QuoteRobert and Kay Lynn lay in bed shortly after closing on their new home in the Blue Oaks subdivision in Rancho Murieta, Calif., abutting an 18-hole golf course. They were listening to the “pop, pop, pop†of what they thought were acorns falling onto the roof.
The Lynns soon realized those were not acorns dropping on the roof.
“Little did we know it was the house cracking,†says Mrs. Lynn, 67 years old. Mr. Lynn, 68, says they bought the property in 2002 for $357,000 as a weekend home and an investment. The stucco house was moving and shifting, with part of it subtly pitching toward the golf course, resulting in cracks and fissures in the walls, ceiling and floors, the couple says.
Many of their neighbors say they had similar problems. In the Sacramento Valley subdivision of about 250 houses, more than half the residents have reported some type of flaw. The Lynns and dozens of their neighbors last year filed construction-defect lawsuits against the builders, and the lead case is expected to go to trial next week. They are seeking enough money to permanently repair the houses, a figure expected to total millions of dollars.
Read the rest here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203872404574258531574049434.html
It seems like a lot of these new neighborhoods were build with the absolute minimum legally required building code and maybe even less if they got exemptions to save money. So what's going to happen 50 years from now when these areas really start falling apart? Are these areas ever going to make it into "historic" status?
I have seen firsthand - homes built on over 200 cuyds of fill dirt with absolutely minimal packing.
I have seen mono-slabs literally split in half before the framing was complete - only to have a rebar 'patch' made at the joint.
Clay county, specifically, was renown for not requiring compaction tests on any of their slab fills. I wouldn't recommend any homes in Oakleaf that are near a retention pond.
I would never and will never buy a home any any subdivision of the builders Lennar, Adams, Syntec, KB or any other mass production builder. You get what you pay for.
No satisfaction at all. Anyone who can stand for a 48 day building cycle can kiss my ass. It takes almost a month in semi-exposed for all the lumber in the building to acclimate and that's assuming that we're not in a fluctuating temp cycle. It takes another 3-4 weeks for the building to re-acclimate once you are sealed up and the HVAC is running. You should never layer more than 12" of fill without compaction in-between layers. If you want a home that if finished when you move in, it will take at least 8 months. Unless they paid me 3 times what I'm making now (which isn't a whole lot) there's no way that I'd even consider going back to production building. I sorry that they all haven't folded up yet.
There are a few good ones, Pulte, Toll Bros., Standard Pacific etc..., but you have to move into their semi-custom/custom lines before you get what you're really paying for.
There was a great New York Times opinion column a few years ago about what will become of the suburbs. We have a long history of adapting and reusing urban buildings, so there's precedent for how to do it. But we've done very little in terms of repurposing suburban homes and big box stores. These homes are difficult to adapt for any other use, as they're designed to be one specific thing, and they're often too poorly constructed for it to be economically feasible to fix them up or take them apart for salvage. The practice has been to just leave them to rot and build more elsewhere.
The author suggests retrofitting these old homes with safer, greener facilities. If we were smart, not that we are, we'd at least start thinking about what we're going to do with our fading suburban neighborhoods.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/what-will-save-the-suburbs/
I'm sorry, but the only re-use you're going to get out of new suburbs is old suburbs - unless the bulldozer is brought in, then you're just going to start the cycle all over. Look at Argyle, for example, the older part of the development near Blanding is now mostly low $$$ rentals, elderly or 1st time buyers with no $$$. As you move farther away, the homes get newer, the HOAs are more prevelant and the amount of rental units goes down. Each era has left it's mark, but the sprawl continues. I'm willing to be that in another 10 years, Argyle Forest Blvd will be another 10 miles longer with another shopping center at the end.
^And obviously that needs to stop. But it's not feasible to just tear down houses whenever they get old; we have to do something with them, or else the cycle will never be broken.
welcome to the wonderful world of disposable everything.
These homes aren't built to last. Most builders only warranty the home for a year - there's your first clue. Most everything else is covered by a manufacturers warranty - and most of those items don't have the full warranty because they're considered builder's grade -a step below residential grade. The only item with a substantial life-span are your shingles (most are only using 20yr), but they are only covered against deterioration - not installation.
Nothing like some stucco covered foam formed mcmansions!
Is there any new non-custom housing in the suburbs which are built to a very high standard? How long has this been going on for? In general, are housing built in the 1960s better than the 2000s?
Where are the good strongly built houses in the city?
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
Urban construction is not immune. See the Berkman and to a lesser extent, Churchwell Lofts (thin walls, interior stucco separating from lath, no insulation between floors). What ever happened to pride in craftsmanship?
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
It should be better now that the demand is back to reasonable level. You couldn't pay me to move into a home built by a production builder that was constructed from 2002-ish to '06-ish. From the lack of skilled workers to lack of skilled inspectors. During the time, as a PM, I didn't mind, but there were more drive-by inspections than I care to remember. Guys would literally sign the sheets from inside thier truck.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 25, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
It should be better now that the demand is back to reasonable level. You couldn't pay me to move into a home built by a production builder that was constructed from 2002-ish to '06-ish. From the lack of skilled workers to lack of skilled inspectors. During the time, as a PM, I didn't mind, but there were more drive-by inspections than I care to remember. Guys would literally sign the sheets from inside thier truck.
They are like doll houses LOL
Come on down to Springfield and buy a 100-year-old house with old growth wood so hard you can't drive a nail in it unless you pre-drill it first. If the wall is framed with 2x4's, they are 2" by 4", not 1.5" by 3.5". The house isn't wrapped with plastic wrap (tyvex) and then clad with 3/8" siding. They are clad in solid wood siding, and often with real lath and plaster walls inside. They stand tall and strong after 100 years, because they were built properly to begin with. And with housing prices the way they are, they are available for no more, and sometimes less than, than the recent junk they are building.
When I buy a house that is what I'm going to do. I would buy a stronger house and do the fix up myself. After working carpentry and owning a home in the past... I do not trust todays house builders or contractors. The only one I trust is Holms on Homes.
Quote from: cityimrov on April 25, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
Is there any new non-custom housing in the suburbs which are built to a very high standard? How long has this been going on for? In general, are housing built in the 1960s better than the 2000s?
Where are the good strongly built houses in the city?
Certainly any of the historic districts have plenty of strong old buildings.
The homes from the 1940's-60's were built like brick shit houses. They are located all over the city but a few come immediately to my mind.
Cedar Hills
Lakeshore
Arlington
Arlingwood
Ortega Hills
Englewood
Jacksonville, Neptune and Atlantic Beaches.
San Clerc
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 24, 2011, 12:34:08 PM
Each era has left it's mark, but the sprawl continues. I'm willing to be that in another 10 years, Argyle Forest Blvd will be another 10 miles longer with another shopping center at the end.
Well,not quite ten miles,thanks to fighting back attempts at extending Blanding Blvd. proposed new east/west corridors to US 301,and establishment of Jennings Forest in giant tic tac toe growth horse race.
Still ended up with giant sprawl,even after a DCA trim.
1800 acre Trust For Public Land option amongs parcels in the Brannon/Chaffee Sector Plan vortex: Oakleaf!!!
one that wrestled the Trust option away,after positioning and selling for Oakleaf,skipped across the River with the proceeds.....Silverleaf!!
Quote from: JFman00 on April 25, 2012, 03:32:39 PM
What ever happened to pride in craftsmanship?
That got cut from the program in favor of the bottom line.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
What were you hammering the floorboard with Duval Dude? A Jackhammer? :o
Quote from: Timkin on April 26, 2012, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
What were you hammering the floorboard with Duval Dude? A Jackhammer? :o
Dont judge me! LOL I was attempting to screw in a doorstop and it was not cooperating. So I hammered it in there because I was getting aggravated. Maybe Im the reason the wall moved. Who knows!
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 25, 2012, 06:26:32 PM
Come on down to Springfield and buy a 100-year-old house with old growth wood so hard you can't drive a nail in it unless you pre-drill it first. If the wall is framed with 2x4's, they are 2" by 4", not 1.5" by 3.5". The house isn't wrapped with plastic wrap (tyvex) and then clad with 3/8" siding. They are clad in solid wood siding, and often with real lath and plaster walls inside. They stand tall and strong after 100 years, because they were built properly to begin with. And with housing prices the way they are, they are available for no more, and sometimes less than, than the recent junk they are building.
We should cut down more "old growth" for sturdy housing? While it is great a few of you have these houses... and there are a few more available... most people will never have the chance... unless we cut down more virgin forest. Planting and farming pine for building is the norm. It is environmentally correct, it is less expensive. Some are showing some evidence of flimsy new construction... but MY new construction is energy efficient, conforms to the latest hurricane standards, the siding is a modern and durable compound. Could it be better? Certainly. It could have also cost more.
Since we don't have good wood to build houses with anymore maybe we should stop building houses of wood. Other countries have. Europeans look at our stick built houses and shake their heads.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2012, 07:28:53 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 25, 2012, 06:26:32 PM
Come on down to Springfield and buy a 100-year-old house with old growth wood so hard you can't drive a nail in it unless you pre-drill it first. If the wall is framed with 2x4's, they are 2" by 4", not 1.5" by 3.5". The house isn't wrapped with plastic wrap (tyvex) and then clad with 3/8" siding. They are clad in solid wood siding, and often with real lath and plaster walls inside. They stand tall and strong after 100 years, because they were built properly to begin with. And with housing prices the way they are, they are available for no more, and sometimes less than, than the recent junk they are building.
We should cut down more "old growth" for sturdy housing? While it is great a few of you have these houses... and there are a few more available... most people will never have the chance... unless we cut down more virgin forest. Planting and farming pine for building is the norm. It is environmentally correct, it is less expensive. Some are showing some evidence of flimsy new construction... but MY new construction is energy efficient, conforms to the latest hurricane standards, the siding is a modern and durable compound. Could it be better? Certainly. It could have also cost more.
It wouldn't help to cut down 'old growth' trees. You would have to find a dealer that stocks old growth that's been air dried (not kiln) and has been milled and sitting for 50 years. The reason all of the old wood is so hard is because of the crystallation of the saps in the wood. New wood won't have the 'feature' as it will still be freshly cut, no matter the age of the tree. Plenty of barns and sheds have these woods in them, mostly pine, poplar & maple, but you can find a few made from oak and hickory, but those are few and far between because the wood is harder to work with.
The desire for old growth wood is a little overated IMO, the only thing you're getting, typically, is a tighter grain structure (which I conceed does add stability and strength), but with the new methods of fastening that we have today, you're better off using engineered boards for your structural components. If you want them exposed, it's quite easy to veneer them in the species of wood that you want.
More than anyone wanted to know about wood this morning, but it's there. :D
Another reason our old houses in Springfield and Riverside have lasted so long, besides using first growth long-leaf pine, is that they are "balloon" framed not "platform" framed so are much stronger and more flexible than modern houses.
Balloon framing with no firestops in the walls also means that they breathe and don't have the moisture trapping features of modern construction. Also makes them hell to heat in the wintertime.
The primary difference between that 100 year old house and the new 2012 house is indeed the structural materials. Remember that picture from Katrina with the 100 plus year old house still standing while the development built around it was leveled? That is why there is a ton of steel in these new houses, to reinforce the wood used to build them. The old wood needed no such reinforcement. And yes, I also believe balloon framing and allowing the structure to breath is something lacking in today's construction. At least in places like Florida.
There are many of us contractors who actually care about quality and do our best to provide it. We use the city inspectors, choose architects and engineers that have a clue and even our new houses should stand for a hundred years (with proper care, they won't last as long if abandoned). The contractors/ developers, whether they were on the South-side or in Springfield, who built and saved those dollars by using the private inspectors (Hint, the private inspectors cost extra; where then were the savings?) are the ones that did not care about the future owners but rather how much they could put in their own pockets that give all contractors a bad name.
Quality costs and all contractors have to compete against the ones that won't provide it and cut every corner they can. It makes it tough to justify what good work really costs today. One small positive of today is that all those houses built by those low quality contractors need work today so some of us are making money fixing what our old competition did.
You know, once MCCD is chased out of the Historic Districts, I suspect that they will find happiness out in the suburbs. They can condemn those ten year old houses for structural issues right and left. No pesky PSOS type organization to give them a hard time. Surprised they aren't doing it already.
Quote from: strider on April 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
The primary difference between that 100 year old house and the new 2012 house is indeed the structural materials. Remember that picture from Katrina with the 100 plus year old house still standing while the development built around it was leveled? That is why there is a ton of steel in these new houses, to reinforce the wood used to build them. The old wood needed no such reinforcement. And yes, I also believe balloon framing and allowing the structure to breath is something lacking in today's construction. At least in places like Florida.
I tend to disagree with your first statement. I would say that the primary difference is craftmanship. I was taught the proper way to build, but when things were booming, it was impossible to adhere to those standards. When I started out as an apprentice, we would be on a slab for about 6-8 days - nothing to dried in & punched out. At the peak of the boom, (I was now a PM with a national builder), my production schedule, set by people sititng in an office, told me I had to have the houses up in 3 days. So how do you make up the time? Instead of crews making 1 trip and doing everything, the framing process was broken up into about 3-4 different trips so that the money would stay flowing.
What we lost was:
1.) Accountibility, the framing sub would send different crews that would always, ALWAYS, bitch about the work that was done.
2.) Dependability - no one wanted to come do punch work - they had already collected their draw and punching out homes costs money and time (read money).
3.) Ability - due to the massive amount of work that was being done, pretty much anyone who could
swing a hammer carry a nailgun was working. We were lucky if one guy on the job could read prints.
Westside. I think you are correct in saying that the push for volume caused a lot of problems.
Those same problems will be happening today as investors expect contractors to get a rental up and running in weeks. I am so grateful that Strider and I work for investors who still respect quality craftsmanship.
As Strider always says "you will be forgiven for being slow. You will never be forgiven for doing a poor job." And I would also add "even if it is the client who is pushing you."
But we work on old houses and they lend themselves to this kind of philosophy. It costs what it costs and it takes what it takes.
Based on the number of empty whiskey bottles we find within the walls of the old houses we work on, based upon the number of odd cuts and thrown away boards we find, I do not think the quality of the average workers has changed one bit in the last 120 years. The methods of construction has changed primarily to speed things up and to compensate for the difference in materials. Easier and cheaper ways of doing things. Not necessarily bad, just different.
How those methods are accomplished and how well the contractor/ project manager stays on his crews matters the most. Whether it is 1900 or 2012, the ultimate quality is up to the boss.
I will agree that the vast majority of the time, the details are forgotten. Who today sends in a finish carpenter to install ledgers around the perimeter of a room so that no matter what the plasters do, the trim will fit correctly? That corner framed off? The plasters can hide it so no one will ever know. Until the plaster is removed and new drywall is put up. Then the trim no longer fits and you realize that often the quality then was just like today. The methods just hid it better.
Materials have changed, the methods have changed, the human factor has remained the same.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 26, 2012, 01:57:38 AM
Quote from: Timkin on April 26, 2012, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
What were you hammering the floorboard with Duval Dude? A Jackhammer? :o
Dont judge me! LOL I was attempting to screw in a doorstop and it was not cooperating. So I hammered it in there because I was getting aggravated. Maybe Im the reason the wall moved. Who knows!
;) okay, so NOW its a doorstop not a floor board ! :P .. I'm just teasin you bud ;)
My place in Avondale,circa 1947 remains rock solid. Red tile hollow brick.Oak floors, signature pine in the kitchen.
Looking at neighboring houses,one notes little or no sagging,cracking walls. Some of the homes are perched,so to speak, on hillsides adjacent to a creek- testimony to either geological steadfast or construction.Time will tell.
My 1947 build may have been a hint to soon escalating efficacious builder advantage seeking ( or to Strider's magnificent insight)...... many materials came from area Military Bases,a certain hallmark of neighborhood residences according to my Home Inspectior.
In addition to construction,accomodations,there must be a certain appeal to vintage design.
During Clay County Brannon Chaffee Sector Plan (Oak Leaf) public workshops, initially rowdy citizen participants calmed with concept of neighborhoods features,homes "just like Avondale".
Quote from: Know Growth on April 26, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
In addition to construction,accomodations,there must be a certain appeal to vintage design.
During Clay County Brannon Chaffee Sector Plan (Oak Leaf) public workshops, initially rowdy citizen participants calmed with concept of neighborhoods features,homes "just like Avondale".
Their 'attempt' was sorely lacking. Hard to duplicate pier & beam elevations on a slab. Hard to duplicate wood mouldings and unique character with stucco and HOA requirements. Hard to duplicate 'just like Avondale' when you're looking for a home on a cul-de-sac.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 26, 2012, 08:33:14 AM
Quote from: strider on April 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
The primary difference between that 100 year old house and the new 2012 house is indeed the structural materials. Remember that picture from Katrina with the 100 plus year old house still standing while the development built around it was leveled? That is why there is a ton of steel in these new houses, to reinforce the wood used to build them. The old wood needed no such reinforcement. And yes, I also believe balloon framing and allowing the structure to breath is something lacking in today's construction. At least in places like Florida.
I tend to disagree with your first statement. I would say that the primary difference is craftmanship. I was taught the proper way to build, but when things were booming, it was impossible to adhere to those standards. When I started out as an apprentice, we would be on a slab for about 6-8 days - nothing to dried in & punched out. At the peak of the boom, (I was now a PM with a national builder), my production schedule, set by people sititng in an office, told me I had to have the houses up in 3 days. So how do you make up the time? Instead of crews making 1 trip and doing everything, the framing process was broken up into about 3-4 different trips so that the money would stay flowing.
What we lost was:
1.) Accountibility, the framing sub would send different crews that would always, ALWAYS, bitch about the work that was done.
2.) Dependability - no one wanted to come do punch work - they had already collected their draw and punching out homes costs money and time (read money).
3.) Ability - due to the massive amount of work that was being done, pretty much anyone who could swing a hammer carry a nailgun was working. We were lucky if one guy on the job could read prints.
I think it's both, and mainly due to "mass production" -- and it's not just homes but almost every consumer good. Today, everything is manufactured with low cost and quick production in order to maximize profit. To lower costs in homes, you have subcontractor under subcontractor hiring folks who likely have had only weeks worth of training. Then there's cheaper materials on top of the poor quality... it's no wonder today's homes pale in comparison to those built even as early as 30 years ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Cheap-High-Cost-Discount-Culture/dp/0143117637
Many of the great older homes could not be built today, simply due to the lack of materials, and skills. Certainly no styrofoam and stucco homes were build on slabs in the older neighborhoods.
Quote from: mbwright on September 28, 2012, 09:28:32 AM
Many of the great older homes could not be built today, simply due to the lack of materials, and skills. Certainly no styrofoam and stucco homes were build on slabs in the older neighborhoods.
$$$$$$$$$
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on April 25, 2012, 06:26:32 PM
Come on down to Springfield and buy a 100-year-old house with old growth wood so hard you can't drive a nail in it unless you pre-drill it first. If the wall is framed with 2x4's, they are 2" by 4", not 1.5" by 3.5". The house isn't wrapped with plastic wrap (tyvex) and then clad with 3/8" siding. They are clad in solid wood siding, and often with real lath and plaster walls inside. They stand tall and strong after 100 years, because they were built properly to begin with. And with housing prices the way they are, they are available for no more, and sometimes less than, than the recent junk they are building.
Springfield has greatly improved since I remembered it (from back in 1990's). The homes there are really beautiful, and you can find fantastic deals. My only problem is that, until downtown Jacksonville can draw more interesting nightlife, Springfield has very little else going for it. To the east are mainly industrial complexes along the river. To the south, you have downtown -- which is pretty dead save for a few venues. North and west are some really rough neighborhoods (esp. around Pearl St)
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 26, 2012, 01:57:38 AM
Quote from: Timkin on April 26, 2012, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
I agree with this article 100%. I just bought a stucco home built in 2005 and it is not made out of anything. Just playing around I hit the wall and its hollow as hell. I was hammering the floorboard one day and the wall moved! lol by the time Im finish paying this house off, its going to be leaning to the side. They stopped building sturdy homes in the 80's. They just throw houses up these days.
What were you hammering the floorboard with Duval Dude? A Jackhammer? :o
Dont judge me! LOL I was attempting to screw in a doorstop and it was not cooperating. So I hammered it in there because I was getting aggravated. Maybe Im the reason the wall moved. Who knows!
Likely a bottom plate which was never properly fastened to the slab/floor. Most likely an oversight. Did you get it fixed satisfactorily?
Houses built in the 80's and even into the nineties were far less sturdy. In the eighties, it was permissible to staple roof sheathing to the trusses/rafters. Many exterior walls were sheathed with thermaply (more or less thin paperboard faced with foil) or blackboard (porous, flexibl and soft fiber board coated with petroleum).
If we're talking block construction, I would say that in some ways, it was superior to current "stick framed" construction of today, if ignoring the 2" staples holding down the roof sheathing.
In CMU (concrete masonary unit) construction today, there is rebar in the slab, connected to rebar in concrete "columns" poured within the block (every four feet and at corners/openings), and tied to a lentil (steel reinforce beam around the entire perimiter at the top of the wall. Far superior to the hollow blockwork of the eighties.
Stucco cracks. I would agree about slabs poured in OP by the track home builders mentioned earlier. Zero compaction. Could be fine, could be bad.
Quote from: themathochist on September 27, 2012, 11:43:00 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 26, 2012, 08:33:14 AM
Quote from: strider on April 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
The primary difference between that 100 year old house and the new 2012 house is indeed the structural materials. Remember that picture from Katrina with the 100 plus year old house still standing while the development built around it was leveled? That is why there is a ton of steel in these new houses, to reinforce the wood used to build them. The old wood needed no such reinforcement. And yes, I also believe balloon framing and allowing the structure to breath is something lacking in today's construction. At least in places like Florida.
I tend to disagree with your first statement. I would say that the primary difference is craftmanship. I was taught the proper way to build, but when things were booming, it was impossible to adhere to those standards. When I started out as an apprentice, we would be on a slab for about 6-8 days - nothing to dried in & punched out. At the peak of the boom, (I was now a PM with a national builder), my production schedule, set by people sititng in an office, told me I had to have the houses up in 3 days. So how do you make up the time? Instead of crews making 1 trip and doing everything, the framing process was broken up into about 3-4 different trips so that the money would stay flowing.
What we lost was:
1.) Accountibility, the framing sub would send different crews that would always, ALWAYS, bitch about the work that was done.
2.) Dependability - no one wanted to come do punch work - they had already collected their draw and punching out homes costs money and time (read money).
3.) Ability - due to the massive amount of work that was being done, pretty much anyone who could swing a hammer carry a nailgun was working. We were lucky if one guy on the job could read prints.
I think it's both, and mainly due to "mass production" -- and it's not just homes but almost every consumer good. Today, everything is manufactured with low cost and quick production in order to maximize profit. To lower costs in homes, you have subcontractor under subcontractor hiring folks who likely have had only weeks worth of training. Then there's cheaper materials on top of the poor quality... it's no wonder today's homes pale in comparison to those built even as early as 30 years ago.
More than anything... as in the single largest factor... was easy money. Housing bubble. Created by easy money from the fed to primary dealers, to retail banks, to homebuyers and speculators. Housing was outperforming stocks. Hence, artificially increased demand. I was framing. I didn't understand any of this. After 07/08... I had plenty of time to reseach what the hell went wrong.
Sloppy assembly line assembly is a curse of modern techniques, but by and large the biggest difference is in the materials. Up until about 1920, they were still cutting down massive virgin cypress, cedar, redwoods, fir, oak, maples etc. Some of those trees filled entire rail cars in width, and some consisted of more then a trainload of logs. Look at the grain in this 100 year old lumber and it's completely different then the fast growth we see today. Stone was the real deal, cut by artisans, and tiles were just as likely to be hand made, each and every one being carried to the kiln by its creator.
Joints were made using dovetails, or box joints, many fixtures, furnishings and even furniture did not use a single screw or nail. Large wooden beams were joined by the scarfing method, each piece overlapping and locked in place. dowels and pegs were tapped by hand into boards that didn't crumble or split.
In some ways the finishing materials were inferior, lead paint, and varnish that yellowed with time. The stains however were oils, lovingly hand rubbed following a single direction and single motion method. Wax was also used to lift the grain and make it standout.
We just don't know how, have the time, or for the most part care to build like this anymore. Antique construction is tough if not impossible without solid antique materials. Lacquer coated, brass plated, plastic or cheap alloy metals that rust through are no substitute for the real deal.
And now you know why I, OCKLAWAHA, HATE the cheap, saw dust and plastic Potato Chip Trucks-Think They're Trolley's. PCT trolley's should all be turned into artificial reefs or homes for wayward sea slugs. But JTA still thinks modern buses are sexy, well, if they are, then why aren't that making streetcars that look like buses.
Here is a 3 photograph story of a streetcar found in Minnesota, try this restoration with a PCT and see how far you get. And yes, ALL 3 photos are of the same vehicle.
(http://inlinethumb26.webshots.com/44249/2909047390104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
(http://inlinethumb62.webshots.com/42941/2691572030104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
(http://inlinethumb12.webshots.com/50763/2892807770104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Once common in virgin stands along rivers and tidal swamplands of Florida, the finest cypress grew where the land was submerged most of the year. Cypress logs estimated by scientists to be at least 100,000 years old were unearthed in excavations for the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Heart cypress was logged right along with the longleaf heart pine in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, though the cypress forests were not clear-cut like the heart pine. Loggers would hand cut the heart cypress trees and drag them by oxen or mule teams to the riverbanks. There they would lash the logs together and float the raft to downstream sawmills, several of which were in Jacksonville and Palatka. Today few trees are 100 years old, leftovers from the previous century's logging.
The wood from young cypress trees does not compare to the rich-toned heartwood of original-growth heart cypress. Over the years, Bald Cypress developed resistance to water and insects, not found in other woods. It was also a favorite building material of Frank Lloyd Wright.
(http://inlinethumb09.webshots.com/50824/2673702750104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Here you can see an entire train car filled by a single massive cypress log.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-myV2EIQ9aE4/UGfAXPjKK2I/AAAAAAAAGEo/0mPnKCfWvAc/s640/Screen%252520Shot%2525202012-09-29%252520at%25252011.39.51%252520PM.png)
Compare this image from modern times with the early Florida images above and below and the quality of the product becomes very apparent.
(http://inlinethumb62.webshots.com/51581/2360566100104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Log train in Lacoochee, Florida.
My mother came to Jacksonville in the early 1930's to work for the Cummer Lumber Company. She described Cypress trees so large coming out of the swamps that a single log was as wide as a truck. They cut it all. Modern power machinery made it possible to get into the swamps and get the cypress out.
Cummer Art Museum grew out of the cypress fortune of the Cummer family.
And there's still a lucrative niche market for those willing to dive down and get the logs that still remain on the bottom of the river beds and in the swamps. Due to cypress' resistence to water, rot and insect, the logs that are still submerged from yeseteryear are worth quite a bit to the right buyer.
It's just not the cypress. Old growth "Heart" pine survives just fine in the dark and cold muck.
Quote from: strider on September 30, 2012, 12:31:38 PM
It's just not the cypress. Old growth "Heart" pine survives just fine in the dark and cold muck.
A logger friend pulled some up while he was diving for cypress and the sap was so crystallized that the wood was unworkable - almost brittle - made for some really hot, burning firewood, though. :-\
Beg to differ, Mathochist. What Springfield has going for it is Springfield. It's a great place to live with amazing, caring neighbors. Parties, events, non-stop fun. There is a lot to do downtown already, and when there is more, we'll have even more fun stuff we can walk or bike to. Oh, and I beg to disagree about your characterization of Pearl St too.
Plus, back to the original subject, our homes are amazing. :-)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 30, 2012, 12:55:29 PM
Quote from: strider on September 30, 2012, 12:31:38 PM
It's just not the cypress. Old growth "Heart" pine survives just fine in the dark and cold muck.
A logger friend pulled some up while he was diving for cypress and the sap was so crystallized that the wood was unworkable - almost brittle - made for some really hot, burning firewood, though. :-\
QuoteGoodwin Heart Pine is a company located in Micanopy, Florida and specializes in reclaiming antique heart pine and heart cypress from rivers and old buildings to produce lumber for flooring, stair parts and millwork. Goodwin's product range also includes other sustainable and rare woods, including wild black cherry. Goodwin Heart Pine also produces precision-engineered wood flooring, from these specialty woods. The company has a unique focus of harvesting resin-saturated deadhead logs from rivers that loggers felled in the 1800s, which sank due to their high resin content.[1] The interior of the reclaimed logs is typically preserved by the tree's resin.[1]
And a link to recent pictures:
http://threeriversheartpine.com/photo-gallery/
I would suppose that not every log makes it and not every location has the best conditions to preserve the old wood, but it is a common practise and lots of new flooring and trim are made from river salvaged heart pine logs.
Quote from: buckethead on September 29, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
In CMU (concrete masonary unit) construction today, there is rebar in the slab, connected to rebar in concrete "columns" poured within the block (every four feet and at corners/openings), and tied to a lentil (steel reinforce beam around the entire perimiter at the top of the wall. Far superior to the hollow blockwork of the eighties.
Filled cell column rebar spacing varies with structural engineer and the building. I've seen them in every cell, every other, and greater. A pilaster made from a 16" x 16" block in a normal 8" x 16" wall can make it even stronger but oddly shaped. More significant would be the bond beam or header beam dimensions that tie all the "columns" together at the top and intermediate beams in tall walls.
Masons are often bad fill cell installers. They tend to use mortar to fill the cells when concrete is called for. Concrete is higher strength. Mortar is lower strength made to hold masonry together not so much a column.
The truss or rafter connection is often just a toe nail connection in pre-Andrew homes which if the staples on the roof sheathing, often only 7/16 CDX plywood, hold the toenail connections fail and the whole roof structure can peel off a block home in a big blow. Today's connections have clips at ever truss to tie the roof structure to the bolted plate on top of the CMU wall. .............which relies on a lot of 6# common nails and sheet metal. But we've done pull tests on those connections and found them remarkably strong. Just put enough nails in. Pre-Andrew clip spacing was 30" centers. which some how became every other truss which might be a 16" or 24" center to center layout. Which none of them measured out to 30" cc.
Another "forever" building method in addition to CMU are ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) which are frequently used in the coastal high wind zones. They look like big Lego blocks made of styrofoam that are hollow in the middle and held together with plastic or wire straps.
A wall is assembled like a Lego wall with horizontal and vertical steel reinforcing rods then a small aggregate concrete is pumped into the hollows. You end up with a 6" thick reinforced concrete wall with two inches of styrofoam insulation on the inside and outside. Windproof and really high R value.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 01, 2012, 10:14:13 AM
Another "forever" building method in addition to CMU are ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) which are frequently used in the coastal high wind zones. They look like big Lego blocks made of styrofoam that are hollow in the middle and held together with plastic or wire straps.
A wall is assembled like a Lego wall with horizontal and vertical steel reinforcing rods then a small aggregate concrete is pumped into the hollows. You end up with a 6" thick reinforced concrete wall with two inches of styrofoam insulation on the inside and outside. Windproof and really high R value.
^^^ This. I worked on a project last year at Jax Beach that used this method of construction and found it to be considerably advantageous in many aspects - with the sole exception being initial cost. But I think the residual benefits far outweigh those costs.
Quote from: Overstreet on October 01, 2012, 08:17:45 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 29, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
In CMU (concrete masonary unit) construction today, there is rebar in the slab, connected to rebar in concrete "columns" poured within the block (every four feet and at corners/openings), and tied to a lentil (steel reinforce beam around the entire perimiter at the top of the wall. Far superior to the hollow blockwork of the eighties.
Filled cell column rebar spacing varies with structural engineer and the building. I've seen them in every cell, every other, and greater. A pilaster made from a 16" x 16" block in a normal 8" x 16" wall can make it even stronger but oddly shaped. More significant would be the bond beam or header beam dimensions that tie all the "columns" together at the top and intermediate beams in tall walls.
Masons are often bad fill cell installers. They tend to use mortar to fill the cells when concrete is called for. Concrete is higher strength. Mortar is lower strength made to hold masonry together not so much a column.
The truss or rafter connection is often just a toe nail connection in pre-Andrew homes which if the staples on the roof sheathing, often only 7/16 CDX plywood, hold the toenail connections fail and the whole roof structure can peel off a block home in a big blow. Today's connections have clips at ever truss to tie the roof structure to the bolted plate on top of the CMU wall. .............which relies on a lot of 6# common nails and sheet metal. But we've done pull tests on those connections and found them remarkably strong. Just put enough nails in. Pre-Andrew clip spacing was 30" centers. which some how became every other truss which might be a 16" or 24" center to center layout. Which none of them measured out to 30" cc.
I'm no engineer, but IMO the typical H-clips used to hold down trusses are probably some of the most poorly designed, over engineered pieces used in home construction. Your typical H2.5 first is nailed into the side of a double top plate, and unless the installer is taking his time to lay everything out properly (they aren't) the nails are hitting into the weakest part of the wood, aside from the endgrain, and some nails fall into the space between the boards. And you can blame the installer, but I blame the designer - you have to design to the lowest common denominator. The straps need to be face nailed into all members in order to utilize the strength of the wood and the need to be designed with a quick intstallation in mind. They can't expect each clip to be spaced perfectly. And yes, I understand that this is where the over-engineering comes into play, but once a system fails, it fails.
Cost for ICF walls runs about 10% above CMU per linear foot, but interior finish goes faster and insurance and energy savings will offset the extra up-front cost pretty quickly.
I have one building with this method and will never use another method again.
I was under the impression that it was closer to the 30%-35% higher range....
His cost may have just been project specific - 3 story wall, existing homes on both sides of a narrow lot, at the beach, etc.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 01, 2012, 10:41:52 AM
Cost for ICF walls runs about 10% above CMU per linear foot, but interior finish goes faster and insurance and energy savings will offset the extra up-front cost pretty quickly.
I have one building with this method and will never use another method again.
I've done ICF houses before. Far and away superior to all others.
Added note: Styrofoam does not rot. Even CMU will. Especially on the north end of a building where mold can set in.
Little foam dots get all over. The neighbors will complain... really no containing them completely. Not a huge problem, IMO.
My building was only single story and I can see how a three story ICF building would be more than 10% above CMU. That's a lot of lifts and a really big pump!
[/quote]............... but IMO the typical H-clips used to hold down trusses are probably some of the most poorly designed, ................ Your typical H2.5 first is nailed into the side of a double top plate, [/quote]
H-clips that hold the edges of plywood together?.... ;)
True that a simpson strong tie, H2.5 nailed to one side of the truss can hit the plates at the joint and be weak. Anything like a H-10 that approaches a saddle is better. Any of them are relatively cheap compaired to say a sheet of plywood. Load 'em up. The best connection I saw was a red-iron clip(2) welded to the beam forming a saddle connection through bolted through the truss. It was a nice picnic pavillian with I'm sure a lot of uplift, not a house.
We did a whole bunch of buildings with welded liteguage framing, 10g top plate with wood trusses and Simpson Strong ties. All connections were screwed or bolted PE designed and many were pull tested. At the time liteguage trusses were three times the price of trusses.
I personnally prefer red-iron and bar joist, but that's another world.