Buildings that have disappeared or been so altered as to be denatured
on the title page of ‘Lost Examples of Colonial Architecture’ by a John Mead Howells back in the early ’60s.
Made a pilgrimage into my library which hadn’t been visited in quite a while after thinking over the recent thread dealing with the recommendation of tearing down all pre 1960s homes.
Interesting softback containing a couple hundred pages of plate photos and listings of torn down old structures with their addresses or city’s location.
One of those used bookstore gems you luck upon on occasion. Makes one glad there are restorationists at work and not all peoples are inept on seeing the beauty of old architecture or the value of historical significance wanting a replacement of lesser product under the guise of modern convenience and indemnities.
I’m thinking some folks here have socialist leanings. snorK*
be yep, best tear all this worthless
down.
&
#160;
Replies
View Image
be yep, best tear all this worthless #### down.
Edited 9/2/2007 2:29 pm ET by rez
View Image
be yep, best tear all this worthless #### down.
Edited 9/2/2007 2:32 pm ET by rez
View Image
be yep, best tear all this worthless #### down.
That there Piffin was a busy guy HUH?Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
"If you want something you've never had, do something you've never done"
A house I did some work on this spring has a very similar underside to its main staircase. Nice colonial, built in 1906. White oak flooring and the handrail looks incredibly similar to the one in the picture.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I guess the guys who built that place weren't figuring on the HO flipping the joint after 7 years and containering it to make room for 'income properties' after twenty.
The crime of it all is, even the worst-built tenements of 100 years ago were better built than the average McMansion of today.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
"even the worst-built tenements of 100 years ago were better built than the average McMansion of today."I think not.Whenever I hear somebody say, "They don't build them like they used to!"I think, "thank God!"There was bad construction back then too, but we don't get to see it because much of it has died the death it deserved. Much of what remains, is still here because it was amoung the best of what they were building in each of those bygone ages.Let us take a lesson from that and build so our work is later remembered, and copied
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Damn, you're a hard schoolmaster. All I do is hyperbolise the eeentsiest teensiest bit--come out with what Kahlil Gibran once called '...a truth that has lost its temper...'--and ya nail me to the barn door.
I hate it when that happens....
So, what I should have said is that although there was occasional #### built back then that's since disappeared to no one's great sorrow, I do not believe that the builders of that era habitually constructed buildings planning on them being torn down within 20-25 years. That is not the case with 'way too much building going on today, notably the great majority of cookie-cutter suburban 'McMansions' which are all sizzle and no steak.
I hear people who own 35-year-old tract houses sing the praises of the builder as if the company deserved a medal for building a house well enough to last that long!
There is an entirely different attitude towards buildings today than there was a hundred years back. By the late 1800s and throughout the first third of the 1900s, buildings were expected to be monuments to their designers, builders, and owners, and all three took pride in them. Even simple buildings like city tenements, built to house hordes of faceless immigrants, were adorned with 'useless' fancy-work such as arch-top windows, carved stone or wood corbells, cornices, and rosettes...
Buildings are seen as disposable now, just like everything else.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Dino,I agree with you that there is a major shift in the American attitude since 1900 on constructing buildings. Part of it is the disposable culture we live in. Another part of it has to do with the fact that more Americans today are divorced from a "feel" for craftsmanship than back then. Manual labor is farther from the average American's experience today than it was for his grandparents at the same age.There are still other parts of this attitude shift that I leave for others to elucidate.Bill
Elucidate ...???yowser ... !!next wil be Obfuscate .... :>))
Yes
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
TH, I share the same position as Piffin on this one. I've had the opportunity to work in and on some gorgeous old homes in my short career. Some of these houses are/were adorned with gorgeous floor to ceiling millwork on the insides with built up moldings in every nook and cranny, whole rooms of hardwood paneling, decorative exterior trim that would cost a fortune today, and staircases that take your breath away.
That being said.... the one thing that each and every one of them had in common.... was absolutely atrocious framing! Undersized members everywhere, nightmarishly out of square rooms, and if you found something plumb or level, it was the exception and not the rule.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for preserving many of these beautiful old structures. I wish more of the owners of them could afford to restore them to their original majesty. But to say they are/were "better built" than today's modern home is unfair if you ask me. Better adorned? Yes. But not better built by any stretch of the imagination.View Image
I've an old framing book from the early 1900s and in it is detailed illustrations on how to hang the floor joists on little 2x2s nailed to the balloon framing studs.
Before I saw that I always thought it was just a carp cutting corners.
Or how often several short lengths of 2x4s would be overlapped and nailed to make a stud.
What you never heard of structural trim? (G)Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
"If you want something you've never had, do something you've never done"
As my old man used to tell me, 'No generalisation is worth a damn, including this one.' So please don't take any generalisations I'm making about the crappy work of today--which we all know comprises 'way too much of what is being built--to include the sort of work custom builders like you and most of the gang on BT turn out. I ain't talking about us; I'm bitchin' about 'Them': The Philistines....
As to the 'absolutely atrocious' original framing in older houses, I'd like to place that in practical and historical context.
Sure, the studs, joists, rafters tended to be spaced wider and were often set by eye at instead of precisely on 19.2-inch centers. And yes, getting things perfectly plumb and square wasn't given anywhere near the attention it is today.
But this was in an era before sheet goods existed or were even imagined. Roofs and subfloors were decked with planks; walls were covered with wood lathe and then plastered. No gyprock; no plywood; no beaver barf. Instead, what the carps had to work with was 1x rough planking, often in random widths and lengths. Thus the frame being a bit out of square didn't matter very much, nor did having your rafters, joists, or studs fall on irregular centers.
Sheathing did not yet dictate the way the frame had to be built...or the way the entire house had to be designed.
As for framing members being undersized, I agree that I see a lot of joists and rafters in old houses which don't meet modern code tables for size...but the numbers in today's code tables are based on today's expectations, which were not the rule a hundred years ago. People didn't demand wood floors that felt like a concrete slab, nor did they threaten to sue everybody in sight if a step creaked. (And ad agencies did not put elephants in diningrooms to take pictures of them standing on their client's 'engineered wood' joists....) They accepted that a house was a living entity, which moved with the seasons and with use.
I think the important thing is long-term results, and if the framing is still holding up the house and all its lovely trim after all those years, maybe calling it 'absolutely atrocious' is a bit strong. I'll agree that old framing can be a PITA for us to work on...but perhaps that's more due to our limited point of view than to inherent inadequacies of the frame.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Point(s) taken brother. Wasn't trying to start an argument. But I'll stand by some of the framing being atrocious.... at least by my standards.
Maybe not yours though.
G,D,& R!!!!!!
Just kiddin' TH.View Image
Yah, well, we all indulge in a bit of hyperbole from time to time. All except Piffin, of course.... ;o)
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Today's code tables are based on today's material. Too much of the material we see today would have been (should be) used for firewood.
Today's code tables are based on today's material. Too much of the material we see today would have been (should be) used for firewood.
Sadly true. but interestingly, my code tables contain a classification for 'Structural Select' grade.
It does not exist in the real world. At least not around here....
I don't think all the difference in scantlings is due to the lower quality of today's force-fed lumber; a lot of it is due to different expectations. People really do get bent all outta shape today if their artificially-distressed country-style wide-plank floor flexes two RCH's at mid span when walked on by the family's miniature corgi.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
are based on today's expectations, which were not the rule a hundred years ago. People didn't demand wood floors that felt like a concrete slab
There was probably a reasonable assumption that things might not withstand 150kt winds, or that major repair might be needed after a near-miss by an F3 or F4--that edifices made by mere human hands could only be expected to withstand human-comprehensible forces.
To some "better" we now know how to keep structures intact in extreme weather conditions. The 'science" in building would likely amaze builders of only three or four generations ago.
However, there may yet be some hubris to be "worn away"--saw a program on "flood proof" european houses (they are on plyons, so when the river rises, so does the house--unless the pylon gives way or some such).
It's a tricky slope, varying from sticky to slippery, and oft with little warning nor rhyme or reason to it. Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
It's a tricky slope, varying from sticky to slippery, and oft with little warning nor rhyme or reason to it.
Too true....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
That was my experience with the homes built in Atlanta in the 1920s. Studs were "somewhere" around 20"-24" apart, and they seemed to depend on the clapboard siding and interior lathe & plaster to prevent racking. Parquet floors and trim to die for, though.George Patterson
Well I'm glad that someone else has seen what I've seen George. It appears as though some have taken offense to my remarks. Some of these houses we're talking about are true treasures, I certainly wasn't arguing that. But the fact remains that a good deal of the framing is/was grossly undersized. Sagging floors, roofs, and beams are the norm in many of these structures and as was joked about already... often the finishes were doing a good deal of the work in keeping some of this stuff from being even more visible.View Image
We've learnt from the experience of those who built before us (well most of us have). The earlier comments about nice finishes laid on sub-optimal structure dovetails with much of my experience as well. This forum enables me to shorten the learning curve by profitting from the experiences and observations of others who care. I wonder how the currently constructed homes will survive the next 100 years or so? Will glues and plastics etc. fail in dramatic fashion?
It appears as though some have taken offense to my remarks.
I hope you don't think that I found your remarks offensive -- that's not the case at all. The sarcasm in my post was directed towards the guy who started the "tear down anything built before 1960" thread.
I agree that the "average" US house of today has a much better foundation and is better framed than average houses of 100 years ago. The only thing that irks me regarding framing is that you could never legally frame a house the way they were made back then. The city would tell you it would fall down in the first windstorm, and that's obviously not the case. I guess it just ticks me off that so many people have a strongly held opinion that has no legs to stand on in the real world.
I also find it a bit ironic that with all the push towards "greener" building, we're arguably wasting a lot of wood by overbuilding the structure.
The other big issue about modern building that I find questionable is the way they're being built so airtight. I think it leads to mold and poor air quality; the building codes have already become contradictory in this regard.
You make some very valid points. The one I particularly agree with is the part about a lot of new homes actually being overbuilt. That one I just finished in the photo thread had some site built trusses and ridge beams that were over sized at best and completely unnecessary at worst. And that's just one example.
Another topic, possibly worthy of it's own thread, is that part of the reason why some new homes are actually built better, with more attention to things like flashing details, wrap, and coatings/coverings is probably something that has grown out of necessity given some of the truly mediocre (at best) materials we have available. I'm mainly referring to the quality of the wood and lumber going into the modern home.View Image
Solving one problem often creates new, possibly unexpected, ones. Now we have houses that are more energy efficient but ,as you said, we have created air quality issues with health ramifications that transcend the efficiency savings. Enter the HRV to improve ventilation (or whatever is appropriate to your location) and we now have houses which ,like cars etc, are more complex to design, build and maintain. Its a living (LOL). What about the environmental impact of an old house being thrown into dumpsters? Thats a cost that the marketplace doesn't yet have to fully consider in the teardown/reno equation. I still think that an efficient market place will make the "best" choices ( Adam Smith's invisible hand) but common property has to be priced into it.
I agree that the "average" US house of today has a much better foundation and is better framed than average houses of ............
Well,.........
I guess I'll agree, but only if you omit houses that have joists made primarily from OSB and some 2X2s. And you'll need to omit any that have that finger-jointed stuff used as studs.
I've got a few more decades to go here (I hope), and I'll be long dead before those items of "new technology" will have proved themnselves. At least to the extent that their predecessors have been proved.
And I'm even wary of OSB in general. What if, as another in this thread has speculated, the glue fails after 7 or 8 decades?
Politics is the antithesis of problem solving.
but only if you omit houses that have joists made primarily from OSB and some 2X2s.
I hope you're only exaggerating there!
But that's a great point about the unproven longevity of engineered materials. Aren't typical TJIs made with an OSB web? If those things start to fail after, say, 50 years, there will be a lot of fun.
I don't really know what to think about FJ studs. They're only under compressive loads, so theoretically they should work, right? I've just never used them because saving a dime a stud (or whatever) just doesn't seem to be worth the potential risks when taking a long-term view.
Before this thread heads for the archives I'd like to recommend a book some might find valuable enough to have in their libraries.
A Field Guide to American Houses by V. and Lee McAlester
500plus pages full of photos and illustrations from ancient classical styles on thru modern day alternatives in the middle 80s copyright date. Kind of a cross between a thesis and a catalogue of architectural history.
Well worth the investment IMHO and available in softback sometimes found delivered thru the mails via ebay for $10.
On second thought forget my IMHO. If you have an interest in old architecture you need to have this book.
View Image
Edited 9/23/2007 6:06 pm ET by rez
Before this thread heads for the archives I'd like to recommend a book some might find valuable enough to have in their libraries.
A Field Guide to American Houses by V. and Lee McAlester
Rez,
I will second that...I actually have 2 copies of that one.
I also have Great Georgian Houses of America volume I (that you were looking for)It seems to be availablehttp://www.amazon.com/Great-Georgian-Houses-America-Vol/dp/0486224910
Here is my favorite old house bookhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0486244385/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-2264924-1474850#reader-link
View Image Old House Measured and Scaled Detail Drawings: for Builders and Carpenters W. A. Radford
Now that looks like a great book worth having. Amazon let's you sample some of the interior pages.
lwj2 yep, would like to see some of that. View Image
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
Edited 9/23/2007 10:04 pm ET by rez
rez, I have a 12 volume set of : Radford's Cyclopedia of Construction Published in 1921, it has scale drawings for trim work, stairs, Mission style furniture and a whole collection of other information pertaining to the older houses and commercial construction. Gift from a woman friend whose Father had been an archy back then ."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
Sounds like a great resource. I'll have to keep my eyes open for that set.
How many pages are dedicated to trim?
Ragnar,
The details are actually scattered throughout the volumes. I found the writing style and organization of the books to one that I could barely wade through. Radford (if indeed he wrote them ) struck me as a pompous ####. Greta pics and drawing though."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
I found the writing style and organization of the books to one that I could barely wade through
I've got a handful of antique carpentry/trade books from the late 1800s and found them very difficult to read, as well. It's amazing how much our language has changed in only 100-some years.
Thanks for the cautionary note about the books, though --- I won't rush out and spend a load of money on them on Ebay or something! I already have one softbound collection of building details from Radford -- primarily a 1911 source if I recall correctly. It's published by Dover, so it's very affordable.
I'll have to keep my eyes open for that set.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=Radford%27s+Cyclopedia+of+Construction&x=78&y=13
"there's enough for everyone"
That is the set. Mine were copyrighted in 1921 ."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
Rez, I agree the McAlesters' "Field Guide" is an essential book to have. It's truly a monumental effort on their part. But in their quest to be comprehensive, I think they're a little misleading in their presentations. Better, perhaps, to show a few "pure" examples of each style, followed by some vernacular variations that would still fit the general classification.
The authors have also contributed articles to the "Old House Journal" where the houses pictured are such odd variations, I'm sure the uninformed reader is left rather bewildered. I'm thinking specifically of their "Greek Revival" article sometime last year.
Allen
Just started reading 'The Old way of Seeing' and going to get a copy for my own library as it is an excellent read so far.
Forget who first recommended it but a hearty thanks to whomever.
http://www.amazon.com/Old-Way-Seeing-Architecture-Magic/dp/039574010X
Rez,
I don't know if you heard about that book from me-----
but I remember reading that book years ago and talking about it here on Breaktime.( got it through inter library loan, BTW, ;) )
I think you will enjoy it.
Stephen
I got this one for a dollar on Friday at a library book sale. It is incredible. Great details of crowns, moldings and columns. 1969 by dover publications.
That's a great find. Besides the illustrations, the text can be quite illuminating, also:
"Although I have made use of the Roman ovolo and ogee in all the orders, I do not generally use them in practice; the binding, or turning inward, of the upper edge of the Grecian, or quirk ovolo, when the sun shines on its surface, causes a beautiful variety of light and shade, which greatly relieves it from the plane surfaces; and if it is entirely in shadow, but receive a reflected light, the bending, or turning inward, at the top, will cause it to contain a greater quantity of shade in the place, but softened downward around the moulding to the under edge. In the Roman ovolo there is no turning inward, at the top; therefore, when the sun shines on its surface, it will not be so bright, on its upper dge, as the Grecian ovolo; nor will it cause so beautiful a line of distinction from the other mouldings, with which it is combined, when it is in shadow, and when lighted by reflection."
So true!
Dover Publications still has that book available. Also, Asher Benjamin's 1830 "The Architect, or Practical House Carpenter."
Allen
I bought 15 books at the book sale. All I have had time to do is look at the pictures in this one. I also picked up a few 70's/early eighties books on carpentry and architecture. Since we just went through the craftsman/bungalow revival I figure the 50's contemp/post mod house is coming back soon, followed by the 70's ranch/split ranch and so on.Housing styles - as cyclical as hemlines.
I think there is another book that goes with that one, check Dover Publishing. I cant put my hands on my copy right now to check so........
Doug
EDIT; Sorry, should have read the whole thread first.
Dover Publications still has that book available. Also, Asher Benjamin's 1830 "The Architect, or Practical House Carpenter."
What WNYGuy said!
Edited 10/1/2007 9:36 pm ET by DougU
"The uses of geometry are not confined to Carpentry and Architecture, but, in the various branches of the Mathematics, it opens and discovers to us their secrets. It teaches us to contemplate truths, to trace the chain of them, subtle and almost imperceptible as it frequently is, and to follow them to their utmost extent. [Peter Nicholson, The Carpenter's New Guide 1793]."
'In 1834, the focus of design is no longer play but professionalism, not exploration but accuracy:'
If the builder attempts to apply the rules of Geometry to his art, without the knowledge of theory, his efforts will prove abortive; or should he at all succeed, yet his work would be void of proportion and incomplete. It is only by a competent knowledge of this science, that the Architect can accomplish his lines as to be able to complete his design. [Chester Hills, The Builder's Guide]
Edited 10/3/2007 12:00 am ET by rez
Have just broke into the first couple dozen pages but can see the premise of the writing.
Can't say the gentleman is opinionated tho'. heh heh
"The post office is from around 1975. I stayed next door to the building for three days before I noticed it at all. It is almost devoid of pattern. A bench and two potted plants float in front of this blankness. We are surrounded by such buildings. Reality has faded gradually over the last century and a half, so that now only smudges and patches remain. Only occasionally, one can still see the old smile, disembodied."
Hellya, I'll read after this guy!
Or his choice of quotes to print:
For the first time in human history, people are systematically building meaningless places. -EUGENE VICTOR WALTER, Placeways
> The city would tell you it would fall down in the first windstorm,
> and that's obviously not the case.Actually, it might well be the case, since you can't get 2x4s that actually are 2" by 4" these days, and you can't get old growth timber and wouldn't use it for framing if you could. This is just part of a long list of materials that you won't be using in your new house that are absolutely necessary if you want to frame up something the way they did in Atlanta 100 years ago.George Patterson
George,
For what it's worth, the houses I typically work on from the 1900s - 1920s (with a couple of rare exceptions) do NOT have rough sawn lumber of full dimension. The old 2x4 rafters are 1-1/2 x 3-1/2, just like today.
Also, I can tell you from direct personal experience that these same houses did NOT use clear, beautiful old-growth lumber for the framing. I know this was the case with some retailers, but it definitely wasn't the case here. I've actually seen some knots the size of baseballs in 2x4 studs from the 1910s! They were so weak that they broke in half with a single hammer swing!
Anyway, the framing lumber that I buy from my local yard today is Doug Fir from a Canadian source, and, on average, it looks to be about the same quality as the stuff I see in the old houses -- although I haven't seen any of those baseball-sized knots. ;)
Obviously, you've experienced different historical building practices in Atlanta than I've seen here in Seattle. But what else besides framing lumber would I not be able to find on the "long list of materials necessary" for building a house like they did 100 years ago?
When I started I was still seeing a lot of the planed lumber sized at 1-5/8" x 3-5/8"
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I've seen a bit of the 1-5/8" framing, too, but it's not as typical in the time frame stated earlier. I've also encountered some 1-3/4" joists in some houses from the early 1930s. I guess the mills out here were just sort of doing their own thing!Another thing that surprises me is that I've seen a lot of window jambs (pulley stiles, typically) that were 7/8" thick. I've got no idea if that was ever a "standard", but it's common.The particular neighborhood I live in was the cedar shingle capital of the world for a decade or so near the turn of the century. I think there were about 10 shingle mills on the waterfront. Major sawmills were also very nearby. Anyway, the point is that most of the houses in the neighborhood were for blue collar families, and were probably not as well-built as the mansions near downtown. With this pedigree and the fact that they were very close to sawmills, perhaps they were sometimes built with "odd lot" runs of product.
Most of our old rough cut framing has dried and shrunk down to 1-3/4" x 3-3/4" or 3-7/8".All the window jambs here are 7/8" A lot of the baseboard is 7/8" planned one side only and caped with a cap molding to make it total 8"-9" tall
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
A lot of the baseboard is 7/8" planned one side only and caped with a cap molding to make it total 8"-9" tall
with the windows trimmed and baseboard capped before the last coat of the plaster was applied (at least around here) - makes for some interesting challenges come remodel/modification time -
"there's enough for everyone"
"... windows trimmed and baseboard capped before the last coat of the plaster ..."
In my house (1830s), all the trim was installed before any plaster. Most of the trim is about 1 1 /4 inches thick, but with as much as 3/4-inch of plaster, the trim has only about a half-inch "reveal."
I've done new work in a few rooms, and have planed 3/4-stock to 1/2-inch and applied over drywall to get the same look.
RE: the Pratt book. Do you have the two-book set that Rez mentioned? I have a 1949 book by Richard Pratt, "A Treasury of Early American Homes." It reprints photos that the author had taken for a series in Ladies' Home Journal. I assume this is the same autho/photographer?
In the foreword, the author discusses the challenge of finding and photographing the homes. "And sad to say, many remaining originals of once rare distinction are now ruins of neglect, disaster, and regrettable alterations. Time after time I have at last come face to face with a once beautiful old house only to find it either pitifully down-at-heels, wretchedly remodeled, or furnished completely out of character."
Allen
Do you have the two-book set that Rez mentioned?
no, I don't - I've looked it up with 'abebooks' and lots of copies are available at very reasonable prices -
there are at least two editions, with the newer combining 'north' and 'south' into one volume - which is available for $1 + $3 shipping - vs about $12 total to get the original edition's two volumes - got the cheap one in my 'shopping basket' but haven't pulled the trigger considering whether I want to spend the extra for the 1956 volumes -
I'd say there is near certainty that your Richard Pratt is the same as rez's - I'll do a little poking around abebooks and see what pops up -
...pitifully down-at-heels, wretchedly remodeled, or furnished completely out of character."
ain't that the truth! - furnished out of character I can handle - it grieves me to see noble honest venacular architecture remuddled - just like antique/vintage furniture, good clean originals hold the most value and interest -
wish my hands were a little cleaner in this regard....
live and learn -
"there's enough for everyone"
now I'm wondering how much overlap there is between the two Pratt books -
abebooks describes the 'Treasury' as 'folio' size - 11" X 15" - is that what you have?
are there full page plates? interiors and exteriors?
hey rez - what about the Pratt 'Guide'? how big are the volumes - text? plates?
moving into dangerous territory here - more books....
"there's enough for everyone"
and now I find that Pratt has 'A Second Treasury of Early American Homes' -
bah - -
"there's enough for everyone"
dang, took them back down to the oldhouse already so real detail will have to be from memory and that can be shakey.
Both north and south had dust jackets and the size of the hardbacks were something thereabouts around 6 1/2 by 9 inches and prob. 3/4 in thick, I areckon.
MarkH said in an earler post one can view the pics online in that link 94160.46 also which I wasnt aware of.
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
"A Treasury of Early American Homes" is about 11 x 14, 136 pages. Not a monumental work, but nice to have. Yes, interiors and exteriors. All full-color, full-page plates. Brief text describes each house and each photo. First printing was 1946.
Also on my shelf is Richard Pratt's "The Golden Treasury of Early American Houses," Hawthorn Books, 1967. It's also about 11 x 14, 280 pages. The author's foreward explains:
"(The series for Ladies Home Journal) was a monumental undertaking. In a few short years enough color plates were collected to fill a book: A Treasury of Early American Homes. In no time at all, the first Treasury went through many printings. The Book-of-the-Month Club made a killing with it. In another four years there were enough color plates for A Second Treasury of Early American Homes. Both volumes went into several editions and are still going strong today.
"Now The Golden Treasury of Early American Houses represents the best of both books, and a lot more. Inman Cook has provided a fresh new typogrphical setting and an imaginative layout for the occasion, and the publisher a price in keeping with a book twice as big."
Allen
the houses I typically work on from the 1900s - 1920s (with a couple of rare exceptions) do NOT have rough sawn lumber of full dimension. The old 2x4 rafters are 1-1/2 x 3-1/2,
Like Piffin, I find that surprising as in the 1950s the 2x's coming out of the lumberyards on the east coast were still expected to measure 1¨ú x ... (and did, for the most part although I do remember my dad grousing that 'a few unprintable mill owners' had started pushing things awfully close to 1¨ý).
Dad grew up in a house built in the early '20s (he was born in '21) and I lived in it from 70-77 myself. It was framed with planed 2x, but they measured 1¨ú or even a hair over that. That was in New York City; up here, of course, dang near anything built prior to the war was framed from unplaned stock.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
In 1920, they were using 2" by 4" rough-cut old-growth southern yellow pine in the Atlanta area. By the '70s (when I was working there), the stuff was like iron. No knots to speak of. Try to drill holes for wiring, and you'd have to sharpen a butterfly bit before you could get through a joist.As for some of the other stuff... you would be able to find it, I suppose, but I don't know anyone who is doing lathe and plaster interiors. I don't know of anyone who's installing 12" high baseboards these days.On the downside, I never thought that just tacking lapstrake or shiplap siding to the bare studs gave you the racking protection that plywood does, and that's what I saw in Atlanta a lot.It's interesting that you would say that about the West. I've been these rounds with other people, and it seems that, the longer an area was settled, the earlier they started with decent building standards. I spoke with a guy from Boston who said that building codes there prohibited some of the bad Atlanta 1920s building practices long before 1920.George Patterson
In 1920, they were using 2" by 4" rough-cut old-growth southern yellow pine in the Atlanta area. By the '70s (when I was working there), the stuff was like iron. No knots to speak of. Try to drill holes for wiring, and you'd have to sharpen a butterfly bit before you could get through a joist.
____________Yep, same in Roanoke, VA. We had a house that had been built in 1927, rough-cut SYP framing that by 1987 was as hard as apple.It was a neat house, built by the guy that built the subdivision as a present for his wife. Oak floors, moulding, trim downstairs, upstairs heart pine. Insurer had a major fit when I told him the flooring and trim upstairs would cost more to replace than the oak downstairs.The builder -- don't know who, city records were lost in a flood in 1986 -- had a unique moulding pattern cut for his houses. I discovered this when I had to replace some of it. Went to Hodges, one of the older milling/lumber yards here (now, sadly, gone) to see about getting a set of knives made and some run off. Counter guy yelled at one of the gaffers in back to come take a look at it. Gaffer comes out, looks at the short stick I brought with me, says, "Yep, one of ours. Made it special for the Riverside development. Be about three days, how many feet do you need?"I'll have to get the camera out and take some photos of some of the older stuff around here and post them.Leon
> "Yep, one of ours. Made it special for the Riverside development.
> Be about three days, how many feet do you need?"Boy, you're lucky! In one of the houses I renovated in Atlanta, we had to scavenge the baseboard edge trim from the back bedroom to fill in for changes in the rest of the house.George Patterson
We're fortunate here in that there were quite a few old-time mill/lumberyards here, and when they went out of business, other, newer ones bought much of their tooling and knives.At the time, I figured it was just an old moulding pattern I wasn't familiar with and which had gone out of style.I'd expected to have to pay for a set of custom knives, which I was willing to do, just to keep the trim looking as it had been. (We'd moved here a year prior to that so I was still learning the area.) As luck had it, Hodges was the closest yard to where we lived and I went there first.Leon
So whatsa wrong wi dis anyhow mon?;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-guide-to-early-american-homes-by-dorothy-pratt-richard-pratt.jsp?CRID=a-guide-to-early-american-homes-by-dorothy-pratt-richard-pratt&OFFID=se2qbp&KEY=A%20guide%20to%20early%20American%20homes%20Pratt
'A Guide To Early American Homes' by Dorothy and Richard Platt. A Two Volume set containing North and South volumes or a later published compilation single book containing both.
Can be read in part as an ad at the above link but without the photos which makes it pretty sparse IMHO.
Worth having in the library and can be found used without giving an arm and leg for.
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
Edited 9/5/2007 1:36 pm ET by rez
the 'Lost examples...' book arrived today - looks interesting on first browse - thanks -
"there's enough for everyone"
Here's a small thin hardback from '53 that might be worth the looksee if interested in new ol'ans or however that's spelt.
View Image
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
Click on the little bitty portraits and the picture will pop up after a while, with zoom and pan.
You've got me perusing the shelves of my library - here's another books that's well worth the price -
'The Barn' A Vanishing Landmark in North America
Eric Arthur and Dudley Witney
heavy toward the northeast/canada/eastern midwest, but just inspiring with the photography and history - materials just blow me away -
this book is the answer to the thread 'why timberframe' -
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Arthur+witney&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=the+barn&x=75&y=11
"there's enough for everyone"
BTW, the 'Guide to Early American Homes' is by 'Pratt', not 'Platt'...
be there "no matches returned for Platt"...
"there's enough for everyone"
here's some picts from the 'Barn' book - View Image
View Image
View Image
"there's enough for everyone"
Barns On my bookshelf for years now. Awe inspiring !"Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
dang, sometimes sucks to be me.
But I want those beams.
don't be meand don't bemean me
be a bean
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
Edited 9/9/2007 9:11 pm ET by rez
What's wrong? Somebody made a big hole in it.
View Image
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
That looks like a boarded up window or opening.
jt8
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly.
I said 'I don't know.'"
-- Mark Twain
It was worse.
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
There were a couple similar books called "Lost Twin Cities" and "Lost Minnesota". The local PBS TV station produced television specials based on the books that were very good as well. You can see excerpts of the books on the Google Book site:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uegmzT1auoQC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=JwXlBdW6-C&sig=IuA5DcJzIrjjpwoMMba6VP1WoUI&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dlost%2Btwin%2Bcities&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title
http://books.google.com/books?id=g2_5KRiyzXQC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=b4jufIuBts&sig=gVkI-ubEZhMdQurFjCLdAL_Tzuw&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dlost%2Bminnesota&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title
Edited 9/2/2007 7:44 pm by Stuart
Here's an interesting read if one is inclined towards old archy and restoration written by an old furniture guy:
The Impecunious House Restorer by John T. Kirk.1984 Softback. Plenty of pics.
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
Edited 9/10/2007 3:02 pm ET by rez
and another book for the old house restorers that end up spending too much time away from home...
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
"plus five all-new kisses"
ya - right -
like this guy has come up with something no one has thought up before -
ever watch 'A Dirty Shame' written/directed by John Waters?
watch your head....
"there's enough for everyone"
Impecuious - I love that book - have reread it several times. What he considers impecunious and what I do are worlds apart - I've always had to live in the house I was (am) working on...
Yep, living in the house while doing it is a whole 'nother ballgame.
be content with base hits ;o)
Edited 10/3/2007 12:03 am ET by rez
Yea, avoid those sticky hammers ;-)
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
"I think a building should sing, but no, it should never just speak."
"It is not the past we want back but the life the buildings of the past embody."
"Many buildings that try to be contextual ignore the patterns of their neighbors altogether. Any building is as real as the next, but it is play of pattern that makes a building feel 'real.' Style, color, scale, historical accuracy, craftsmanship, all must be part of the music of pattern. If there is no song, all the rest counts for nothing. Every building must make it's own music in order to contribute any sense of place to its city."
-excerpts from 'The Old Way of Seeing'.
well, I've recieved the Pratt book, the McAlester book, and the oversized Pratt book -
when, exactly, do I have time to study them? the Howells book is in the bathroom with quite a ways to go...
oh well - maybe this winter -
anyway, one that hasn't been mentioned is Christopher Alexander's 'A Pattern Language' - which breaks down the big pictures out of these other books into patterns of use -
highly recommended...
"there's enough for everyone"
Great, just great, another book. snorK*
I like the presentation of this guy who wrote 'The Old Way of Seeing'. Sentences are full and he gets you to thinking.
opinionated sure, but pretty sensible stuff
'The game of architecture is not a matter of being great or being ordinary. It is a matter of playing. Technology and society will give the designer whatever happens to be at hand: the program with its symbols, the devices, the materials. I do not mean to say you just accept passively anything you get. But the process of architectural play is to use the ingredients you have, including style-- just playing,
making your sandcastles out of whatever seashells and rocks and sand may be around. If you must make an Ordinary sandcastle, maybe you will stick a bottle cap on it.'
-from The Old Way of Seeing
Humans grope for absolute understanding,unmindful of the a priori mysterywhich inherently precludesabsolute understanding.unaware that the gropingdoes not signify personal deficiency,and ignorant of the scientific disclosureof fundamentally inherent mystery,they try to "cover up" their ignoranceby asserting that no fundamental mystery exists.
-BUCKMINISTER FULLER, Intuition
Here was an explanation for the loss of pattern in American design- for that abrupt change from ubiquitous beauty, liveliness, and grace to disharmony and the apparent general weakening of ability.
People had not lost their ability, they had changed what they thought they were looking at.
They had stopped looking at buildings as patterns in light and shade and had started seeing them primarily as devices to be used- for effect, comfort, commerce.
The results were readily measurable: the patterns of regulating lines disintegrated.
"Proceeding, then, step by step from generals to particulars, plasticity...began to grip me and to work its own will.
"Fascinated I would watch its sequences, seeing other sequences in those consequences already in evidence....
"Vistas of inevitable simplicity and ineffable harmonies would open, so beautiful to me that I was not only delighted, but often startled. Yes, sometimes amazed."
-from his Autobiography around 1900 -Frank Lloyd Wright
This a great book in the same vein. A bit depressing tho.
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Boston-Jane-Holtz-Kay/dp/1558495274/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4583953-1678846?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188790426&sr=1-1
This one is also very good.
http://www.amazon.com/Boston-Then-Now/dp/1571451773/ref=pd_sim_b_5/105-4583953-1678846?ie=UTF8&qid=1188790426&sr=1-1
very good - I went to abebooks and ordered a copy - got to be an idea or three I can steal from a book like that - another 50 copies available if anyone is interested -
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=John+Mead+Howells&sts=t&tn=Lost+Examples+of+Colonial+Architecture&x=78&y=10
another book I like is 'Colonial Interiors' by Leigh French jr -
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=leigh+french+jr&sts=t&tn=colonial+interiors&x=78&y=11
ecellent topic Rez--EXCELLENT.
now--- gotta say i must have missed the thread calling for all houses built before 1960 to be demolished----------however------ If "I" was military dictator of the world--- i would be much more inclined to order the destruction of all house built AFTER 1960, LOL
since i bought a digital camera a year or so ago---- i have been collecting pictures of cool old houses---both locally and those I encounter in my travels. I wonder if anybody would be interested in starting a " cool old houses" thread?
BTW---- I would tend to agree with dinosaur about the framing. "Undersized"---------maybe by todays design tables--on the other hand that "undersized" framing has stood the test of time----so how undersized is it REALLY?
also- i feel lucky that most of the house I work on are pre-WWII-------and as a result I rarely encounter plywood,osb and the like. It's a whole 'nother standard of wormanship. i have had younger but still experienced guys come to work with me-----and get themselves in a near panic--when they encounter solid decking and sheathing that have some knot holes in them.( Oh my gosh--------------- we are gonna have to re-deck this whole thing!!!!!!!!!!!)-------- (jeez stephen--look these rafters are on 20 inch centers-----didn't those guys own tape measures?)---------- probably not-- they probably worked with story poles and folding rules--like my father in law did right up untill he retired in the 1980's----man old nick could wip out that zig zag ruler--open it up get his measurement and have it back in his dungarees pocket before I could fumble my tape unclipped from my belt. nick didn't feel he needed to weigh himself down with a $200 occy leather set of bags either---- he kept a tool trug nearby and carried a hammer on his pants, his rule in the rule pocket and a canvas freebie nail apron to carry nails in----pencil behind his ear--and i don't remember WHERE he kept his nail set----probably in the apron with the nails---------------------- but he totally disdained the idea of loading yourself down with every tool he owned and carrying them around all day like a walking hardware store. he would also fire anybody he saw cut a 2x propped up on their foot instead of setting stock on horses--------------------------
anyway--- I am glad to work on the older houses---
Stephen
here might be a place to mention for anyone interested a thread from a few years ago of the Doud's building their new house - it's dated 'circu 1915', but after more research it turns out to be 1898 or so - 27256.1
get a bit of the flavor of the era - View Image
View Image
"there's enough for everyone"
When are you going to get the jacks set under those darn headers?
It's gonna fall in any day now!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I wonder if anybody would be interested in starting a " cool old houses" thread?
Shoot, this thread's as good a place as any.
Seeing Doud started it off with his pics I'd already saved from before I'll follow with one of my favs tho' it's been posted before I feel it's worth a recycle...
View Image
rez--- I will try to post a few later this afternoon or tonight when I get a chance. saw some houses I enjoyed a few weeks ago near chatauqua, NY-------would post 'em now---but posting pictures here is VERY time consuming for me.
stephen
View Image
We can imagine something that only exists in our heads, in a form that has no measureable, tangible reality, and make it actually occur in the real world. Where there was nothing, now there is something.Forrest - makin' magic every day
I would be much more inclined to order the destruction of all house built AFTER 1960, LOL
My sentiments exactly. I guess either one of us would be a good candidate for housing dictator. ;)
on the other hand that "undersized" framing has stood the test of time----so how undersized is it REALLY?
Another excellent point. I don't see where these guys get off today telling me that my old house is underdesigned when it's been standing through storms and earthquakes for nearly 100 years. What part of reality don't they understand?
We had a heavy snow storm (heavy by west coast standards) about 15 years ago. Guess which buildings were failing under the load? The most visible ones were commercial structures built in the 1970s and 1980s. I love to point that out to the code monkeys. ;)
Here are some pics of a 1913 house I like:
It's in pretty good cosmetic condition, but there's still a lot of work to be done to bring it up to the caliber of the 1960s. For example, All those multi-gang windows would need to be replaced with some nice big thermo-fog picture windows.
The leaded art glass panels in the stairwell would have to go, too, of course. Just too dated, not practical, and probably a safety hazard, too.
Now that I look at it, the stair balustrade doesn't appear to have a "graspable" handrail, either, so that would need to be addressed before somebody else got hurt. I'm sure dozens of people have died falling down that death trap! Same thing goes for the balustade over the front porch -- doesn't appear to be quite 36" high, so it's got to be another death trap.
I think a good spraying of the interior with a popcorn texture would look great, too. The box beams might not be too offensive after the texturing; it might even be possible to leave them in place. Just have to wait and see, I guess.
Do you think some sort of plywood siding would look good?
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
Edited 9/3/2007 4:54 pm ET by Ragnar17
Ragnar17----- I enjoyed the pictures-especially the staircase. It strongly reminds me of one I saw last thanksgiving. Brother in law thought i would enjoy seeing his workplace which was an office located in an old house in Bloomsburg,PA.-- I didn't have the camera with me----so could not get pic's.
went back this summer with camera---but brother in law has job in another building now(same company)---and would have been harder for him to get me into the"staircasebuilding"
Stephen
Yeah, they probably had to tear out that awesome old NY doorway to get the new fridge in. Seriously though, there are so many factors at play not least of which are fads and questionable tastes. It is nice to see records being kept of what is no longer extant probably some of the people on this forum will be building simulacra in the future. I know those drawings and photos inspire me.
Rez, thanks for sharing. I have a few similar books in my library, including "Lost America" by Constance Greiff (Pyne Press, 1971).
The local "Pennysaver" includes a weekly real estate section that for the past few years has featured photos of local "lost architecture" on its cover. The photos are from the local county historian's vast collection.
It's amazing to see what splendors of human skill and toil were torn down to make room for parking lots ... in a rural county of only 55,000!
It's also amazing to see how many stunning early 19th century buildings were torn down c.1900. Prosperity is often means the death of historic structures. When nearby Buffalo, N.Y., was in its heyday (early 1900s), many dozens of fine Federal homes were replaced with new mansions and commercial buildings.
The phrase "preservation by neglect" reflects a very true phenomenon. Some of the most intact historic architecture can be found where economic downturns have made remodelling and rebuilding unaffordable.
Many beautiful photographs and measured drawings of historic structures can be found on the Library of Congress' "Built in America" website (images from the Historic American Building Survey):
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/hhquery.html
Allen
Lost America" by Constance Greiff (Pyne Press, 1971). Thanks, love those old books. I'll remember that next time I get a free shipping offer thru the used book dealer. snorK*
Here's a 1903 copyrighted date on a 1/2" 5x8 book I got a while back:
View Image
I don't want to part with this but do have a 'Build Your Own Stone House' hardback I've dupes of I'd be glad to trade with anyone for a construction book I don't have in my collection.
Same as seen here:
http://www.amazon.com/Build-Your-Own-Stone-House/dp/0882660713
We can imagine something that only exists in our heads, in a form that has no measureable, tangible reality, and make it actually occur in the real world. Where there was nothing, now there is something.Forrest - makin' magic every day
You're welcome at my campfire anytime! Or better yet we'll sit on my gig Bungalow porch. It's a funny thing but I had no interest in preserving old architectural elements until I was in my 40s. I just didn't get it. So don't be too hard on the OSB/vinyl siding folks, they will come around.
Dave LaBarge
Snohomish, Washington
Dave,
Do you have any experience doing permitted work in the Snohomish area? I'm curious regarding the cost of permits, time to get approval, etc.
No, I'm just a Harry-homeowner.
I know of a builder who I believe does quite a bit of work in Snohomish. Would you like his name/number?
Thanks for the offer, Dave. I don't actually need any work done or anything like that -- just trying to get a feel for doing work in the area. If you think that's alright, please go ahead and send the contact info (either on the board or privately).
Another interesting book is this 'Great Georgian Houses of America', a 1970 softback two volume set which was a reprint of the original set from the 1930s and filled mostly with full page b&w photos and illustrations.
All I have is the 2nd vol. and if I ever come across the 1rst there will be no second thoughts on the purchase.
View Image
be who's on first?
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.
Edited 9/16/2007 3:40 pm ET by rez
gee, even if I drive an old Ford?
be can't af ford?
sobriety is the root cause of dementia.