Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the wood is usually stronger which makes for a stronger house - old growth vs. new growth. You can do things like add more studs - every 12 vs. 16

LOL. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this..

Sure. He's a quote from the 1000's of sources on this topic one can find on the internet: "Old-growth wood refers to wood from trees that belonged to forests that grew up over hundreds of years. A majority of today’s lumber is harvested from trees that have been cultivated to grow rapidly, so the wood is not as dense. As a result, it is weaker and more susceptible to decay and instability. Old-growth wood has nearly ten times the number of growth rings per inch (meaning that it is much denser) and is more resistant to decay or damage."

Try researching items like this so you are more informed and less ignorant of the topic. A little knowledge can go a long way!

Anonymous wrote:Are old houses in Fairfax from the 60s stronger than the newly built one from post 2015s? Searching for a single family. Ready to upgrade an old house as long as it is strong. Rumor is that, new houses might be weaker than old ones, as old ones were constructed using stronger materials than today. Is it correct? I am afraid that once living in a new house we might end up in repairing the roof and structure after 10 years of stay.

Townhomes from the 70s, 80s and 90s are the worst. Lots of defective construction products and inconsistent building codes across the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the wood is usually stronger which makes for a stronger house - old growth vs. new growth. You can do things like add more studs - every 12 vs. 16

LOL. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this..

Old growth wood is denser and heavier than new growth. To get a rough idea for yourself, compare an antique table to a new one of similar size. The older table will be much heavier.

This is correct. That is why the American wood council had to change design values for pine lumber recently. Framing plans in this decade are now requiring more wood because it is weaker. This is a fact. There evidence of suggest the weaker wood has existed for decades and the are just now realizing it.

We have a 50 yr old house of brick covered cinder block. Yes, nearly every contractor and builder who had ever stepped into the house has commented positively about its construction.

During the earthquake in 2011, our house sustained more damage and required more cleanup than anyone the we know or read about. No structural damage but lots of cabinets contents all falling out and cracked mirrors so, there’s that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We lived in a house built in 1962 and every contractor/builder that ever came to do any work remarked on how solid the construction was. Also cinder block like a PP.

+1 home built in 1958 with cinder block

+3 - every single contractor. Cinder block, 1939.

Yeah, contractor is not a structural engineer.

But the big bad Wolf did agree that brick and cinderblock was best.

I live in a brick house, but I don’t make up imaginary fantasies of how great it is compared to new homes just to feel better.

And seriously how often is a house falling over anyways? Lead paint asbestos bad plumbing all seem like worse realities.

My cinder block 70s house has no lead paint. I had it tested before we closed. It is called not being ignorant when buying a house. I have mostly lived in Europe where cinder block and stucco are common, so maybe I just don't appreciate mass/commercial industrial press board houses. I am just not sophisticated enough for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the wood is usually stronger which makes for a stronger house - old growth vs. new growth. You can do things like add more studs - every 12 vs. 16

LOL. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this..

Old growth wood is denser and heavier than new growth. To get a rough idea for yourself, compare an antique table to a new one of similar size. The older table will be much heavier.

Anonymous wrote:the wood is usually stronger which makes for a stronger house - old growth vs. new growth. You can do things like add more studs - every 12 vs. 16

LOL. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this..

Anecdotally, a massive tree (6 feet diameter) hit my mid-1940s brick house during a storm. It punctured the roof but stopped when it landed on the brick-and-cinderblock wall construction. I don't think they build them like that anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We lived in a house built in 1962 and every contractor/builder that ever came to do any work remarked on how solid the construction was. Also cinder block like a PP.

+1 home built in 1958 with cinder block

+3 - every single contractor. Cinder block, 1939.

Yeah, contractor is not a structural engineer.

But the big bad Wolf did agree that brick and cinderblock was best.

I live in a brick house, but I don’t make up imaginary fantasies of how great it is compared to new homes just to feel better.

And seriously how often is a house falling over anyways? Lead paint asbestos bad plumbing all seem like worse realities.

How's the Chinese drywall treating you? Vomiting yet?

I really think it depends on the quality of the builders. The codes do improve over time, but the quality of the "builder-grade" materials has worsened.

In our case I can compare a 1960's build locally (unknown builder) to a KB house built in last 5 years. The '60s house was cinder block below grade/ wood frame with brick veneer above grade and had steel beams running the length of the house. The wall joists are properly spaced and the window/ door headers are the correct thickness. All of the inspectors/ tradespeople who have come for renovations before and after the earthquake have complimented the quality of the original construction. Our brick is sound, nothing has needed repointing and when we replaced our windows, there was no rot from the original windows.

Now the electrical was out of date, but we have been able to correct that. The home repairs to electrical from the original owner were the worst part. But there are copper pipes, so that is still good.

Our KB house, on the other hand, did not wear well. It was up to new CA codes, so that was good. But it was a mass-produced home and that showed. After 3 years there were leaks around the windows and doors and the exterior stucco was cracking. Most of these issues were covered under warranty, but that was a pain. We watched it being built and had to remind the crews about things like proper stud spacing which didn't inspire a lot of confidence in the final product.

But I think that higher quality builders modern would have a better product.

Anonymous wrote:OP, to answer your questions, all things have a life span. Whether you buy an old house or a new house, you will need to replace the roof at some point. You will need to replace the furnace and air conditioning at some point. There will be plumbing problems. There will be electricity that needs looked at. It doesn't matter whether the house was built to 2019 code or 1940 code. That's part of the ongoing home maintenance and upkeep.

That aside, houses built in the past were able to take advantage of different, more commonly available, building materials that were also cheaper for their time. Slate roofs, for example. Natural growth hardwood. Cheaper but more skilled labor for masonry. This is really evident in the case of pre WWII housing but a lot of it lasted into the early 1960s. Changes in building technologies has allowed new houses, especially post 1970s, to be built somewhat differently, and newer houses often have what I think of as a lighter feel to it. Walls are thinner, for example. They won't have the same depth of a old pre 1960s house.

Given that most old houses are still standing, one can see how they have effectively passed the test of time. But new houses will, too.

To caveat one thing: most local areas did not have building codes until the 1950s. Western states had them in the 1940s but they were mostly used to address fires and floods

Older localities had neighborhood covenants that were precursors of building codes. Fir example, roofs had to be asbestos or skate, the building restriction line was 35 feet instead if the current 25 feet, only one house could be built on a lot even though the lit size could accommodate two house under current zoning. These neighborhood covenants are almost impossible to overturn and many builder has run afoul of neighborhood groups who try to enforce them.

Because many of these covenants were based on practices at the time, they could mean that the house is stronger

Wow you all must have the nicest contractors to be fawning over the blocks of your house like that. Mine generally just come in, say good morning, and do their work.

Anonymous wrote:Of course cinder block will be stronger, but who wants to live in a cinder block house?

Why not? It's a pretty common building material globally. Most new houses in the UK/Europe are built out of cinderblock, and faced with brick or stucco or even stone. And these countries have extremely stringent building codes, more so than in the US.

Of course cinder block will be stronger, but who wants to live in a cinder block house?

OP, to answer your questions, all things have a life span. Whether you buy an old house or a new house, you will need to replace the roof at some point. You will need to replace the furnace and air conditioning at some point. There will be plumbing problems. There will be electricity that needs looked at. It doesn't matter whether the house was built to 2019 code or 1940 code. That's part of the ongoing home maintenance and upkeep.

That aside, houses built in the past were able to take advantage of different, more commonly available, building materials that were also cheaper for their time. Slate roofs, for example. Natural growth hardwood. Cheaper but more skilled labor for masonry. This is really evident in the case of pre WWII housing but a lot of it lasted into the early 1960s. Changes in building technologies has allowed new houses, especially post 1970s, to be built somewhat differently, and newer houses often have what I think of as a lighter feel to it. Walls are thinner, for example. They won't have the same depth of a old pre 1960s house.

Given that most old houses are still standing, one can see how they have effectively passed the test of time. But new houses will, too.