*
I have read and been thinking about Charles Peterson’s piece on “Installing Strip Flooring” in FHB January. I wonder about a couple of things. He introduces the topic by referring to the commonness of finding 200 year old houses in New England where the hardwood floors “have stood the test of time.”
Well, besides what seems obvious to me–solid wood–what is it about these floors that have made them so enduring? A good part of Peterson’s article is devoted to ensuring that moisture problems in the structure and the flooring material are mitigated before installing wood flooring material today. Craftsmen from 200 years ago might not have had the sophistication of measurement that we have today, but they did something right. Houses no doubt had humidity levels back then that were closer to whatever was going on outside, didn’t they? Is our precision control over application necessary because the products we use aren’t likely to last so long, and we want to maximize their longevity?
Another question that I’ve wondered about in light of reading the thread about what constitutes “fine” homebuilding…
These 200+ year old structures that Peteson says are relatively common. Do they represent the “fine” work of their time, and thus their longevity, or are some of them more typical of the “average” work of the time? I think the house I am currently living in is average for today’s standards in my part of the country, but it’s not going to last 50 more years in any case.
Replies
*
Speaking off the top of my head, I think that one issue is just the fact that it "stood the test of time" in the first place. Those buildings that were not built well are long gone. I was recently reading an article on forging and they were giving tips on selecting an anvil. Their comment was that a well worn, older anvil was probably a good one. If it was not a good one, it would have had problems long ago and you would not be looking at it now...
Aside from that, I would say that better quality, old growth lumber has something to do with the longevity. The wood was denser. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should go out and harvest all the old growth lumber available, just that they had that option back then.
As for the "fine" question, I would break it down into two parts.
First, back to the "stood the test of time" issue. If it is still around, it was built well in the first place. You are looking at houses that people considered keeping around all these years. The shoddy construction (which did exist) is long gone.
Second, I had mentioned in the "fine" thread that one current issue that I think affects the situation is the intended lifespan of a home. Too many people are looking at resale value five years down the road. Back then, people stayed put and were looking for a house to last them most of their lives -- and even possibly be passed on to their children.
My grandparents lived in the same house for over sixty years -- my grandfather built two additions himself. It may not be a fancy house, but it is good, solid, and livable.
The house I live in now is about 75 years old. The house passed from the builder to his daughter to her niece through the years and I bought it from her. Most of the damage was done by the niece and her husband mainly because they took the place for granted. Still, it was built well originally and intended to last. I am slowly bringing it back to its former glory.
Just my thoughts...
*TD, older strip flooring was 3/4" instead of the 3/8" that was used in some later homes, and construction materials were generally better quality, as Thom said. Quality of materials compensated for some of the past moisture problems, but the rotten sash and mildewed bathrooms were relieved by the advent of modern windows and fans. Maintenance is of more importance than construction in the survival of a home. Maintaining a roof is more important than maintaining the windows. Local climate makes a difference--we have ghost towns from the gold rush days in Montana with houses a person could move into; that same house would be cudzu fodder in Mississippi.
*I'm not sure I would agree that your house is "not going to last 50 more years". Almost everything in modern houses is better than 50 to 100 years ago. The only thing I can see that was better 50 years ago was the trim lumber. Would you like the windows in your new house to be drafty, single pane things like 50 years ago? How about a nice bouncy floor built with 2X8 floor joists spanning about 16'How about wood shingles instead of asphalt? Window and door openings with no headers above them? Plaster walls instead of drywall? I know there are craftsmanship issues. But there were wood butchers back then just like they are now. I just don't buy the arguement that "they don't make 'em like they used to"
*You all all make good points. Especially the point about maintenance. In my extended family there is a house superbly built in the 50s, remodelled in 1970, which has not been lived in for 20 years, and has received little maintenance if any. Properly maintained it would be worth, today, over 200K. It is probably worth the price of the land, now. On the other hand we are currently selling my in-laws house built (by family) in 1908 which is in fine shape and needs to be rewired at the most, and remodelling or decorating to the new owner's taste, but structurally sound. Well constructed and carefully maintained.The more I learn about "fine" homebuilding and indeed about competent homebuilding, the more frustrated I get about little things about my present house that could have been done right in the first place, that I am often not able to take care of the way I want. And yet "Boss" is right, it's warm in here, although I'm not sure I wouldn't strangle the folks who suggested heat pumps be called "heat" pumps. In that same issue of FB there's an article about center beams. Everytime I come up the basement stairs I say a little prayer as I observe the center beam that gets interrupted for the basement stairs, lally columns or no.The things we have been able to take care of, a new roof, vinyl, etc, have certainly contributed to the longevity of the house, and were going to be necessary at some point anyway. It's the things that weren't done right in the first place that really bug me. I can put up crown molding myself, but I can't repair the problems that create the wet basement. One thing at a time, I guess.Boss, I'm not sure there IS any trim lumber in this house!
*All the points above are good. But there are other factors that may be at work when a house lasts 200+ years: location, location, location, and luck.A shoddily built house in the right location attracts buyers who are willing to fix it because they like the view, the setting, etc. etc.The luck is needed that the buyer will fix and renovate instead of bulldoze and build new. Some of this luck is "made", the house was given just enough charm by the builder/designer.Who was it that recently posted about their first buy/remodel/sell project. Lovingly rehabed with lots of details. A little trouble selling, but finally got their price. The buyer bulldozed it and rebuilt.Rich Beckman
*Well Ron, having been in the industry for the past 50 years or so, I guess I'm qualified to argue the point with you.The two biggest changes have been,The introduction of new materials (naturally) and The 'de-skilling' of the industry.The new materials have, by and large, been beneficial but take silicone caulk as an example. Because this is so good, waterproofing has come to rely on it to the exclusion of good design so that when it does fail the results are catastrophic. Flat or low-pitch roofing is another example -- made possible by modern materials, the results of a failure are far worse than with a traditional pitched roof.Houses seem to be built now far more to the limits of the materials --we pitched roofs in the 50s with 4" x 2" rafters at 16" ctrs, with 8" x 4" purlins and collar and struts every 5th pair of rafters --- now it's trusses of 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" at 2' ctrs.Immediately after the war, America, with its usual generosity, shipped 1,000s of pre-fabricated houses (pre-fabs, they were called here) to England for temporary homes for people who had been bombed out. They were designed to last for 18 months ---- some are still standing, inhabited, 57 years later. I would suggest that if they were built now, 18 months IS all they'd last.In the 50s there was full employment and a shortage of building workers so the construction industry employers, with government encouragement, started de-skilling.Traditional trades were fragmented and short training courses introduced for various parts of a trade so that, for example, you had roofing carpenters, trim carpenters and so on. Inevitably, even though just as many workers take pride in their work now as did then, skills have been lost and standards have declined.Civil engineering is possibly better now than it has ever been but housing, comparing like to like, is worse.
*I would agree with Ian on the skill part of his post. His example of caulking is an excellent one; relying on caulk instead of proper drip cap on doors and windows is one example I see time and time again.But as far as new materials, the jury is still out as far as I am thinking, though guilty as charged seems to be the outcome. I think that a good many problems associated with "new" homes are material rel;ated. We continually rely on adhesives, synthetics and other man-made products that do not stand the test of time. Specificly, Theodora's comment about flooring. Even if we discount the inherent quality associated with old-growth, we are still faced with inferior products in regards to sub-floor ( plywood rather than board sheathing) floor finishes (urethanes, etc instead of natural penetrating oils) and the harder wear surfaces of our shoes. We build our houses by and large tighter on the outside by using plywood sheathing, sprayed foam insulation etc., in a mistaken believe that that will make a better house. But a house could be analogous to a living being; just as our skin protects us from the outside , it still breathes allowing toxins to respirate away. These old houses lasted because of good building materials, good construction techniques , and the house could breathe and avoided moisture/toxin build-up in the walls. A good many otherwise excellent houses have suffered an ealy demise through misguided renovation.Another thought is just how long lasting are our new building products? BUILDER magazine, I think the January 2000 issue considered many of the materials and their claim "maintainence free" or lifetime warrenty. I think they discussed windows as having a 20 year life expectency. just some thoughtwalk gooddavid
*I don't believe my house was intended to last long when it was built. It is over 100 yrs old, complete with sagging floors, crumbling walls, everything you could imagine being wrong with it it. But its only 5oo sq ft, and in spite of al its troubles is still standing. Its damned cold. There isn't anything bigger than a 2X4 in it (And you were worried about your support beams - I wish we had those to worry about). Surprisingly though, a few things have endured.If I strip about 8 coats of paint, I come to some beautiful wood work everywhere there is trim. The floors, under 2 carpets and a layer of those 1 ft square linoleum tiles are nice looking hardwood that needs to be sanded.And last but not least, under the ugly Insulbrick exterior is Cedar (Not pine as I had though earlier) siding, all of which appears to be in good shape except for the bottom foot or so which has rotted from its nearness to the ground (Built on grade).I don't know if you can attribute the way this house has stood to its materials or not, but it is proof that some of the older slapped together places have somehow endured. The strange thing is that I feel more "At Home" here than I did in my last house which was quite modern and much larger.
*Ian -Thanks for being civil in your disagreement. I don't mind differences of opinion, but I don't like being called a moron (Or worse) when I don't think like someone else. Can't argue the flat roof thing - I don't like them either. I do a heck of a lot of bids for roof trusses to overframe flat roofs on 20-40 year old buildings. As for building "to the limits of the materials". I'd say the opposite is true. Take the house I live in. It has floor joists about 7 1/2" deep spanning 16' and bounces like heck. That seems to be a common problem in new houses. Floor systems today tend to be much stiffer. (Obviously there are exceptions)Design is becoming more "performace based" instead of just span charts. The house is 28' wide, and the roof rafters are solid 2X4 as you mentioned. Trouble is, there's about a 3" sag in various places. A 28' roof truss may not look impressive. But a ton of research and testing goes into them. I've been in 20 to 30 year old buildings with trusses, and haven't seen any significant problems. And the technology that goes into the designs gets better all the time. The studs in my house are rough saw, and crooked as hell. They just floated out the differences with thicker plaster. I always hear that lumber "ain't like it used to be". But that makes me wonder. No way would I argue that there are a shortage of craftsmen in the building industry. Had an Uncle that used to use the old stanley planes (with interchangeable blades & fences) to make his own windows. Stuff like that will likely never happen again. And I agree that standards of work have declined some. But I also think some of our memories are a bit "selective". For instance - Back when I was in high school, there was a shop teacher That I really looked up to. He always used to say: "Kids today just aren't like they used to be - They just don't know the value of a dollar". I went back to see that shop teacher about 20 years after I got out of school. What does he say about kids now? "Kids today just aren't like they were back when you were in school - They just don't know the value of a dollar".Guess we could drag this on for quite a while, but maybe I'd better stop. One last question, though. You mentioned the pre-fabricated houses that were shipped to England after the war. Most of what I remember hearing of them is that they were cheap, shoddy construction and were slapped up as fast as possible. The word pre-fab got a bad name from the poor quality of construction back then. I'm not argueing that point, I'm just curious.
*Ron, pre-fabs and shoddy materials.I remember in 1968 buying some flooring from pre-fabs they were demolishing in South London --- it was 7/8" quarter sawn white oak, T & G and end-matched which even now would be luxury flooring in England.The only fault they had was that they were small -- there aren't many left now but they weren't pulled down because of their deterioration, only because the land that they stood on (largely bomb sites) was being developed.Just after the war a lot of public housing was built to re-house people from the slums of London and other major cities. They were terraced housing -- what you call multiplexes, I think --- and they were minimal cost but all of these are still standing and properly maintained, will be standing in 100 years time.In 1974 I was Construction Manager on a local authority housing contract for 240 terraced houses. The design of the houses and the quality of the specified materials was appalling -- the cheapest of the cheap and even though the workmanship was good (I saw to that!!) the panellised fronts and backs of each house have had to be replaced with brickwork because of constant leaks, every window on the estate has been replaced -- twice! and a fire in a bedroom burned through the bottom chord of just one truss and the roof collapsed.Workmanship hasn't changed, there will always be those who take a pride in their work and those who don't give a toss -- that's human nature -- and the fact that a plasterer's trade, say, is not as skilled as it used to be doesn't really matter but when the waterproofing of a joint depends on a bead of silicone 100% perfectly applied instead of on good building practice then I say that the quality of building has deteriorated.
*I think the best explanation I have listened to about why old homes lasted longer than modern homes was based on when when insulation became a common component in the construction of homes. Old homes were built without insulation (for the most part) and energy costs were cheap. There was nothing in the walls to trap moisture so homes were well ventilated and did not rot from moisture problems. As energy prices increased, insulation was introduced, and homes started to rot. Moisture problems in homes started probably around the 1940's to present day. The most important factor to increase the life of a new home today, is to design (and build) out moisture problems.
*It's tough to compare professional building standards today to the 200 year old homes that still stand. Back then, only wealthy people owned their own homes. Now, virtually every family owns a home, even if it's a mobile. If a new house sells for 150,000 today, that's maybe 3 or 4 years wages for the average Joe. Back then, the average Joe couldn't have bought the average home with a lifetime of earnings. It's just a different society today. Carpenters make enough money to own their own place, instead of "journey" from place to place, building for rich people who would pay them a pittance along with feeding and sheltering these journeymen while they built.As the demand for affordable housing has risen, so has the demand for technology to make those homes more livable and affordable to maintain...so we now are venturing into synthetic materials instead of wood anywhere a home is exposed to the elements...it's just different nowdays...some ways better, some ways not. Here in Washington the codes required us to seal house so tight in the 80's that by the 90's they ammended the codes to require exterior air supply in each room and so many air exchanges per hour from a whole house fan. It seems like a cycle of going overboard, then compensating for the health risks the codes legislated in the first place.I think the thing with hardwood floors was, in the 50's or so, "wall to wall carpeting" came into fashion that the housekeeper simply had to vacumn, instead of clean and wax. And everyone knew they would eventually replace the carpeting. And so we saw the first "disposable" floors, which evolved toward the laminate floors that are all the rage today. Interesting topic.
*i Back then, only wealthy people owned their own homes. Now, virtually every family owns a home, even if it's a mobile. If a new house sells for 150,000 today, that's maybe 3 or 4 years wages for the average Joe. Back then, the average Joe couldn't have bought the average home with a lifetime of earnings. Jim, you got me to spend an hour wandering around statistic sites, mostly bewildered. Some stats i gathered here and there said home ownership increased from 44% in 1940 to 65% in 2000, but the majority of those belong to older people. In the under-55 age group, there has been no advance in home ownership despite down payments being at record lows and mortgages at record highs. I also saw a stat that said the cost of a home has risen 167%, in adjusted dollars. So, although more people own homes, but they are paying a lot more for the privilege as a percentage of their income, and at higher interest rates. Also, you postulate an average income of 40-50K dollars to buy that house in 4-5 years, but the income hasn't been distributed like that: it drifted heavily to the upper crust, which possibly explains the 30-year mortgage becoming the norm instead of the 1o and 15-year ones i remember in my youth. This means that the folks in the middle had actually less of the pie than before, so it makes sense that they end up not with substantial, higher-quality housing as their biggest lifetime investment, but with trailers that depreciate as soon as the key turned in the lock. I'm not sure that's progress...Here's an interesting site i stumbled into:http://www.sharedcapitalism.org/scfacts.html
*The thing that bothers me most about the quality of construction today, is that I believe as stated earlier our materials are mostly superior to 100 years ago. The problem is that to many construction workers rely on products like caulking and underlayments to do the job of proper flashings, simply because it's easy, cheap and effect until the check clears. I'm only speaking to the waterproofing aspect of modern construction, but this trend is prevalent throughout the industry.The question is how do we fix it.My answer: It's market driven. The consumer demands quantity not quality. The GC knows what sells. How do you fix a market.Terry
*What about 200 years ago? What percentage of Americans owned their own home?
*Are we talking tipi's, too?
*200 years ? Why stop there ? Why not go back to the caveman days ?I wonder how many middle-classers were able to afford their own caves ? I wonder if there were any DIY cavers, digging with inferior tools and using inferior materials to line the walls ? I wonder what the code was for furs on the floor. How many ? What type ? The beavers go near the mouth of the cave because they are more waterproof ? I wonder what kind of interest the average caveman bank charged on the cave mortgages ? I wonder how long the average mortgage was ? I wonder if they had debates about whose cave was just too big, and was a sign of over-indulgence, decadence, waste, and just a status symbol ? Etc...b : )
*Home ownership exploded when 30 year mortgages were invented to stimulate the economy during the great depression. Modern building materials and building knowledge is superior today but our proffession, and those that regulate it, can be slow to change.
*
I have read and been thinking about Charles Peterson's piece on "Installing Strip Flooring" in FHB January. I wonder about a couple of things. He introduces the topic by referring to the commonness of finding 200 year old houses in New England where the hardwood floors "have stood the test of time."
Well, besides what seems obvious to me--solid wood--what is it about these floors that have made them so enduring? A good part of Peterson's article is devoted to ensuring that moisture problems in the structure and the flooring material are mitigated before installing wood flooring material today. Craftsmen from 200 years ago might not have had the sophistication of measurement that we have today, but they did something right. Houses no doubt had humidity levels back then that were closer to whatever was going on outside, didn't they? Is our precision control over application necessary because the products we use aren't likely to last so long, and we want to maximize their longevity?
Another question that I've wondered about in light of reading the thread about what constitutes "fine" homebuilding...
These 200+ year old structures that Peteson says are relatively common. Do they represent the "fine" work of their time, and thus their longevity, or are some of them more typical of the "average" work of the time? I think the house I am currently living in is average for today's standards in my part of the country, but it's not going to last 50 more years in any case.