Cracked Houses: What the Boom Built

[Ocklawaha]

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

[Know Growth]

  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!!

[riverside_mail]

What ever happened to pride in craftsmanship?

That got cut from the program in favor of the bottom line.

[Timkin]

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? 

[duvaldude08]

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? 

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!

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[strider]

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. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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.

[sheclown]

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. 

[strider]

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. 

[Timkin]

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? 

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 !  ..  I'm just teasin you bud 

[Know Growth]

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".