The temporary nature of “modern” stucco house is still not well understood by Asian buyers, particular the older generation.  It is ironic that, seeing how some of the older (5-10 yrs old) structures deteroriate, some Asian buyers became less interested in resale market, and apt for the new house construction, only to be even more disappointed by the lack of longivity.

Interesting sub-discussion regarding the longevity of the structures. Over time, both the material and craftsmenship has steadily changed. 

I know BK briefly touched on it at a macro level in Irvine or Huntington thread

I see other bits in other threads Who builds the best homes

I suppose I could data mine and compile what I’m looking for however I frankly don’t have enough knowledge to really breakdown the main shifts in construction, architecture, relative craftsmenship and materials.  We have pre-1945 homes, built to last.  Post ‘45 to pre-80s homes with a range of materials and construction issues, then the post 80 era in which materials changed and architecture shifted on a regular cycle.  Add in the post 90 move to density.  I think it would be really interesting to get them synopsised out to a over view to identify likely design defects, material factors or construction concerns by building/architectural era.

We have the builder concerns but then there’s just the issues of stucco box longevity that were built in the 80s and what core issues you’ll have in the twenty-teens.

As NSR, I’m curious too.

What is the expected lifespan of houses built in various decades?

1900-1945=200yr?

1945-1965=100yr?

1965-1985=80yr?

1985-2005-50yr?

anyone with good insight?  BK?

Does not apply to most of the houses here, but in New England, many houses were build during pre-colonial time, and still very structurally sound.

I think bk has a dislike for houses that were build between end of WW-II to 1989.

Astute Observer - 02 October 2008 10:35 AM

Does not apply to most of the houses here, but in New England, many houses were build during pre-colonial time, and still very structurally sound.

I think bk has a dislike for houses that were build between end of WW-II to 1989.

You are right most houses were poorly designed and built during that era and I do not like them. I particularly dislike the cookie cutter galore in OC built during this period from Bellflower to San Clemente.

Few houses impressed me during that 50 years span and here are some samplers.

Marcel Breuer 1947

Gerald Colcord 1949

Paul Rudolph 1955

John Lautner 1956

Richard Neutra 1958

Richard Meier 1972

Robert Stern 1978

Astute Observer - 02 October 2008 10:35 AM

Does not apply to most of the houses here, but in New England, many houses were build during pre-colonial time, and still very structurally sound.

I think bk has a dislike for houses that were build between end of WW-II to 1989.

Longevity of home is like a relationship. Pride, care, and maintenance are what prolong the life of a home.

Most of the cherished neighborhoods today were built between 1900 and 1945. The homes were designed with simple roofs and simple forms. Most of them were well proportioned boxes. The honesty and clarity of the house design are the reasons why homeowners all across America love to restore and cherish the legacy of the classic houses ranging from New England Colonial Salt box to the Craftsman bungalows in California. Recently, the mid Century Modern also was added to the pedigree.

I have seen homes across America and I noticed homes with good aesthetics were often well built with excellent materials All of the neighborhoods were circa 1945 and older. Here in OC we have Lemon Heights, Cowan Heights, Old Tustin, Newport Heights, Floral Park, Old Town Orange and Villa Park. It is proven that these neighborhoods hold RE value because the architecture and construction were superior. People took care of them because they were proud. Most homes in these neighborhoods were heirloom to the heirs. All of the homes were built for one family at a time.

Homes with bad design and bad proportions came with bad craftsmanship and inferior materials and consistently were planned after 1945. To name a few towns near OC are Bellflower, Stanton, Cypress, Hawaiian Garden, Buena Park, Lakewood, La Mirada, Garden Grove and Costa Mesa. Newer does not mean better. Homeowners knew their habitat as shelters. Many were embarrassed and did care for them much. Those who found better opportunity they moved away. These homes end in probates. Many of these homes show early deterioration and people just gave up on them. Most homes were mass produced for one thousand families at a time.

BK,
  You have some very good taste there.  But as a structural engineer, I have to say those homes were not build with the cost, quick, quality methodology.  They were build with Quality, quality, quality stucture.  Cost is a distant second and producibility was a FAR third.  These homes are going to withstand quite alot and of course the maintence is very, very well take care of.

Look at alot of the Frank Lloyd Wright homes.  They are absolutely stunning homes (to me), but their upkeep is horrendous.  They leak, are drafty (poor/excessive air circulation), use improper material (improper mating materials, promotion of corrosion, etc. etc.). 

I feel that if you took a cookie cutter home and build it with a good crew that showed CARE in what they did, the home would be outstanding.  (Instead of the crew that has x hrs to completely x jobs).  Design/astethics not withstanding.

With homes moving to building with steel, I can see homes lasting alot longer, just a few items would make most regular homes last a very long time.

-bix

OK, but say you *had to* buy a cookie cutter home in HB, CM, GG, etc., would you buy one from the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s?

which will be the most sound, assuming normal maint. over the years?

Honestly it is difficult to say.  I know some homes put posts on 10”, 12”, 16” and 20” centers.  20” centers would be crazy to accept. the first little wiggle in the earth would send the house all over the place.  I’d have to do a inspection of the place to get an idea of what the construction was. 

Some old homes even used HARDWOOD for construction timbers, so they are going to last for a long while.  But then again, most modern construction will have better insulation, sometimes use steel and have to adhere to strict building codes. 

If I had to build a house to last for a while, I’d build it either out of solid stone using cased steel guides (brick, concrete, rammed earth, solid quarried stone, even adobe).  It will certainly be a challenge to design and build, but some of our oldest structures are build out of nothing more than earth, clay, water and wheat.

For me, i’d probably purchase an older home for astethics (arts and crafts).  But in doing so, i’d have to do a indepth investigation of the premesis.  Most older homes are not made to resist mold or termites (baring 80s usage of isocynate paints and pressure treated lumber).  As well as most older homes do not have as good insulative properties and are just generally not energy efficient.  I get to change all that and bring the home up to date, that is an extreme example of maintence in my eyes.

I can only say though, that you must investigate what you have before you know what it is and what it needs….

good luck
-bix

freedomCM - 03 October 2008 11:13 AM

OK, but say you *had to* buy a cookie cutter home in HB, CM, GG, etc., would you buy one from the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s?

which will be the most sound, assuming normal maint. over the years?

I would say the 50’s because this was still the era of post and beam construction and contractors did not learn to cheat yet.

During the 1960s expensive ridge beam went away and 2 cheap 2 x 8 nailed together was used as ridge. A 2 car garage at the front of the home.

During the 70’s experimentation of disasterous floor plans and ski roofs.

During the 80’s slightly improved floor plans but the exterior had more make-ups than Tammy Fay Baker.

bk, can you elaborate a bit more on the various contruction “cheats” than just the sentences above?  I am very interested in what ever info/perspective you have on this, and wonder if you can tell us a thing or two in case we look at the house that was constructed during the “Dark Age” of yours.

Astute Observer - 04 October 2008 09:09 PM

bk, can you elaborate a bit more on the various contruction “cheats” than just the sentences above?  I am very interested in what ever info/perspective you have on this, and wonder if you can tell us a thing or two in case we look at the house that was constructed during the “Dark Age” of yours.

During the 40’s -50’s most of the post and beam construction were exposed as part of the ceiling aesthetic. The underside of the pitch roof is exactly the same pitch that one sees outside the house. This type of framing is called conventional framing where the framers actually thought about the geometry and the mathematical calculations for proper joinery and rafter cuts. Framers back then actually went to some form of vocational college for technical trainings. During this era there were no energy mandate therefore the roof has no need for an attic for insulation and wall has large sheet of glass. Since most of the building components are exposed builders could not cheat.

During the 60s-70’s manufacturing of new building components allowed homes to be built much faster as most of framing components and architectural design were standardized for simplicity. Economy was a big factor as many of the home projects were managed by the government under FHA. People employed in construction were school drop-outs and parolees. Almost all homes produced during this era had a shallow pitch attic and the ceiling inside was flat with cottage cheese texture to conceal warps. Because the crawl space attic was there for loose fill insulation only therefore it was constructed without a floor.

I crawled into one of them and fell through the drywall ceiling. I also saw the ridge beam was absence and it was (2) 2x6s held together with a few nails. The ceiling beams were 2x4’s with no plywood holding them tightly in place. I lived in one of them. I also checked out hundreds of them and asked many home inspectors familiar with this era and locations such as Stanton, Cypress, Hawaiian Garden, Buena Park, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Lakewood, Bellflower, Artesia, North Long beach, Costa Mesa La Mirada, fountain valley and Norwalk.

The inspectors all agreed the method of construction were cheap and poorly executed. Slab concrete foundation was crumbling because the contractor removed some re-bars or all re-bars. Anything that the consumers could not see was removed. There was no moisture barrier laid on top of dirt before pouring a slab foundation so after 50 years of moisture contact with slab the process weaken the integrity of concrete as well as causing moisture capillary migration to the top of slab. However, moisture was trapped underneath flooring materials such as Vinyl composition tiles, Sheet Vinyl, Ceramic tiles, wood Floor and etc. Fungus and mold was evident when the flooring was removed.

Mud sill plate was rotted out because none of the lumber was pressure treated. All framing members were 2x full of knots and structurally unacceptable. Windows were all aluminum sliders with horizontal track that collected water, dirt, and corrosion. The windows were supposed to be the best invention and so was the Ford Pinto. The ground was never properly graded to encourage drainage to flow away from the homes. Drainage was a huge problem with these post war communities. Concrete slab was poorly mixed with improper water ratio and slab was only 3 inch thick. There is only a small elevated protection of the floor inside the home from the wet dirt outside the home. Any storm exceeding 3 inches could ruin the home by water seepage. As lots interlocked with the neighbors after 1940’s water routing and drainage design are paramount.

Home prior to 1940’s were built on big lots and there were plenty of room for water to escape without having the swale to channel close to the house foundation. All homes before that era were built with raised foundation to minimize the water penetration and flooding issues. Homes were also built by several men instead of many crews in an assembly line. You might ask what is wrong having a assembly line of crews?

Responsibility, accountability and pride are the essence of good work prior to 1940’s. Craftsmen were skillful with multiple trades in repairing noticeable errors while post 1940’s workers were trained in one specific task. Here is one fatal error in assembly line construction when the crew were scheduled to do their work and do not have the skill to recognize the work from the previous assembly line workers poorly executed or unfinished. The single foreman with all the knowledge is somewhere in one of the 300 homes being built and was no where to be found. The crew performed the specific task and forever buried the missing parts, mistakes, and a potential problem for the homeowner.

This building method is common today because of unskilled labor force. No one can catch the mistakes in every phase for every home. We are lucky when 10% of mistakes are prevented. Mistakes like specific nailing schedule for shear walls and other structural purpose will never be caught until it is too late. Many were plumbing, water proofing, cosmetic, and improper installation. The list is endless.

“I crawled into one of them and fell through the drywall ceiling. I also saw the ridge beam was absence and it was (2) 2x6s held together with a few nails. The ceiling beams were 2x4’s with no plywood holding them tightly in place.”

True, but by now, many of the 60s era homes have had their roofs replaced and the new roofs comply with newer standards with more substantial beams and plywood sheeting, especially if it is a concrete or tile roof.

“Home prior to 1940’s were built on big lots and there were plenty of room for water to escape without having the swale to channel close to the house foundation.”

New homes are so close together that the sides of the houses don’t get enough sunlight which greatly increases mold and rot.

“This building method is common today because of unskilled labor force.”

Some of the best taco trucks can be found during lunch time at housing developments under construction.

We just inherited my Mom`s home in Culver City after her death in February
this year. My Brother and Sister are living in it now.
It was built in 1947. 3 Bedroom single bath. Like 1200 Square.
Looks like some Termite damage in the roof and the Floor joists
dont feel that good either. Considering its 60 years. Its stood the test
of time. But personally it would take another $100K to get it back in decent shape.
You name it and its worn out. It needs to be gutted if expected to get a decent
price in this resale market. The newer homes across the street use more of the big lot
this home offers and go for $ 900K. So it may be the bulldozer for this puppy
and a new 2 story in its place. The construction was excellent for its time.
But the small rooms and single bath just dont make it attractive for the price
or make sense for a huge restoration project. As it sits it might get $ 500K.
Not bad for a $ 20K purchase in 1963.

Bacon, lettice and Tomato, 
  That is a awfully nice find.  I would probably just restore the house to near orig. condition (updated of course) with maybe a second Bath.  I would love a historic home, but 900k…  woo, that would be a big carrot to pass up.

-bix

High Gravity - 07 October 2008 01:29 PM

“I crawled into one of them and fell through the drywall ceiling. I also saw the ridge beam was absence and it was (2) 2x6s held together with a few nails. The ceiling beams were 2x4’s with no plywood holding them tightly in place.”

True, but by now, many of the 60s era homes have had their roofs replaced and the new roofs comply with newer standards with more substantial beams and plywood sheeting, especially if it is a concrete or tile roof.

True only for home replacing asphalt shingles with a heavier roof material such as clay or concrete. Few owners would do that with the extra expenses in strenthening the roof structure to withstand the additional loads. They would choose metal roof with stamped tile pattern before spending $12k to strengthen the roof. Most likely would re-roof with asphalt shingles.

BK’s aversion to homes built after WWII (with a few exceptions) is defined by several points. After WWII the Army Corps of Engineers took over a lot of the building and very quickly, craftsman, artisans, and exceptional details were lost because they were so busy building homes for returning vetrans.

Their construction was shoddy, the designs were poor and there was really no artistry involved. That doesnt mean that there werent exceptions, it just means that the majority were executed badly.

I think Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gheary were similar in terms of neither is/was particularly interested in function and both were/are driven by enormous egos. However, the people that live in FLW homes more than likely consider themselves to be the custodian of a “work of art” rather than the owner of just a home.

The reason a lot of Asian cultures buy new homes as there is no ancestors or ghosts tied to the house. A lot of the cultures worship ancestors and to have a used house with someone else’s ancestors tied to the house is not a viable option for them. This is more of the case for the older generation but the new generation will cave and only buy new as the family discusses everything and will never hear the end of it if they bought it used. If it is a rental then my guess all bets are off…

OCCOBRA - 08 October 2008 10:16 AM

The reason a lot of Asian cultures buy new homes as there is no ancestors or ghosts tied to the house. A lot of the cultures worship ancestors and to have a used house with someone else’s ancestors tied to the house is not a viable option for them. This is more of the case for the older generation but the new generation will cave and only buy new as the family discusses everything and will never hear the end of it if they bought it used. If it is a rental then my guess all bets are off…

Ever since watching the movie “Poltergeist” as a kid, I have always associated new housing tracts in So. Cal. with malevolent spirits.

NancyBotwin - 07 October 2008 07:02 PM

BK’s aversion to homes built after WWII (with a few exceptions) is defined by several points. After WWII the Army Corps of Engineers took over a lot of the building and very quickly, craftsman, artisans, and exceptional details were lost because they were so busy building homes for returning vetrans.

Their construction was shoddy, the designs were poor and there was really no artistry involved. That doesnt mean that there werent exceptions, it just means that the majority were executed badly.

I think Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gheary were similar in terms of neither is/was particularly interested in function and both were/are driven by enormous egos. However, the people that live in FLW homes more than likely consider themselves to be the custodian of a “work of art” rather than the owner of just a home.

I studied in a Frank Gehry designed school and the acoustics in the lecture halls was horrible.  With all of the exposed beams, duct work, and strangely shaped walls, you couldn’t hear the instructor if you were sitting more than halfway back of the room.  Some instructors even apologized to the students for the poor function of the lecture halls but were very proud it was designed by a world famous architect.

Ha-ha, High Gravity, are you a Loyola grad too?
Frank Geary to me is like the “Emperor’s Clothes” tale, somebody said in the beginning that he was a genius, and now everybody repeats what that first person said. He has no idea what he is doing, all of the buildings on our campus were so poorly designed and built that you can’t hear the professor even sitting at the front row, buildings look like somebody’s nightmare on both inside and outside, cracks everywhere, stupid twisted-metal type monuments in high traffic areas (I almost poked my eyes several times passing by), the ADA ramps are ridiculous in that in order to get to the building using them you have to walk like a mile even though the building is only 10-15 foot away from you, the air conditioning system doesn’t work, and the list goes on.
I laugh at anyone who say that Geary is a great architect!

OCCOBRA - 08 October 2008 10:16 AM

The reason a lot of Asian cultures buy new homes as there is no ancestors or ghosts tied to the house. A lot of the cultures worship ancestors and to have a used house with someone else’s ancestors tied to the house is not a viable option for them. This is more of the case for the older generation but the new generation will cave and only buy new as the family discusses everything and will never hear the end of it if they bought it used. If it is a rental then my guess all bets are off…

I never heard that as a reason from the people I talked to.  Interesting.  It would be a bad thing if someone died/murdered in the house, but I don’t think there is any negative aspect to Asian cultures due to ghost tied to a “used” house.  In many Southeastern culture, there are specific structures to “house” the spirts/ghosts, and the living quarters are not frequented or haunted by the dead unless there is some kind of curse due to awful circumstance of the death that make the ghost unrested and unsettled.  I don’t think asians are afraid of Caucasian ghosts

blackacre-seeker - 08 October 2008 09:32 PM

Ha-ha, High Gravity, are you a Loyola grad too?
Frank Geary to me is like the “Emperor’s Clothes” tale, somebody said in the beginning that he was a genius, and now everybody repeats what that first person said. He has no idea what he is doing, all of the buildings on our campus were so poorly designed and built that you can’t hear the professor even sitting at the front row, buildings look like somebody’s nightmare on both inside and outside, cracks everywhere, stupid twisted-metal type monuments in high traffic areas (I almost poked my eyes several times passing by), the ADA ramps are ridiculous in that in order to get to the building using them you have to walk like a mile even though the building is only 10-15 foot away from you, the air conditioning system doesn’t work, and the list goes on.
I laugh at anyone who say that Geary is a great architect!

Yeah, I went to Loyola.  I spent many inebriated hours trying to figure out what the strange sculptures were supposed to represent.

bkshopr - 02 October 2008 10:50 PM

Astute Observer - 02 October 2008 10:35 AM

Does not apply to most of the houses here, but in New England, many houses were build during pre-colonial time, and still very structurally sound.

I think bk has a dislike for houses that were build between end of WW-II to 1989.

Longevity of home is like a relationship. Pride, care, and maintenance are what prolong the life of a home.

Most of the cherished neighborhoods today were built between 1900 and 1945. The homes were designed with simple roofs and simple forms. Most of them were well proportioned boxes. The honesty and clarity of the house design are the reasons why homeowners all across America love to restore and cherish the legacy of the classic houses ranging f