I used to own one of these houses, built in the early 1920s. It was surprisingly well built and a very comfortable plan, though at 1460 square feet it was small by modern standards. Also, a well in the basement. Creeeepy.
I grew up in a Sears house. Not this exact model, but the floorplan was the same. It was a good fit for two parents and one kid, and was surprisingly well made. Later in their lives my parents could afford to move into a newer, larger, much more expensive house, and they had far more problems with it than they ever did with the old 20s vintage Sears shack.
The average $250K house isn't as solidly built as one of these houses. I've heard this fact attributed to the feverish construction pace inspired by the housing bubble, but I don't buy that. The Levittown-era mass-produced houses built for a factory worker were more solid than the mini-mansions we build for modern executives.
Part of it's down to the lumber stock, and I'm not just talking about changes in gross lumber dimensions. Take two boards of the exact same measured dimensions, from the same variety of tree. The pine wall stud milled in the 20's from old-growth pine will be a hell of a lot stronger than a contemporary one milled from young-growth pine. (And much harder to work with. Try putting drywall into an old house and discover that the screw clutches made for modern construction utterly fail when they're driving into wood with tight grain. If you're using nails, you'll want a heavier hammer.)
I think a lot of it has to do with the quality of the labor. We're not willing to pay for actual carpenters anymore. One of these houses would be built with at least a foreman on site that was certified as a carpenter. A modern tract? The guy running each house site will have a few years of experience, but no probably no formal training in woodworking.
These days, you're supposed to pre-drill when putting screws into dense wood. Presumably they did that then, too. Also they probably nailed the laths rather than screwing drywall?
I don't think it's just new vs old growth, incidentally -- it seems like they've even genetically selected quicker qrowing species.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 01:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 04:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 06:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 02:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-10 12:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 04:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 05:56 pm (UTC)Part of it's down to the lumber stock, and I'm not just talking about changes in gross lumber dimensions. Take two boards of the exact same measured dimensions, from the same variety of tree. The pine wall stud milled in the 20's from old-growth pine will be a hell of a lot stronger than a contemporary one milled from young-growth pine. (And much harder to work with. Try putting drywall into an old house and discover that the screw clutches made for modern construction utterly fail when they're driving into wood with tight grain. If you're using nails, you'll want a heavier hammer.)
I think a lot of it has to do with the quality of the labor. We're not willing to pay for actual carpenters anymore. One of these houses would be built with at least a foreman on site that was certified as a carpenter. A modern tract? The guy running each house site will have a few years of experience, but no probably no formal training in woodworking.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-10 02:48 pm (UTC)Bingo.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-15 01:50 pm (UTC)I don't think it's just new vs old growth, incidentally -- it seems like they've even genetically selected quicker qrowing species.