Flimsy new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Damn there's a lot of misinformation on this thread.

A well-built house today is better made than at any time in history. The engineered lumber being used today, like I-joists and sheet goods, is far more uniform than materials that were used in the past. Uniformity means consistency, which means straighter walls and floors.

A floor supported by I-joists and sheathed with Advantech is going to be flatter, stiffer, quieter and able to span greater distances than anything made with natural materials.


Two things are important to energy efficiency: insulation level and air-tightness. Houses today are routinely being built to air-tightness levels that would have been unimaginable even 20 years ago. Compared to code-minimum today houses from most of the 20th century would be considered essentially un-insulated.

Brick is not energy-efficient construction. It has almost no insulating value and is difficult to air seal.

I agree with what you are saying about materials, but the quality of work in these mass produced houses is sub par at best.

My house from the 2000s has: bathroom drains sloped the wrong direction, romex wire sandwiched between drywall and studs, electrical connections buried in insulation behind drywall, no junction boxes behind light fixtures (very common), porch constructed of non pressure treated wood (maintenance nightmare), crappy drywall work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very very few homes built today are well built. The vast majority just barely meet the current building code.

What are areas where you would pay for construction that exceeds code?

We just built a custom home and I also watched & learned from my parents building a home almost 30 years ago. I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about 'building to code'. Its being misapplied, I think, to mean 'inferior'. But "code' is a broad term that covers everything from carbon monoxide & fire detection systems, to wind truss bracing for.your roof. So let's take the roof example: how much load (wind, snow, seismic forces) your roof needs to be able to withstand is calculated by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and that's what referenced for your local code standards. So home plans have to meet that code, and those standards have changed over time as we do better science (ie, local conditions change and are measured, new materials become available, etc). So building to code is a good thing.

What people I think are confusing here is WORKMANSHIP as weil as building performance. You can have crappy workmanship or great workmanship--but that is not limited to some magical time period. I assure you, there was bad workmanship on 1950's homes too. Its just been ignored or corrected over the years. They are also mixing taste or aesthetics. You may think brick looks nicer than vinyl siding. Me too! **Spoiler, neither are great insulators. That is a design choice based on cost and availability and maybe changing aesthetics. Its not really a code issue. People see brick on modern houses and don't realize its brick veneer. Yes, someone mortered the brick, but behind it is still tyvek sheathing, for example. True brick had to have something else--you will find all sorts of stuff when you open up 1950's or 60's homes-horsehair plaster, asbestos. If brick and plaster was done well on YOUR 1950's home, congratulations. But they weren't all that way.

So back to your question. Our house was built to code. But there were certain areas where we valued additional performance. "Code" was perfectly safe, and when it comes to energy efficiency, 'code' was far superior to 'code' for my parents house. But we prioritized the following, and went further;
1. Energy efficiency -- we did 2x6 framing instead of 2x4. This gave us wider spacing for more insulation, and R-20 rather than r-15 (house stays cooler in summer, warmer in winter) and reduces load on our HVAC.
2. HVAC - we did a 5 stage heat pump system, rather than a 2 stage or old school systems that either on or off. Think of this like a dimmer switch for your system. Again, you don't have to do this. You'll be comfortable in a modern build--but we did the numbers since we don't plan to move anytime soon and the payback for lower utility bills was worth it.
3. Foundation--we waterproofed it, rather than damp proofing. Not strictly necessary because of where we live, but with a basement it was extra insurance against water issues.

I could go on (and on), but you get the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive new build going up in our neighborhood, a size that sells in the $2-3 million range. It looks so flimsy! Entire above ground framing is just boards and particle board. Do people not worry about how solid these new builds are? We are a bit shocked and wonder what we are not understanding.

Modern wood framing is not just the cheap version of brick or concrete. It is a different engineering system.

Wood has a very high strength-to-weight ratio. Structural lumber can have tensile strength in the range of roughly 7,000-15,000 psi, while normal concrete may handle 3,000-5,000 psi in compression but is very weak in tension unless reinforced. That matters because houses do not just sit there under vertical weight. They also move, flex, expand, contract, and resist wind loads.

A wood-framed house works because the whole structure is tied together: studs, engineered beams, roof trusses, plywood or OSB sheathing, nails, straps, anchors, and shear walls. The sheathing is not just decorative "particle board." It helps stop the house from racking side to side, almost like a structural skin.

Wood also has advantages because it is lighter and more flexible. Heavy masonry can feel more solid, but heavy is not automatically better. In earthquakes, settlement, wind, and thermal movement, a lighter flexible structure can perform very well because it can absorb movement instead of simply cracking. Concrete and brick are excellent materials, but they need steel, reinforcement, drainage, and careful design to handle tension, movement, and moisture.

So the reason modern homes use engineered wood systems is not simply cost. It is because they are strong, efficient, lightweight, flexible, easier to insulate, and can be precisely engineered as a complete load-bearing system. Brick and concrete are not automatically superior. They are just different materials with different strengths and weaknesses.

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of accounts like this one. Makes me want to stay far away from new builds
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX5LoX-vNBS/?igsh=MW4yYzJzbzJsMWxlZw==

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of accounts like this one. Makes me want to stay far away from new builds
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX5LoX-vNBS/?igsh=MW4yYzJzbzJsMWxlZw==

So you see a lot of homes in texas at a lower price point? which is expected with these "issues" which are more finishing work not flimsly etc newsflash this happens with old homes as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of accounts like this one. Makes me want to stay far away from new builds
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX5LoX-vNBS/?igsh=MW4yYzJzbzJsMWxlZw==

So you see a lot of homes in texas at a lower price point? which is expected with these "issues" which are more finishing work not flimsly etc newsflash this happens with old homes as well.

I don't understand your writing. Please try again in English, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of accounts like this one. Makes me want to stay far away from new builds
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX5LoX-vNBS/?igsh=MW4yYzJzbzJsMWxlZw==

I would not want to buy this either. It’s shoddy workmanship. But you can’t condemn all new builds over an IG post. Just like I won’t condemn all existing builds because some of them have janky wiring or substandard insulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very very few homes built today are well built. The vast majority just barely meet the current building code.

What are areas where you would pay for construction that exceeds code?

We just built a custom home and I also watched & learned from my parents building a home almost 30 years ago. I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about 'building to code'. Its being misapplied, I think, to mean 'inferior'. But "code' is a broad term that covers everything from carbon monoxide & fire detection systems, to wind truss bracing for.your roof. So let's take the roof example: how much load (wind, snow, seismic forces) your roof needs to be able to withstand is calculated by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and that's what referenced for your local code standards. So home plans have to meet that code, and those standards have changed over time as we do better science (ie, local conditions change and are measured, new materials become available, etc). So building to code is a good thing.

What people I think are confusing here is WORKMANSHIP as weil as building performance. You can have crappy workmanship or great workmanship--but that is not limited to some magical time period. I assure you, there was bad workmanship on 1950's homes too. Its just been ignored or corrected over the years. They are also mixing taste or aesthetics. You may think brick looks nicer than vinyl siding. Me too! **Spoiler, neither are great insulators. That is a design choice based on cost and availability and maybe changing aesthetics. Its not really a code issue. People see brick on modern houses and don't realize its brick veneer. Yes, someone mortered the brick, but behind it is still tyvek sheathing, for example. True brick had to have something else--you will find all sorts of stuff when you open up 1950's or 60's homes-horsehair plaster, asbestos. If brick and plaster was done well on YOUR 1950's home, congratulations. But they weren't all that way.

So back to your question. Our house was built to code. But there were certain areas where we valued additional performance. "Code" was perfectly safe, and when it comes to energy efficiency, 'code' was far superior to 'code' for my parents house. But we prioritized the following, and went further;
1. Energy efficiency -- we did 2x6 framing instead of 2x4. This gave us wider spacing for more insulation, and R-20 rather than r-15 (house stays cooler in summer, warmer in winter) and reduces load on our HVAC.
2. HVAC - we did a 5 stage heat pump system, rather than a 2 stage or old school systems that either on or off. Think of this like a dimmer switch for your system. Again, you don't have to do this. You'll be comfortable in a modern build--but we did the numbers since we don't plan to move anytime soon and the payback for lower utility bills was worth it.
3. Foundation--we waterproofed it, rather than damp proofing. Not strictly necessary because of where we live, but with a basement it was extra insurance against water issues.

I could go on (and on), but you get the idea.

Thank you for this thoughtful and accurate post. I'm the PP you're responding to and I agree with what you're saying, particularly with people confusing workmanship with code. I'll add that a variable in this is code enforcement, which varies enormously by jurisdiction. Poor workmanship is generally against code.

I also agree that there is no reason to believe that workmanship from any particular era is better than any other era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive new build going up in our neighborhood, a size that sells in the $2-3 million range. It looks so flimsy! Entire above ground framing is just boards and particle board. Do people not worry about how solid these new builds are? We are a bit shocked and wonder what we are not understanding.

Modern wood framing is not just the cheap version of brick or concrete. It is a different engineering system.

Wood has a very high strength-to-weight ratio. Structural lumber can have tensile strength in the range of roughly 7,000-15,000 psi, while normal concrete may handle 3,000-5,000 psi in compression but is very weak in tension unless reinforced. That matters because houses do not just sit there under vertical weight. They also move, flex, expand, contract, and resist wind loads.

A wood-framed house works because the whole structure is tied together: studs, engineered beams, roof trusses, plywood or OSB sheathing, nails, straps, anchors, and shear walls. The sheathing is not just decorative "particle board." It helps stop the house from racking side to side, almost like a structural skin.

Wood also has advantages because it is lighter and more flexible. Heavy masonry can feel more solid, but heavy is not automatically better. In earthquakes, settlement, wind, and thermal movement, a lighter flexible structure can perform very well because it can absorb movement instead of simply cracking. Concrete and brick are excellent materials, but they need steel, reinforcement, drainage, and careful design to handle tension, movement, and moisture.

So the reason modern homes use engineered wood systems is not simply cost. It is because they are strong, efficient, lightweight, flexible, easier to insulate, and can be precisely engineered as a complete load-bearing system. Brick and concrete are not automatically superior. They are just different materials with different strengths and weaknesses.

To add on to this, modern buildings are engineered, older houses weren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive new build going up in our neighborhood, a size that sells in the $2-3 million range. It looks so flimsy! Entire above ground framing is just boards and particle board. Do people not worry about how solid these new builds are? We are a bit shocked and wonder what we are not understanding.

Modern wood framing is not just the cheap version of brick or concrete. It is a different engineering system.

Wood has a very high strength-to-weight ratio. Structural lumber can have tensile strength in the range of roughly 7,000-15,000 psi, while normal concrete may handle 3,000-5,000 psi in compression but is very weak in tension unless reinforced. That matters because houses do not just sit there under vertical weight. They also move, flex, expand, contract, and resist wind loads.

A wood-framed house works because the whole structure is tied together: studs, engineered beams, roof trusses, plywood or OSB sheathing, nails, straps, anchors, and shear walls. The sheathing is not just decorative "particle board." It helps stop the house from racking side to side, almost like a structural skin.

Wood also has advantages because it is lighter and more flexible. Heavy masonry can feel more solid, but heavy is not automatically better. In earthquakes, settlement, wind, and thermal movement, a lighter flexible structure can perform very well because it can absorb movement instead of simply cracking. Concrete and brick are excellent materials, but they need steel, reinforcement, drainage, and careful design to handle tension, movement, and moisture.

So the reason modern homes use engineered wood systems is not simply cost. It is because they are strong, efficient, lightweight, flexible, easier to insulate, and can be precisely engineered as a complete load-bearing system. Brick and concrete are not automatically superior. They are just different materials with different strengths and weaknesses.

To add on to this, modern buildings are engineered, older houses weren't.

This simply is false.

PEs who are civil engineers have been involved in building code specification for many decades. And building blueprints also have needed PE / Architect approvals for many years.

[Anonymous]

The workmanship/code poster is very helpful. I read the article and was screaming inside "flashing details!" "roofing details!" "siding details!" The beam didn't turn to brisket because of poor framing; bulk water infiltration caused by shoddy exterior flashing and finish work did that (and sometimes poor design exacerbates it). The "code" enforcement rarely deals with or checks any of the roofing or siding. And what passes for window flashing can be mediocre at best. HVAC is another crapshoot. Check out GreenBuildingAdvisor and you can find articles galore by building science gurus about the chronic problems of oversized systems, imbalanced air supplies, and poor insulation and air sealing all contributing to poor air quality and humidity levels. Most HVAC companies do a Manual J, then install a bigger system and run crappy flex duct with high friction, and the field installation methods are often sub-par. Put all these together and you get a crap finish out of a 1.5-2.5 mil. house.

[Anonymous]

In my experience, HVAC companies talk about Manual-J but then do not actually run a Manual-J calculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The workmanship/code poster is very helpful. I read the article and was screaming inside "flashing details!" "roofing details!" "siding details!" The beam didn't turn to brisket because of poor framing; bulk water infiltration caused by shoddy exterior flashing and finish work did that (and sometimes poor design exacerbates it). The "code" enforcement rarely deals with or checks any of the roofing or siding. And what passes for window flashing can be mediocre at best. HVAC is another crapshoot. Check out GreenBuildingAdvisor and you can find articles galore by building science gurus about the chronic problems of oversized systems, imbalanced air supplies, and poor insulation and air sealing all contributing to poor air quality and humidity levels. Most HVAC companies do a Manual J, then install a bigger system and run crappy flex duct with high friction, and the field installation methods are often sub-par. Put all these together and you get a crap finish out of a 1.5-2.5 mil. house.

I do HVAC for a living; in theory new construction work should be perfect. The equipment and system design are spec'd already and you have wide open spaces to work. Reality is the contractors that do work for the Toll Brothers of the world cut every corner possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very very few homes built today are well built. The vast majority just barely meet the current building code.

What are areas where you would pay for construction that exceeds code?

We just built a custom home and I also watched & learned from my parents building a home almost 30 years ago. I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about 'building to code'. Its being misapplied, I think, to mean 'inferior'. But "code' is a broad term that covers everything from carbon monoxide & fire detection systems, to wind truss bracing for.your roof. So let's take the roof example: how much load (wind, snow, seismic forces) your roof needs to be able to withstand is calculated by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and that's what referenced for your local code standards. So home plans have to meet that code, and those standards have changed over time as we do better science (ie, local conditions change and are measured, new materials become available, etc). So building to code is a good thing.

What people I think are confusing here is WORKMANSHIP as weil as building performance. You can have crappy workmanship or great workmanship--but that is not limited to some magical time period. I assure you, there was bad workmanship on 1950's homes too. Its just been ignored or corrected over the years. They are also mixing taste or aesthetics. You may think brick looks nicer than vinyl siding. Me too! **Spoiler, neither are great insulators. That is a design choice based on cost and availability and maybe changing aesthetics. Its not really a code issue. People see brick on modern houses and don't realize its brick veneer. Yes, someone mortered the brick, but behind it is still tyvek sheathing, for example. True brick had to have something else--you will find all sorts of stuff when you open up 1950's or 60's homes-horsehair plaster, asbestos. If brick and plaster was done well on YOUR 1950's home, congratulations. But they weren't all that way.

So back to your question. Our house was built to code. But there were certain areas where we valued additional performance. "Code" was perfectly safe, and when it comes to energy efficiency, 'code' was far superior to 'code' for my parents house. But we prioritized the following, and went further;
1. Energy efficiency -- we did 2x6 framing instead of 2x4. This gave us wider spacing for more insulation, and R-20 rather than r-15 (house stays cooler in summer, warmer in winter) and reduces load on our HVAC.
2. HVAC - we did a 5 stage heat pump system, rather than a 2 stage or old school systems that either on or off. Think of this like a dimmer switch for your system. Again, you don't have to do this. You'll be comfortable in a modern build--but we did the numbers since we don't plan to move anytime soon and the payback for lower utility bills was worth it.
3. Foundation--we waterproofed it, rather than damp proofing. Not strictly necessary because of where we live, but with a basement it was extra insurance against water issues.

I could go on (and on), but you get the idea.

Appreciate your long post but sorry to break it you - heap pumps are trash. If your parents did not have natural gas, then they should have used a propane tank. Also, best hvac practice is separate ductwork and hvac for each zone or level (depending size of home). The multiple zoning, multi system hvac is a gimmick promoted by low grade production builders and the hvac industry .As for brick veneer vs solid masonry, there is an ongoing debate particularly with today’s tighter homes and brick veneer being a superior practice for moisture management. Also, brick veneer is far superior to any exterior cladding in terms of energy efficiency (thermal mass) low maintenance, noise reduction, etc c. Signed - custom builder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen three new build houses in our neighborhood have to be rebuilt within months after they were occupied. There was a huge lawsuit over a similar situation on Foxhall: https://washingtonian.com/2022/04/13/a-real-estate-nightmare-on-foxhall-road/

Ahem... https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1522-Foxhall-Rd-NW-20007/home/9939317

Insane that the sellers thought they could mark these up by $800k after the well publicized issued these houses have experienced, even calling them “lemons.”