| It may look nicer, and have more features, but it's probably not built any better. Older homes were built with copper plumbing, plaster walls, solid hardwood floors, wood trim, and plywood subfloors, roof deck, and sheathing. New homes use PVC or PEX pipes, drywall, OSB (basically glued-up wood chips) instead of plywood, laminate floors, and plastic or styrene trim. The only things really better today are insulation and wiring. |
| |
| ▲ | Kirby64 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > New homes use PVC or PEX pipes, drywall, OSB (basically glued-up wood chips) instead of plywood, laminate floors, and plastic or styrene trim. PEX is better than copper. Drywall is better than lathe and plaster. Modern OSB like Advantech are just superior to plywood subfloors in every metric. Maybe the hardwood floors were better back then in some ways, but engineered hardwood or vinyl planks are superior in many ways over hardwood flooring. Better wear resistance, less shift with moisture/temp, etc. Most countertops are far superior these days, with wide availability of quartz, granite, etc. I’d say almost everything is built better at a minimum standard. You could always find poorly built houses back then, but the difference is there wasn’t even any rules often… | | |
| ▲ | hollerith a day ago | parent [-] | | If drywall is better than lath and plaster, then why is lath and plaster still used today -- in high-end construction? | | |
| ▲ | Kirby64 a day ago | parent [-] | | The same reason many inferior materials are used in higher end goods: there’s some mystic that its superior for one reason or another, potentially aesthetically, and the higher cost is sometimes a draw by itself. There’s nothing you can’t achieve with drywall that you can with lath and plaster. There’s no reason ever to use marble over quartz designed to look like marble… but some people do anyways. | | |
| ▲ | garciansmith a day ago | parent [-] | | I disagree about drywall versus plaster, save for ease of repair. Maybe it's just in most cases you won't encounter the highest quality drywall, nor will the installation be well done and actually last even if, in theory, it could be done well. E.g., my 100+ year plaster is still there and totally fine save in high-moisture rooms, whereas my friend's 20-year-old house has screws or nails starting to pop out of the drywall everywhere. I was speaking to an architect about this very issue a few weeks ago, and he also noted that there are also acoustic properties to plaster and lathe that make it much nicer for residences (and if you have an old home and can afford it, repair the plaster and don't replace it with drywall). Although maybe texture and acoustics count as aesthetics to you (same with real wood floors looking far better than vinyl). When it comes to materials used in residences, aesthetics matter to a lot of people. | | |
| ▲ | Kirby64 a day ago | parent [-] | | > whereas my friend's 20-year-old house has screws or nails starting to pop out of the drywall everywhere. This is a drywall installation issue, though, like you said. Lath and plaster can have the same exact issue with popping. And unlike drywall, lath and plaster has issues with cracking especially if done poorly. Regarding acoustics, you can easily improve acoustic performance of drywall in many ways. Double layering, acoustic sealing caulk, rockwall in walls, etc. You don’t need plaster to do that. The only reason I can think that lath and plaster would be superior now is that the floor for how poorly it is done is likely lower, purely because it’s a bit of a lost art. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >you can easily improve acoustic performance of drywall in many ways. Double layering, acoustic sealing caulk, rockwall in walls, etc. There's a principle-agent problem here. It is hard for a home buyer to verify claims of the existence of the things you list whereas lath and plaster is easy for a non-professional to learn to recognize. Lath and plaster also is better at forming curved surfaces. (I'm a particular fan of coved ceilings.) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | loeg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The new building methods and materials are genuinely better. (Criticizing OSB and glazing plywood is crazy. They're both just composite wood products. OSB is totally fine for what it's used for.) | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Having seen OSB fall apart when it gets wet vs plywood which can delaminate but is still solid wood, I would disagree. OSB works if you can ensure it stays dry. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | >OSB works if you can ensure it stays dry. Plywood is getting to be almost as bad. The glue changed and got categorucally worse 10-20yr ago. |
| |
| ▲ | Danox a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not better just faster to put up, all those expensive cheap track homes and luxury apartments going up they are not made or built better not by a longshot. | | |
| ▲ | loeg a day ago | parent [-] | | Faster and cheaper to put up is better! Modern insulation is more comfortable and saves you on utility bills; modern electric is safer and supports more usecases; it's easier to attach things to drywall walls than plaster; etc, etc, etc. "The old ways were better" is rosy retrospection. |
|
| |
| ▲ | alephnerd a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In California, a big difference is earthquake retrofitting. Older houses often aren't retrofit until sale, and retrofitting is expensive. Also, I've noticed newer houses (2000s-present) are airier and have more natural light compared to older (pre-90s) houses. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Also, I've noticed newer houses (2000s-present) are airier and have more natural light compared to older (pre-90s) houses. This depends a bit more on the specific era of the home, rather than just being pre-90s, but it's particularly present in 1970s housing stock. The energy crisis led to a style of home design that favored small windows (energy efficient windows weren't yet really a thing, or at least not widely available at affordable prices) with lower ceilings. After the energy crisis through the 80s things started opening up again, and then improvements in insulation and windows (for two specific features) and improved efficiency in AC units led to a further opening up of home designs (with larger windows, higher ceilings) through the 90s and to today. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, go back to 1950s or earlier and you are into the pre-AC era, houses had big windows, big covered porches, and higher ceilings. |
| |
| ▲ | lisper a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Newer CA homes also tend to do better in fires. |
|
|
| At least in my area, the price of the land is a huge fraction of the value of a house. Imagine a house-sized plot of land costs $250,000. That means a builder can offer buyers a $20,000 building for $270,000 or a $150,000 building for $400,000. And in the latter case, the buyer gets 7.5x the building for 1.5x the cost. |
