Anonymous
Post 06/02/2026 15:25     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
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.


lol good luck finding something well built. The shoddiness that I see on the regular is jaw-dropping. And buyers are so far removed from the practicality of homeownership that they don't even know what to look for (as was I the first time I bought a house... I learned fast though!)
Anonymous
Post 06/02/2026 15:23     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
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?
Anonymous
Post 06/02/2026 15:22     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
Anonymous wrote:

Separately, the structural aspects of the building code have been watered down in several areas over the decades.


What, specifically? Everyone I know in construction bi***es constantly about how much stricter the code -- and code enforcement -- has gotten lately.
Anonymous
Post 06/02/2026 09:57     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
Very very few homes built today are well built. The vast majority just barely meet the current building code.

High quality builders do still exist, but are the exception not the rule.

Separately, the structural aspects of the building code have been watered down in several areas over the decades.
Anonymous
Post 06/02/2026 08:58     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
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.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2026 14:14     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
Anonymous wrote:Eh, everyone singing the praises of older homes- you must have retrofitted them or moved in after someone else did.


The 1956 home we lived in (we were 2nd owners) had had no updates. Plaster not drywall. All brick exterior. Entire neighborhood dated to mid-1950s. Maybe 5 homes per 100 had had major additions or renovations. So not survivor bias. Very good energy efficiency overall. Low maintenance because all brick exterior.

We did add central A/C at one point. Original house had fuel oil furnace. At one point we also switched from using heating oil to natural gas to save money.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2026 13:05     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
Eh, everyone singing the praises of older homes- you must have retrofitted them or moved in after someone else did. The draftiest home I ever lived in was a 1970’s build. It was charming, sort of. Real wood and brick everywhere. Runner up was a late 80’s townhouse that was nearly unlivable (pre dual zone heating/cooling). And I had the energy bills to match.

There’s also survivorship bias. The terrible homes were long ago retrofitted or razed- except in blighted and underinvested areas where most of DCUM would never venture . Give me modern codes and materials. Well built of course.
Anonymous
Post 05/30/2026 18:25     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
Anonymous wrote:From what I’ve seen of the inside of my 1950s colonial, it’s a mix of cinder block and hardwood, no engineered wood aka particle board, cardboard, or OSB. And brick on the outside. I just can’t fathom how a mix of 2x4 and particle board/OSB is anywhere near as strong. And these new builds are huge! Why no steel beams anywhere? I just couldn’t spend the money after seeing the inside.


Wise.

When house hunting, I found the average 90s houses usually were better built than the 2000s houses. The average 80s houses are better than average 90s houses. And so on.

The houses built from maybe mid-1950s through early 1970s that used concrete block and at least some steel beams in the basement were most structurally sound in my experience. The immediate post-war (1945-1955) houses sometimes were built so quickly that they were not as well built.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 19:54     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
From what I’ve seen of the inside of my 1950s colonial, it’s a mix of cinder block and hardwood, no engineered wood aka particle board, cardboard, or OSB. And brick on the outside. I just can’t fathom how a mix of 2x4 and particle board/OSB is anywhere near as strong. And these new builds are huge! Why no steel beams anywhere? I just couldn’t spend the money after seeing the inside.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 18:40     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
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.


Brick was 100% common here for many years. Have you ever been to Old Town Alexandria or Georgetown or Annapolis? Wood houses kept burning down so people switched to brick.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 18:29     Subject: Flimsy new builds?
The original Evermay houses in Langley were built in the late 1960s. They were built using concrete block for structure with brick facades. That was pretty common - obviously not universal but pretty common - until the early/mid-1970s.

I have seen one new build in Langley, almost finished now, that also was built with concrete block and steel beams. Really solid construction, but not common here today.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 17:25     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
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.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 17:20     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
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.


Tough to finance is the real problem, because comps are so dependent on square footage and interior finishes. "This house will last for 500 years" is tough to work in to the appraisal.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 17:13     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
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.


DP. To be fair, the flippers are the ones choosing max sf and whatever - and sometimes cutting corners on structure.

By the time potential buyers come along, most of the as-built construction work is hidden inside the walls. No way for them to inspect the build quality without opening the walls.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2026 16:30     Subject: Re:Flimsy new builds?
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.