 75 years
Japan 25 years
Very interesting. I would have to assume this includes multi-unit dwellings in 1950's era urban renewal type stuff torn down 20 years later (apartments & condos & rowhousing, etc) since the numbers seem pretty low to me. When it comes to single family detached housing, being torn down after 42 years in the US would be the exception, not the rule - and 75 years in Europe hardly seems likely as an average. It would take an awful lot of housing torn down right away to cancel out entire villages where the average is 200+ years old.
I suspect that the meaning of those number has gotten lost.
I bet you that it is the average age of the housing. And not the average age of a house when it is torn down.
Even if every house that was every build in the US was still standing and in use the average age will be relatvie low. There are more house 1 year old then there are house 2 years old, etc, etc.
US 42 years
Europe 75 years
Japan 25 years
Just to clear up any quoting misunderstanding, those numbers are my numbers, not NannyGee's. They are widely published here in Japan, always without attribution or qualification, and that I think are probably suspect in some way. Usually the parties who use this set of numbers are promoting the idea of building higher quality housing to meet US or even European standards.
Very interesting. I would have to assume this includes multi-unit dwellings in 1950's era urban renewal type stuff torn down 20 years later (apartments & condos & rowhousing, etc) since the numbers seem pretty low to me. When it comes to single family detached housing, being torn down after 42 years in the US would be the exception, not the rule - and 75 years in Europe hardly seems likely as an average. It would take an awful lot of housing torn down right away to cancel out entire villages where the average is 200+ years old.
One person said that the reason the US numbers were so low were all the poor-quality houses thrown up after WW2. This is also the case with Japan. Probably whatever the actual numbers for housing longevity are these days, they are probably increasing IMO, since housing technology (although not necessarily the implementation) is so much better.
Ya Jag,
Sometimes I'll take a cruise around those old rundown neighborhoods in Tulsa and every once in a while see some gem sitting in the weeds untouched with it's original design and trimwork.
Those 20s bungalows especially.
If they were in a different neighborhood they could be real sweet.
I'd hate to see 'em torn down for a modern dwelling.
Then again few folk around those parts have the money or the desire to change anything.
I'm rambling and tired. Think maybe I'll go find an upstairs sleeping loft down on the north side, open the window and smell some chemical air from the neighbors.
Probably on both sides.
And probably across the street :oi
I lived in an 'old rundown neighborhood' for close to 15 years; lower east side of NYC, at First St & First Av (talk about a classy address!!).
The building was built in the 1880s. Typical 5-storey walk-up; brick shell, flat roof, three-steps down to the ground floor storefronts and a basement 6½" high under that accessible through a steel trap door in the sidewalk. Cheek by jowl with identical ones on each side of it.
That whole neighborhood was built to absorbe the huge quantities of poor immigrants flooding into the US in those years; the apartment I lived in ran from the front of the building to the back--but there were two doors to it: because it used to be two apartments. Each two-room apartment probably held a family or two of immigrants, stacked in there like cordwood but still figuring they were lucky to be there instead of in a dirt-floored shack hiding from the Cossaks.
Nobody--I mean NOBODY--ever took any more than absolute minimum care of those buildings. They were owned by a long succession of absentee landlords, some better than others, but none of them ever bought one of those buildings with any idea of 'fixing it up'--just the idea of keeping it from literally physically falling down so they could continue to collect the rent. When Rent Control came in, things got even worse. (Look at what happened to the South Bronx in the late 60s and 70s.) The landlord who owned the place when I lived there bought it for $8,000.00 in the late 60s. That's not a typo: I said EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS. For Manhattan real estate. He got the sister building to its left for $5,000, too.
But the point is--even with an almost total lack of care, THAT BUILDING IS STILL STANDING AND HABITABLE CLOSE TO 125 YEARS LATER. One of my best friends still lives there. Yeah, the floors go up and down from side to side; yes the plaster is cracked and the water-pressure sucks. Of course the electrical system (LOL!) is a rat's nest of scary old fabric-wrapped wire. But It's Still There. And it's still a Home.
In spite of how 'fast and cheap' the building was conceived to be by the original developer/owner, it was built strongly enough to survive mistreatment all these years.
I tip my hat to those old carpenters and masons and plasterers. I'd be proud to shake their hands. They may be long dead--but their work lives on.
I'd be proud if somebody spoke about something I built a hundred years from now like that. I try my best to see that it will be possible.
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
I used to do renovations on NYC brownstones. Very nice old buildings, although once in a while one of them implodes into a pile of rubble. If there is a ever a good sized tremor in NYC most of them are coming down, just like it happens with brick buildings in Italy, the country of origin of their builders.
Gimme a building that is guaranteed to stand up to a Richter 7 quake, please!
I'd prefer to say, "give me a place where I don't have to worry about a Richter 7". Seeing as you're in Kyoto, I think I understand your attitude, though.
But in fact: I lived through a Richter 4.something in that very building. My apartment was on the top (5th) floor, so I got the full sway effect. It happened at about 4 o'clock in the morning, and it woke me and the GF up. Neither of us knew what it was at first--she thought the F train had come off the tracks underneath us in the Houston Street Station; finally I called the precinct a couple of blocks away and the cop that answered the phone sounded distinctly harrassed. "It's a F'ing earthquake, pal! Stay calm, stand in a doorway. I gotta go." Click.
The whole place swayed perceptible inches back and forth, for a good 30-60 seconds. The rhythm of it was chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga at about 2 chuggas to the second. It scared me outa half-a-year's growth and knocked dishes off the drainboard into the sink.
We learned later that the epicenter had been up the Hudson, near Indian Point if memory serves. (Eeeeesh!!!)
Gotta tell you--no damage. Not even the already-cracked plaster cracked any further.
(BTW--not a brownstone; just a standard brick tenement).
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
A memorable experience, to be sure. I've lucked my way through quakes in buildings that were held together by inertia alone. But now I want as much steel reinforcement as possible.
Tho' I'm approaching the point of being an 'old rundown neighborhood' the closest I ever got to the steel trapdoor in the sidewalk stuff was old b&w movies about NY.
Sorry Nanny- Won't pollute your thread anymore.
Very interesting story (and good point) about the NYC apartment. I assume one important factor, in addition to good workmanship, was design simplicity. It's tough to beat as a factor promoting longevity.
Absolutely correct. Those old tenements couldn't have been designed any more simply.
I am a great proponent of the KISS philosophy, especially when you want something to last. Complicated assemblies--whether moving or static--just have too many individual parts in general to last as long as simpler designs. As each new part joins an assembly, there is a new joint. A joint is a weak point (usually: I know of some exceptions, so please don't jump on the old dinosaur, guys). A weak point can give rise to movement where there's not supposed to be any, and sloppy movement where there is supposed to be controlled movement.
I know you weren't asking about æsthetics, but simplicity there, too, can be a boon, especially when it comes to maintenance.
On those tenements, there was a range of embellishment from zero to minimal. Usually there were just some scrolled corbells supporting the roof parapet. Occasionally you'll see cast concrete window gingerbread, or an arch-top (bricked) window; mostly there was just a flat concrete sill and a brick header.
Some of the fancier uptown buildings of the same period went nuts with gingerbread; a lot of it stone, some wood painted faux-marbre. While the buildings themselves were 'better' built on bigger budgets and better maintained, a lot of them by the mid 1900s were having problems with pieces of gargoyles falling off. Many were stripped of them for safety, and tinned over square and plain because replacement of the original decorative work would have been prohibitive. Thus many of those buildings lost a lot of their visual character and wound up as, if not eyesores, then nebbishes at the least.
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "KISS philosophy"?
I think the merits of simplicity would be an interesting thread in itself. Do you want to do the honors or should I?
K.I.S.S. is an acronym, attributed by Pythagoras and some of the other ancient Greeks who dabbled in architecture to a Latin root (probably due to cross cultural competitive angst). Other authorities disagree with this entymology, giving instead more credence to the theory that it came from the Existentialist/Nihilist school grounded in Mittel Eurpoa, but not giving sufficient proof to convince the third school of thought, the Constructionists. The Constructionist School claims it was first postulated in the early 20th century by an obscure Italian philosopher named Piatelli, who, in order to keep food on his table, worked as a Site Superintendant on several of Frank Lloyd Wright's most famous projects. According to this theory, Signor Piatelli found himself one day at loggerheads with Mr. Wright over a cornice detail, and finally, in frustration, shoved the blueprints back into the architect's hands, saying, "Eh, Paisano! Keep It-a Simple, Stupido!"
(Now it that doesn't demonstrate the merits of simplicity, I don't know what would....ROFLMFAO!)
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
Hurry!!!! Break out the hip waders and get to higher ground. HURRY!!!
Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish....
I dunno. I thought I was gonna hafta duck after that one....
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
;-)
That's simple.
Dinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
I'm rambling and tired. Think maybe I'll go find an upstairs sleeping loft down on the north side, open the window and smell some chemical air from the neighbors.
You ought to smell the air in autumn, a little tinny with a chalky bite, like the taste of the first peach out of a rusty old can found on the bottom shelf in the back of a cabinet in one of those fine homes..
You from around these parts, pardner?
You know a solution would be "Renovator's Park". We buy these jewels hoist them up and haul them off to "RP". Put them on new foundations and sell my Bob Vila service to the youngin's that buy them. Put "RP" in south Tulsa and advertise it as the old New Florence Park, (name of a popular neighborhood here).
You know, a year or two back, down around the zoo area a few miles west, I saw somebody had some little shotgunsugarshack buildings they had salvaged and up on large flatbed trailers. Spraypainted on the siding were For Sale signs.
They were there for a while. Someone was thinking entrepreneurial.
Moving those old little 30ish brick homes with the high peak entries might prove exciting. You buy the land out south and I'll get a trailer to hook on the back of my 6 cyl F-150 and we're be in business.
Sorry, I didn't mean to lead you on. I don't seriously believe McMansions will become the "fine" buildings of tomorrow. When I said "I fear...", I meant it in the spirit of "I have this recurring nightmare that...", not "I think this will happen..." :)If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.
My fault for misunderstanding.
However, it is true that some of the more desireable neighborhoods in urban areas today started out modestly. I'm sure plenty of people of that time period had unkind things to say about them, yet things turned out ok after a few generations of turnover, full-grown trees, a sense of a past, etc.
The problem with McMantions (aside from the fact that they are often poorly constructed) is that their owners tend not to care for them, whereas the owners of the new homes "slapped up" in the 1920's-50' loved them dearly.
So how long should a house last, do you think?
Well. Ours was built in 1914. And we expect to be in here til we retire and pass it on to our kids if one of them would like it.
So...from building it to our retirement, that's (let's see...counting on fingers...)
120 years old minimum.
It's a solid place.
I look at homes in Europe and think...whoa. Our houses are BABIES!!
Semi-Wisea$$ answer: A house should last until it has lived out any useful purpose.
Real answer comes from my HS latin teacher. When confronted with a tough question you don't know the answer to, rub your chin, nod sagely, and mutter "It depends..." :)
There are just too many variables involved to give a one size fits all, 'A house should last 150 years' type response. Maintanence and owner's attitude are two of the bigeest variables, IMHO. Perhaps you can narrow the question?
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.
"A house should last until it has lived out any useful purpose."
Of course, as long as it's solidly standing and isn't in the way of new development, it has a purpose, IMO, so it's kind of chicken & egg, isn't it?
"There are just too many variables [for a]...should last 150 years' type response."
Naturally. I didn't really expect a serious answer. Then again, if you were a prospective buyer looking at a 100 year old home - looking at a 30-year mortgage - looking at making a profit some day when you sell it....you can bet you're gonna want that house to last 150 years or more!
:-)
I am presently in the planning phase on what I hope will be a fine home. Market conditions and tax rules here are such that the lifespan of the building may be only 25 years.
Instead of focusing just on longevity, since the market mentality is one of constant rebuilding, the key concept for my project is "performance." Longevity is certainly an important factor here, but just as important are efficiency, safety, healthfulness, security, convenience and flexibility.
That last one, "flexibility" is very important. It's quite possible that in 25 years, if I hold onto the building, I will need to do modifications to it to accommodate the next (or rather former) generation. Not just a matter of ripping out wallpaper, but major structural modifications and mechanicals changes such as an elevator.
Etc., etc.
In sum, I would say that rather than raw, gross longevity, I should seek flexibility or adaptability so that every 25 or 30 years the building can be modified to meet the needs of the next generation.
As much as I would like a reinforced concrete buildings or even an ICF building, which should have great longevity if it's maintained, I think there's a lot less flexibility with these.
" I am presently in the planning phase on what I hope will be a fine home. Market conditions and tax rules here are such that the lifespan of the building may be only 25 years. "
Well, I wish you the best of luck in creating a "fine" home, but I gotta say, that seems like a contradiction to me. Maybe the home will be fine, but no fine human being (owner) would allow a fine home to last only 25 years.
Aside from collecting a nice paycheck, why bother?
Good point re: flexibility though.
Edited 9/6/2003 11:13:00 PM ET by NannyGee
Well, I wish you the best of luck in creating a "fine" home, but I gotta say, that seems like a contradiction to me. Maybe the home will be fine, but no fine human being (owner) would allow a fine home to last only 25 years.
I merely bring up the sad and ridiculous example of our 25 year housing market here to illustrate the idea that there are other ways to view longevity. I think I am gonna change my Breaktime handle to JADP.
At least the poor bastards in our market hold on to their houses for 25 years (maybe because they have no choice). OTOH the average occupancy in the US is something like 7.5 years. Is it rational economic behavior to build a 100-year house when most likely you will be moving in 7.5 years? Alternatively, if you hold onto the house until the kids move out, then you finally sell, and the person after that sells out in 7.5 years? Certainly there is pride of ownership and pride in a job well done, etc., but is it rational economic behavior?
Aside from collecting a nice paycheck, why bother?
heh, in my case, since I am going to be living in it, there is no paycheck or payoff. Just a pure living expense akin to keeping a wooden boat. In the long run, we are all dead.
"In the long run, we are all dead."
That ought to be on t-shirts. LOLOL!
Yup, or an epitaph. Can be used to justify a lot of foolish seeming expenditures and borrowings, which is probably not what Keynes meant when he said it originally.