Flimsy new builds?

[Anonymous]

We just built a custom home and I also watched & learned from my parents building a home almost 30 years ago.

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.

My lower energy bills (also got a heat pump water heater) and comfortably cool-in-summer and warm-in-winter-home will have to agree to disagree. And I didn't say the 'new build' home 30 years ago had a heat pump, it did not. Things have changed a lot since your heyday.

You might want to re-read my post. We are saying the exact same thing re brick veneer vs brick. Upthread (and generally) there are a lot of people claiming to like brick and its superior performance. You and I are in agreement that what people like is the look and performance of brick veneer.

Last but not least, my post mentioned a 5 stage HVAC system (this is how the system delivers air--output is adjusted at 40%, 55%, 70, 85 and 100% ). This has nothing to do with a multi zone system, which divides up your home into separate areas (zones).

When was the last time you built, did you say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We just built a custom home and I also watched & learned from my parents building a home almost 30 years ago.

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.

My lower energy bills (also got a heat pump water heater) and comfortably cool-in-summer and warm-in-winter-home will have to agree to disagree. And I didn't say the 'new build' home 30 years ago had a heat pump, it did not. Things have changed a lot since your heyday.

You might want to re-read my post. We are saying the exact same thing re brick veneer vs brick. Upthread (and generally) there are a lot of people claiming to like brick and its superior performance. You and I are in agreement that what people like is the look and performance of brick veneer.

Last but not least, my post mentioned a 5 stage HVAC system (this is how the system delivers air--output is adjusted at 40%, 55%, 70, 85 and 100% ). This has nothing to do with a multi zone system, which divides up your home into separate areas (zones).

When was the last time you built, did you say?





This year. Much like everything else, there have been “advances” in building construction - some good and others not so. Efficiency requirements as mandated by the Feds for everything from
Car to hvac have one purpose: to improve the environment. The manufactures then “market” these products to consumers like yourself who are fools. Is your 5-stage hvac really efficient, comfortable and will it last even 1/2 the life of the old?

[Anonymous]

Is your 5-stage hvac really efficient, comfortable and will it last even 1/2 the life of the old?

I have north of $100 Million of Carrier 5 Stage systems installed; They are workhorses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Par for the course these days. Buyers are looking for flash, and for maximum square footage, not quality and durability.

You couldn't give me one of these cardboard houses. Nothing but grief in the future with those.

As for what houses should be made of if not manufactured boards wrapped in plastic, try brick. It'll pay for itself in energy efficiency and durability. I love not having to deal with water leaking under vinyl siding and rotting out the plywood (almost guaranteed with today's construction standards.)

Over what time horizon? I'll answer for you: more than one lifetime. That's why it's not being done. People no longer have any expectation that their children or grandchildren are going to occupy their homes. So why would they build for paybacks measured in the dozens or hundreds of years?

There are Mennonite families living in stone farmhouses in the Cumberland valley that are 250 years old. Their families have lived in them for generations. But none of us are running that program. We're on DCUM.

My utilities are less than half per square foot what folks who live in newly build status-houses pay. Not total. Per square foot. Because I have bricks and thick framing and plaster, and they have cardboard. And I paid less for my house because it's not a Mcmansion, so to your question about over what time horizon? Now. The time is now.

Well yeah, I'll grant you that. If you buy an older, smaller house made of brick then yeah it's cheaper to buy and maintain. But the conversation was new build materials.

Bricks haven't been outlawed. It's still legal to build a house with lasting materials, believe it or not. It's just that mcmansion people choose maximum square footage and palladium windows over something that will last. They have the choice. They choose poorly, and then moan about it here.

It's not (just) McMansions. I lived in a modest 1980 townhouse that was basically cardboard. It had brick facing on the front and vinyl over cardboard on the back.

Solid brick houses haven't been common in this area... maybe ever. Solid stone, not for 100 years. It's fine to say stone is better quality (although I'd quibble) but it's not realistically available to the average buyer. Basically all houses here are wood frame, and then you can argue about what's best to put between the framing.

Wrongo.
Post WWII, a lot of housing was built in Arlington to meet the demands of the military population. There are tons of modest brick colonials around Fort Myer. You will see some of them in South Arlington along Route 50, Glebe, Walter Reed.

My ILs 1943 brick home is still in Bethesda, still standing, still a very nice house. And there are neighboring houses of brick masonry too.

I also designed a renovation to a brick civil war era property in...brick. Won a classical architecture award. People still want masonry homes and not cheap rainscreen cladding.
Belden Brick's business is still very brisk. So is Glen Gary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is your 5-stage hvac really efficient, comfortable and will it last even 1/2 the life of the old?

I have north of $100 Million of Carrier 5 Stage systems installed; They are workhorses.

NP here. I prefer the old school single stage furnaces. Our contractor talked into replacing our 25yo Lennox with the fancy Carrier Infinity. Not happy with it and it has broken down 2x - and we cried both times with the repair invoice. We miss the real “workhorse” Lennox.

[Anonymous]

I’ve never understood why we just accept these cheap, flimsy construction in this country. It’s not just houses, our first apartment in this country was in King Farm, and I could not believe how badly those units were put together. Zero soundproofing between units, no concrete between floors or walks. Just cheap plywood. We could hear everything the neighbors upstairs were doing. If you go to supposedly poorer countries in Europe, they are still building solid houses using bricks. The houses might not be as big, but they are solid. Don’t get me started on cheap roofing materials either. It seems like we are the only country that has an entire industry for replacing shingles on roofs every 10 years. Just put roofing tiles on once and they are good, forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hate to break it to you, but "thermal mass" is pseudo-science.

[Anonymous]

2x6 rather than 2x4 is better than code. It adds strength to the structure, in addition to allowing for more insulation.

Waterproofing rather than damp proofing also is better than code requires.

Brick is also better than code requires. Siding often is damaged in very high winds, even if installed perfectly. Brick will not be.

Spacing joists more closely than code requires also is better than code. This greatly increases the strength of the structure and eliminates floor squeaks.

"Workmanship" is the quality of the installation labor. It is not designing and engineering the structure to be better than the (bare minimum) required by code. Code is minimum quality, not good quality.

[Anonymous]

"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)."

Following this line of thought, the beam didn't rot because it wasn't strong enough, or because the material it was built from was weak or the wrong choice, or because it was undersized. By all accounts it was installed properly. There was nothing wrong with the beam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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)."

Following this line of thought, the beam didn't rot because it wasn't strong enough, or because the material it was built from was weak or the wrong choice, or because it was undersized. By all accounts it was installed properly. There was nothing wrong with the beam.

A steel beam will rust in that situation, but it would take many decades to lose its structural integrity, rather than a few years with a wood beam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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)."

Following this line of thought, the beam didn't rot because it wasn't strong enough, or because the material it was built from was weak or the wrong choice, or because it was undersized. By all accounts it was installed properly. There was nothing wrong with the beam.

A steel beam will rust in that situation, but it would take many decades to lose its structural integrity, rather than a few years with a wood beam.

Or you could, you know, install the flashing properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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)."

Following this line of thought, the beam didn't rot because it wasn't strong enough, or because the material it was built from was weak or the wrong choice, or because it was undersized. By all accounts it was installed properly. There was nothing wrong with the beam.

A steel beam will rust in that situation, but it would take many decades to lose its structural integrity, rather than a few years with a wood beam.

There is nothing inherently better with steel than LVLs. They each have their place and each have their drawbacks (steel costs a lot more!). Neither will perform longterm if the exterior cladding is improper. Right now at a local DC university, there is an expensive project going on to replace a steel column and beam connection for a walkway because the water management was done poorly and for 20 years water was infiltrating and the steel column (holding a pedestrian walkway!) disintegrated. It lasted longer than wood, but also not of infinite duration. LVLs have a lot of advantages for residential construction (strength to weight, stability in seasonal changes, site assembly without major equipment, etc).

[Anonymous]

Termites do not eat steel or brick or concrete. Carpenter ants do not nest in them either.

Yes, they cost more. Quality often costs more in many fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Termites do not eat steel or brick or concrete. Carpenter ants do not nest in them either.

Yes, they cost more. Quality often costs more in many fields.

Doing would increase the cost of the house substantially without increasing the value by one penny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Termites do not eat steel or brick or concrete. Carpenter ants do not nest in them either.

Yes, they cost more. Quality often costs more in many fields.

Doing would increase the cost of the house substantially without increasing the value by one penny.

We understand that the house flipper's focus is his/her short term profit and not quality.