|
General quality of new houses?
"John Smith" wrote in message
How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Breeze block and plasterboard are sjidt but warm. So you pays your money and you takes your choices. Todays housing has to meet certain insulation standards. They also meet engineering and safety standards that just did not exist in the good old days. They are also built in areas our ancestors avoided for good reasons. The main problem is the availability of qualified workers. And paying them sufficiently for them to do a good job. On a poorly run site the quality control can make a difference in the pay packets of concientious workers and the careless of one or two hundred pounds a week. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
General quality of new houses?
Hi,
How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. |
General quality of new houses?
John Smith wrote:
How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Our 1930s house was built very poorly. Very little in the way of foundations, no dpm under the downstairs concrete floor (2" concrete over mud subfloor), under-sized joists for the span, poor roof structure, internal walls made of 2" thick bock (yes, really). The wiring was put in later, in the '50s, and was the most appalling wiring job I've ever seen. I could go on, but I'll spare you. By comparison, modern houses are /extremely/ well built. But you do get a whole range - some old houses were built a lot better than ours. I think the overall standard today is much better. -- Grunff |
General quality of new houses?
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? The house we are restoring has original sections from 1600s and then add-on is round about 1750, 1810, 1890 and 1980. The 1890 bit is by far the best built part but I have to say the 1810 bit is better than the 1980 bit. The 1600 bit is at best of historic interest only and we have leave it uninhabited due to excessive damp. |
General quality of new houses?
"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message news:f2b026941a2d6a9c537339398fa273d6.45219@mygate .mailgate.org... "John Smith" wrote in message How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Breeze block and plasterboard are sjidt but warm. Breeze blocks? that is Victorian. They burnt rubbish, and used the ashes to make blocks. Who said re-cycling was new? Now we have high insulation factor concrete blocks. What is "sidt"? |
General quality of new houses?
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:07:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message news:f2b026941a2d6a9c537339398fa273d6.45219@mygat e.mailgate.org... "John Smith" wrote in message How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Breeze block and plasterboard are sjidt but warm. Breeze blocks? that is Victorian. They burnt rubbish, and used the ashes to make blocks. Who said re-cycling was new? Now we have high insulation factor concrete blocks. What is "sidt"? It was 'sjidt'. Just try to pronounce it and you will get the idea. Are you sure that you had a letter published in a broadsheet newspaper? ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
General quality of new houses?
"Willard the Rat" wrote in message ... x-no-archive: yes John Smith wrote in message ... Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. Westbury Homes are using 'Space4' building system - timber-framed, brick-clad just for decoration, Sounds good. fibreboard 'joists', I think you mean TJI joists. Brilliant. steel H-section frames hold up thin plasterboard walls, Sounds good, steel is strong. The walls are filled with sound insulation. dormer windows made entirely of plastic but painted to look like tiles/boarding, Looks good. chimney stacks are false just for show. That is what punters want, silly I know. Their slogan is 'one day all homes will be beuilt like this' - god help us. They are premature as SIP panels will be the norm. I thought Wimpey & Barratts gave up timber-frame houses after loads of bad publicity in early 1980s? Don't think I want to buy a Westbury house..... Generally timber framed homes are superior to brick and block: the rooms are square and straight and the hollow in the wall can be packed with insulation keeping the heating bills rights down and the house cools in summer too. The bad publicity was by a cheap unobjective World in Action programme. |
General quality of new houses?
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 18:29:24 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Generally they are very much better. They have foundations and are built to reasonably consistent standards. Don't forget that those houses you now see from the 1900's tend to be the best, the others having been demolished years ago. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/ |
General quality of new houses?
"Willard the Rat" wrote in message ... x-no-archive: yes John Smith wrote in message ... Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. Westbury Homes are using 'Space4' building system http://www.space4.co.uk "Space4 provide a supply and fix service for houses and apartments. The standard package includes: External wall panels including insulation Load bearing internal wall panels including party walls Floor cassettes Windows External entrance doors Sole plate (if required) Roof (if required)" |
General quality of new houses?
John Smith wrote:
Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Used to be thin and nasty then. Pine mostly. Now its MDF. Not much to choose, except MDF doesn't warp and hasn't got knots that need sealing befire painting. One of the reasons the tinmber is now smaller is that mass production of e.g. roof trusses is possible, and wood has got more expensive proportionately than labour on an automatic machine, so the cheapest way to do it is small heavily braced trusses. Building regs if adhered to will ensure structural integrity and reasonable life span, and all the problems of victorian house - damp, cold and draughty, and full of disgusting cheap pine oozing resin under lead paintwork - will be absent. You pays yer money... Just curious, John. |
General quality of new houses?
In article , Andy Hall
says... On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:07:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote: "Michael Mcneil" wrote in message news:f2b026941a2d6a9c537339398fa273d6.45219@mygat e.mailgate.org... "John Smith" wrote in message How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Breeze block and plasterboard are sjidt but warm. Breeze blocks? that is Victorian. They burnt rubbish, and used the ashes to make blocks. Who said re-cycling was new? Now we have high insulation factor concrete blocks. What is "sidt"? It was 'sjidt'. Just try to pronounce it and you will get the idea. "Essjidtee"? -- Hywel Big Brother Petition - Better TV Wanted! http://www.petitiononline.com/BBFlood/ |
General quality of new houses?
x-no-archive: yes
John Smith wrote in message ... Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. Westbury Homes are using 'Space4' building system - timber-framed, brick-clad just for decoration, fibreboard 'joists', steel H-section frames hold up thin plasterboard walls, dormer windows made entirely of plastic but painted to look like tiles/boarding, chimney stacks are false just for show. Their slogan is 'one day all homes will be beuilt like this' - god help us. I thought Wimpey & Barratts gave up timber-frame houses after loads of bad publicity in early 1980s? Don't think I want to buy a Westbury house..... Will. |
General quality of new houses?
"Steve Firth" wrote in message . .. John Smith wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? I'd say that modern house are absolute **** compared to anything that I have owned, that covers houses built in 1720, 1830, 1845, 1910 and 1930. You are having a laugh or making this up. |
General quality of new houses?
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:07:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote: "Michael Mcneil" wrote in message news:f2b026941a2d6a9c537339398fa273d6.45219@mygat e.mailgate.org... "John Smith" wrote in message How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Breeze block and plasterboard are sjidt but warm. Breeze blocks? that is Victorian. They burnt rubbish, and used the ashes to make blocks. Who said re-cycling was new? Now we have high insulation factor concrete blocks. What is "sidt"? It was 'sjidt'. Just try to pronounce it and you will get the idea. Are you sure that you had a letter published in a broadsheet newspaper? Not using that word. |
General quality of new houses?
Peter Parry wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 18:29:24 GMT, "John Smith" wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Generally they are very much better. They have foundations and are built to reasonably consistent standards. Don't forget that those houses you now see from the 1900's tend to be the best, the others having been demolished years ago. Yes, that is one key point. IIUC there was only one building reg in the 1890s: the foundation must be 2 feet deep. Other than that, nothing. So Vic houses cover the full range, from houses that were so dangerous they were never lived in, to lots of fine and beautiful buildings, most still with us today. When you buy Vic you get something that has stood for 100 years. Beyond that, could be anything. Consequently most surviving Vic houses were built to last. The ones that werent didnt. Todays houses meet numerous safety and reliability criteria. They have various maintenance issues waiting to occur downline, such as pushfit plumbing, galvanised steel in mortar, etc. But Vic houses require far more maintenance on the whole. The main downsides with new houses a - lack of structural proof - ie ones with serious structural faults that will take a bit of time to show up - dreadful taste - inadequate and unhealthy ventilation - problem locations such as flood plains, toxic waste sites etc - other hidden problems waiting for the unknowing buyer, which in 100 year old houses have almost always been sorted out long ago. Regards, NT |
General quality of new houses?
"N. Thornton" wrote in message om... Peter Parry wrote in message . .. On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 18:29:24 GMT, "John Smith" wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? Generally they are very much better. They have foundations and are built to reasonably consistent standards. Don't forget that those houses you now see from the 1900's tend to be the best, the others having been demolished years ago. Yes, that is one key point. IIUC there was only one building reg in the 1890s: the foundation must be 2 feet deep. Other than that, nothing. So Vic houses cover the full range, from houses that were so dangerous they were never lived in, to lots of fine and beautiful buildings, most still with us today. When you buy Vic you get something that has stood for 100 years. Beyond that, could be anything. Consequently most surviving Vic houses were built to last. The ones that werent didnt. Todays houses meet numerous safety and reliability criteria. They have various maintenance issues waiting to occur downline, such as pushfit plumbing, galvanised steel in mortar, etc. But Vic houses require far more maintenance on the whole. The main downsides with new houses a - lack of structural proof - ie ones with serious structural faults that will take a bit of time to show up 10 years is generally enough time. - dreadful taste Subjective. Some are very tasteful. - inadequate and unhealthy ventilation Not so. Ventilation is madatory: trickle vents, etc. - problem locations such as flood plains, toxic waste sites etc That is not a problem to new houses in themselves. - other hidden problems waiting for the unknowing buyer, which in 100 year old houses have almost always been sorted out long ago. And with being 100 years old will bring futher very expensive problems. New homes are also genrally better designed inside, with en-suite bathrooms, etc. |
General quality of new houses?
"IMM" wrote
New homes are also genrally better designed inside, with en-suite bathrooms, etc. A benefit I appreciate is generally the sensible layout of space in the kitchen. For example, gaps fit the sizes of appliances. Barbara |
General quality of new houses?
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:12:53 +0100, Grunff wrote:
John Smith wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Our 1930s house was built very poorly. Very little in the way of foundations, no dpm under the downstairs concrete floor (2" concrete over mud subfloor), under-sized joists for the span, poor roof structure, internal walls made of 2" thick bock (yes, really). The wiring was put in later, in the '50s, and was the most appalling wiring job I've ever seen. I could go on, but I'll spare you. By comparison, modern houses are /extremely/ well built. But you do get a whole range - some old houses were built a lot better than ours. I think the overall standard today is much better. And yet there is *no* rogue's gallery of shoddy houses/builders to avoid! I wrote recently to What House mag to ask them when they would do an article about poor quality domestic construction as highlighted in a recent TV programme which depicted some absolutely nightmarish faults in brand-new houses. But they totally rejected any idea of shoddy workmanship, believing it to be a very isolated occurrence. I'm actually now looking at a large 1930s house. It appears to be as solid as if it had been carved out of rock! My ex-council house is also built like a brick outhouse, with solid walls inside, not stud walls. I can actually drill a hole and use an ordinary Rawlplug for fixing shelves! Who can say that with a modern house? That said, with a brand-new house, everything - heating, wiring, plumbing - is, well, new! Maybe ten or fifteen years of peace of mind. MM |
General quality of new houses?
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:22:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Willard the Rat" wrote in message ... x-no-archive: yes John Smith wrote in message ... Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. Westbury Homes are using 'Space4' building system - timber-framed, brick-clad just for decoration, Sounds good. No, it doesn't. It sounds like crap. fibreboard 'joists', I think you mean TJI joists. Brilliant. Cheap and nasty. A proper joist is far more satisfactory. But probably more expensive, which is the only reason for not choosing it. steel H-section frames hold up thin plasterboard walls, Sounds good, steel is strong. The walls are filled with sound insulation. Bricks and mortar are also strong. And don't rust. dormer windows made entirely of plastic but painted to look like tiles/boarding, Looks good. Looks tacky and naff. chimney stacks are false just for show. That is what punters want, silly I know. Oh, so you concede "silly"!! Their slogan is 'one day all homes will be beuilt like this' - god help us. They are premature as SIP panels will be the norm. No, they won't. I thought Wimpey & Barratts gave up timber-frame houses after loads of bad publicity in early 1980s? Don't think I want to buy a Westbury house..... Generally timber framed homes are superior to brick and block: the rooms are square and straight and the hollow in the wall can be packed with insulation keeping the heating bills rights down and the house cools in summer too. The bad publicity was by a cheap unobjective World in Action programme. Timber-framed as they do in some parts of the world, fine. These are constructed with thick, solid beams and posts. I wouldn't mind one of those houses. But the kind you're talking about are just thrown up at the cheapest possible price to realise the maximum possible profit. I call them Hollywood Houses, because to my mind they resemble the plywood facades on a film set. Utter and complete rubbish - and only in Britain, of course. Can you imagine the Germans or the Scandinavians accepting the kind of "quality" we put up with? MM |
General quality of new houses?
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:04:38 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? I'd say that modern house are absolute **** compared to anything that I have owned, that covers houses built in 1720, 1830, 1845, 1910 and 1930. You are having a laugh or making this up. I don't think he is doing either. I remember my parents' house in Hastings in the 1950s. It was a three-storey Victorian/Edwardian town house. It's still there. We had no central heating (who did?) and yet we never saw cold as a problem. The walls were very thick, I seem to recall. A very solid house indeed. MM |
General quality of new houses?
"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message ... Westbury Homes are using 'Space4' building system - timber-framed, brick-clad just for decoration, Sounds good. No, it doesn't. It sounds like crap. You obviously know nothing of construction. fibreboard 'joists', I think you mean TJI joists. Brilliant. Cheap and nasty. A proper joist is far more satisfactory. You obviously know nothing of construction to come out with such an asinine comment. TJIs **** all over conventional joists. steel H-section frames hold up thin plasterboard walls, Sounds good, steel is strong. The walls are filled with sound insulation. Bricks and mortar are also strong. And don't rust. You mean blocks. Bkrick and bock houses rest on the blocks with the bricks being cladding, as in timber fromaed house. B&B is expensive and are too thick. dormer windows made entirely of plastic but painted to look like tiles/boarding, Looks good. Looks tacky and naff. No, looks good. chimney stacks are false just for show. That is what punters want, silly I know. Oh, so you concede "silly"!! Yes, many punter are silly. Their slogan is 'one day all homes will be beuilt like this' - god help us. They are premature as SIP panels will be the norm. No, they won't. Do you know what a SIP panels is? I thought Wimpey & Barratts gave up timber-frame houses after loads of bad publicity in early 1980s? Don't think I want to buy a Westbury house..... Generally timber framed homes are superior to brick and block: the rooms are square and straight and the hollow in the wall can be packed with insulation keeping the heating bills rights down and the house cools in summer too. The bad publicity was by a cheap unobjective World in Action programme. Timber-framed as they do in some parts of the world, fine. Like in the USA, Scandinavia and Canada, where TIs are the norm These are constructed with thick, solid beams and posts. Not so. See above. I wouldn't mind one of those houses. But the kind you're talking about are just thrown up at the cheapest possible price to realise the maximum possible profit. They are technically more advanced to give greater benefits to the customer and builder. I call them Hollywood Houses, because to my mind they resemble the plywood facades on a film set. You obviously know nothing of construction. Utter and complete rubbish - and only in Britain, of course. You obviously know nothing of construction. Can you imagine the Germans or the Scandinavians accepting the kind of "quality" we put up with? Quality and design are two separate issues. Pre-fabrication offers higher quality as a large part of the building is built in ideal conditions using state-of-the-art machine tools. Building as we do is a recipe for poor quality, and it shows in the housing stock of the UK. These new designs, although poor by state-of-the-art elsewhere, offer improvements all around. |
General quality of new houses?
"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:04:38 +0100, "IMM" wrote: "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? I'd say that modern house are absolute **** compared to anything that I have owned, that covers houses built in 1720, 1830, 1845, 1910 and 1930. You are having a laugh or making this up. I don't think he is doing either. You are making all this up too. I remember my parents' house in Hastings in the 1950s. It was a three-storey Victorian/Edwardian town house. It's still there. We had no central heating (who did?) The Queen. and yet we never saw cold as a problem. Doid youa ll wear parkas around the house? The walls were very thick, I seem to recall. A very solid house indeed. Did the walls have special heat generating properties? MM |
General quality of new houses?
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Maybe I asked the wrong question? Maybe I should have asked how new houses in the UK compare with new houses built in places like the US, Oz, Spain, etc? Do we compare? Are we as good, better or worse? To Spain? We are better. To all others we are way behind in technology (one fool here was slagging an advanved design because it wasn't as they built it when the Crimea war was on), design and quality. The best designs and quality is the Canadian R200 standard, which is now available here, and backed by the Canadian government too. The Germans have the Passiv Haus standard and the Scandinavians are famed for advanced high insulating designs and materials. The Germans think we are mad building cavity walls, saying why build two walls when one can do. The UK government has laid down the gauntlet and ordered house builders to get into the 20th century in design, technology, quality and construction speed, it is too much to get them into the 21st. If the builders do not deliver the government will legislate to get them in order. |
General quality of new houses?
Maybe I asked the wrong question? Maybe I should have asked how new houses
in the UK compare with new houses built in places like the US, Oz, Spain, etc? Do we compare? Are we as good, better or worse? John. |
General quality of new houses?
"IMM" wrote in message
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... Are you sure that you had a letter published in a broadsheet newspaper? Not using that word. Broadsjidt? What you get on the newspaper if you unfold it afterwards. (Well some people are thrifty.) (Others just don't know sjidt.) -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
General quality of new houses?
"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
My ex-council house is also built like a brick outhouse, with solid walls inside, not stud walls. I can actually drill a hole and use an ordinary Rawlplug for fixing shelves! Im sure you meant built like a brick shidt house. An outhouse is more like the hovels that were left over from another era. Fancy generations of people living like that? And others in unapproachable luxury. No change there then. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
General quality of new houses?
"IMM" wrote in message ...
The UK government has laid down the gauntlet and ordered house builders to get into the 20th century in design, technology, quality and construction speed, it is too much to get them into the 21st. If the builders do not deliver the government will legislate to get them in order. thats odd, I thought government aka planning was one of the big barriers to such progress. Regards, NT |
General quality of new houses?
"John Smith" wrote in message ...
Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. Every decade has had it's share of crap builders. I've ripped apart houses built around the 1900s and they are full of bodge jobs. The most impressive properties, IME, were built in the 50s - referring to quality of build only! |
General quality of new houses?
"IMM" wrote in message ...
"N. Thornton" wrote in message om... The main downsides with new houses a - lack of structural proof - ie ones with serious structural faults that will take a bit of time to show up 10 years is generally enough time. I wont mention that 10 years doesnt equal new, and isnt always enough time. - dreadful taste Subjective. Some are very tasteful. not many though. The average Vic builder looks like a master of taste compared to most stuff built now. - inadequate and unhealthy ventilation Not so. Ventilation is madatory: trickle vents, etc. and inadequate - problem locations such as flood plains, toxic waste sites etc That is not a problem to new houses in themselves. I dont know what that phrase is meant to mean, but it clearly is a problem with a number of new houses, much more so than with old. It probably was just as much a problem 100 years ago, but after 100 years the soil either has given up its toxins or else isnt going to - either way a non risk. - other hidden problems waiting for the unknowing buyer, which in 100 year old houses have almost always been sorted out long ago. And with being 100 years old will bring futher very expensive problems. like what, repointing? Cracking? My own experiecne is that Vics take far more maintenance than modern. New homes are also genrally better designed inside, with en-suite bathrooms, etc. oh yes. Some oldies are right rabbit runs. Some Vic builders seemed to have problems getting the floors level, and one had to go up and down steps just to cross the floor! A small number didnt even bother with the steps: the floors occasionally just slope instead. (If both floors the same, more likely to be subsidence) Regards, NT |
General quality of new houses?
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 18:29:24 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote: Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. I'm no construction expert so I cannot offer that sort of response. I can say, speaking as a (more or less) first time buyer from last summer that I looked at over 30 houses, old(ish), new and very new. Generally speaking the houses from the 50s and 60s had a much more solid feel internally. However they mostly needed redecorating (unless aging wallpaper is your style), re-wiring (unless a single socket per room is adequate for you) and a host of other issues, such as patchy central heating (normally added later and not always even handedly) attached to a large, loud boiler, presumably not as efficient as modern ones (and certainly much bigger). We also had issues with the kitchens and bathrooms in these places - as a general rule. Most had been double glazed in the 80s. In their favour, they were generally bigger inside and had much bigger gardens. The soundproofing was better and they felt more sturdy. You got more house for your money, but then you needed the money to spend putting in modern kitchens / bathrooms / boilers etc. The houses from the early to mid 90s we visited were by far the worse. Shoddily built, shoddily finished, already looking tatty and in need of repair. Sound proofing was none existant - the walls might just as well have not been there. Double glazing all wood, and already in need of serious repainting, likewise sophets (sp?). Good use of space was about the only plus point. Houses post 2000 or so came out top. Noticeable improvement in soundproofing (especially between floors), windows and sophets all UPVc, small, quiet boilers, high pressure hot water systems, excellent use of space, very good bathrooms and kitchens. In the end it was this that won it for us. Every room has bucket loads of power points, phone points, TV aerials, no-where is unheated. The actual construction of the house is more difficult to comment on because I lack the expertise to do so, however I can say that there is much evidence it was finished in a big rush and with extreme carelessness. Whilst dodgy wiring, dodgy water sensors, dodgy taps, dodgy windows, abundent nail pops have all been fixed quickly by Persimmon, there are other things that they cannot "fix". These include the fact that there is a hardly a 90 angle in the house, all of the window reveals are crooked in some way or another, doors that don't fit the frames, or where the catch doesn't line up. How are you supposed to put up straight curtain poles when the windows and ceilings are both not straight, but to different degrees from one another? Then there's bits of trunking, made of dry wall, presumably to hide pipes, which are so crooked that even to the naked eye on the other side of the room you can see how out of alignment it is. I'd have kicked their arse if I was the original owner, but I got it when it was just shy of 2 yrs old. Compared to the benefits though, the annoyances are trivial. Oh, I have also had to repaint the whole place from top to bottom because the quality of paint used originally was dire. |
General quality of new houses?
"G&M" wrote in message ...
The house we are restoring has original sections from 1600s and then add-on is round about 1750, 1810, 1890 and 1980. The 1890 bit is by far the best built part but I have to say the 1810 bit is better than the 1980 bit. The 1600 bit is at best of historic interest only and we have leave it uninhabited due to excessive damp. Must be in a bad way if youre not willing to sort the damp out. Regards, NT |
General quality of new houses?
"Simon Pleasants" wrote in message ... I'm no construction expert so I cannot offer that sort of response. I can say, speaking as a (more or less) first time buyer from last summer that I looked at over 30 houses, old(ish), new and very new. .... Oh, I have also had to repaint the whole place from top to bottom because the quality of paint used originally was dire. Thanks Simon, Interestingly, on a slightly different issue, I was looking last night at a full page ad for a 4-bedroom 'executive' Barrett home being sold in Swansea for a few quid short of 400K. At first glance it looks wonderful but, upon closer inspection, the bedroom photos only have single beds shown, the sofas in the living room is a small two seater and there is only one of these visible. The dining room has a wonderful dining table and six chairs in it but, looking closely, you realise that there is no room for anyone to pull out a chair to sit down, etc, etc. In other words, size seems to be an issue with new house builds in the UK - tiny. J. |
General quality of new houses?
In message ,
Grunff wrote: John Smith wrote: How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Our 1930s house was built very poorly. Very little in the way of foundations, no dpm under the downstairs concrete floor (2" concrete over mud subfloor), under-sized joists for the span, poor roof structure, internal walls made of 2" thick bock (yes, really). The wiring was put in later, in the '50s, and was the most appalling wiring job I've ever seen. I could go on, but I'll spare you. Our 1920s house sounds very similar. I don't think it is shoddy workmanship per-se; just the way things were done. The concrete over mud (or in our case, ash) and no damp-proof in floor or walls is just the way they did things. It isn't damp. According to a building-inspector friend of ours this kind of construction was originally highly impervious to damp though of course over 70 years or so there are cracks in the floor which could (though they don't yet) cause problems. The solid partition walls (as opposed to the loadbearing walls) are thin interlocking block (some kind of course concrete mix - not too heavy) and were built directly on the floorboards upstairs, not even necessarily over joists. One part of the house had (basically) a 6m joist span with no real loadbearing wall in the middle - we have taken out the partition wall and added a concrete beam. The joists in the attic are so thin and so far apart that they sagged under their own weight when we pulled the asbestos sheet ceiling down. The original wiring (some of which was still in place, but which wasn't (thankfully) in use) was lead sheathed. The outer walls are brick-gap-brick. Apart from the lower 8 or 10 courses the outside is rendered too. The bricks are appalling. Most of them look like fairly standard red brick and drill quite easily, but a fair proportion have an extremely hard, bluish core to them which isn't a problem for the SDS, but which brings an ordinary masonry/hammer drill to a complete standstill. Drilling cores is a dreadful process as different bits of the drill are trying to get through different hardnesses of brick. At least the wall ties (some of which we could inspect when we removed a chimney) are in good nick, even if they are rather more widely-spaced than usual these days. By comparison, modern houses are /extremely/ well built. But you do get a whole range - some old houses were built a lot better than ours. I think the overall standard today is much better. My personal opinion is that the basic building standards these days are vastly improved, and that there is more consistency, but that two things have slipped - design and detail. Design is a problem mainly because of trying to squeeze too much house into too small a space. Four bedrooms with the fourth hardly big enough for a child's bed; two en-suites where leaving one out would make the second bedroom a more useful size; a "dining room" next to the kitchen big enough for a table but not the sideboard, when simply leaving out the partition wall would have made a huge and useful "dining kitchen" (or whatever); a so-called "garage" which isn't big enough both to park the car and to be able to get out of it. On the whole I find older properties are more well-thought out. Their layout may not be exactly to our liking, but they generally work. Detail is what most people notice, and where I think the idea of modern houses being badly built comes from. Main culprits are; the use of cheaply-built partition walls in metal frame and thin plasterboard which bend when you lean on them; show houses with doors missing because as soon as you mount one you lose half the useful space in a room; utility rooms which are corridoors; fireplaces where none is required; incredibly silly period-pastiche (fake timber beams etc.)... And so on. Actually, I think the plasterboard one is what most people notice. Whether or not you believe that timber-frame and plasterboard lined walls are as strong/soundproof/insulating as solid masonry and plaster, it certainly gives a less "solid" feel to the house. There are certainly ways around this - the use of heavy board such as Fermacell, and packing the wall with dampening material is easy to do and not (that) expensive but large builders tend not to do that. Great argument for self-build then, eh? (Cue SB enthusiasts) Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/ Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology .... A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago |
General quality of new houses?
In message ,
"John Smith" wrote: "Simon Pleasants" wrote in message ... I'm no construction expert so I cannot offer that sort of response. I can say, speaking as a (more or less) first time buyer from last summer that I looked at over 30 houses, old(ish), new and very new. .... Oh, I have also had to repaint the whole place from top to bottom because the quality of paint used originally was dire. Thanks Simon, Interestingly, on a slightly different issue, I was looking last night at a full page ad for a 4-bedroom 'executive' Barrett home being sold in Swansea for a few quid short of 400K. At first glance it looks wonderful but, upon closer inspection, the bedroom photos only have single beds shown, the sofas in the living room is a small two seater and there is only one of these visible. The dining room has a wonderful dining table and six chairs in it but, looking closely, you realise that there is no room for anyone to pull out a chair to sit down, etc, etc. In other words, size seems to be an issue with new house builds in the UK - tiny. If you're looking in the Swansea area and have anything like 400k to spend, get in touch with occasional contributor Rick Hughes who is just finishing his (second? third?) self-build in the area. He seems very keen to show it off, and land around Swansea is still (just) affordable... Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/ Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology .... Shh! Be vewy quiet, I'm hunting wuntime errors! |
General quality of new houses?
Martin Angove wrote:
The solid partition walls (as opposed to the loadbearing walls) are thin interlocking block (some kind of course concrete mix - not too heavy) and were built directly on the floorboards upstairs, not even necessarily over joists. I know, scared the cr@p out of me first time I spotted that! -- Grunff |
General quality of new houses?
Martin Angove wrote:
Actually, I think the plasterboard one is what most people notice. Whether or not you believe that timber-frame and plasterboard lined walls are as strong/soundproof/insulating as solid masonry and plaster, it certainly gives a less "solid" feel to the house. There are certainly ways around this - the use of heavy board such as Fermacell, and packing the wall with dampening material is easy to do and not (that) expensive but large builders tend not to do that. I would agree with that- having built an all timber house, the whole house trembles slightly when you slam the heavy oak outer doors :) However I LIKE it that way. You subliminally know you are in a timber house by the sound and feel of it. Totally agree on the design thing tho: As long as houses are in short supply, then people are just going to buy whatever they can find in approximately the right area at a price they can afford. Great argument for self-build then, eh? (Cue SB enthusiasts) Hwyl! M. |
General quality of new houses?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 10:43:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Martin Angove wrote: Actually, I think the plasterboard one is what most people notice. Whether or not you believe that timber-frame and plasterboard lined walls are as strong/soundproof/insulating as solid masonry and plaster, it certainly gives a less "solid" feel to the house. There are certainly ways around this - the use of heavy board such as Fermacell, and packing the wall with dampening material is easy to do and not (that) expensive but large builders tend not to do that. I would agree with that- having built an all timber house, the whole house trembles slightly when you slam the heavy oak outer doors :) Yuk! I wouldn't be able to sleep soundly with the house trembling around me! However I LIKE it that way. You subliminally know you are in a timber house by the sound and feel of it. It wouldn't have anything to do with that wolf outside, a-huffing and a-puffing...? MM |
General quality of new houses?
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 17:57:27 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote: Maybe I asked the wrong question? Maybe I should have asked how new houses in the UK compare with new houses built in places like the US, Oz, Spain, etc? Do we compare? Are we as good, better or worse? I can only speak for Germany, since I have relatives there, know several people who have built their houses (still the norm in Germany to buy a plot and build a house), and have attended the topping-out ceremonies where the sheer solidity of the construction never ceases to impress. MM |
General quality of new houses?
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 18:19:18 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
The UK government has laid down the gauntlet and ordered house builders to get into the 20th century in design, technology, quality and construction speed, it is too much to get them into the 21st. If the builders do not deliver the government will legislate to get them in order. Oh, not MORE nanny statism, surely! Why can't clients just demand a higher standard of quality? Why are the British so willing to accept lower standards than just about any other nation? Why do we have to depend on a TV programme every now and again to expose the shoddy workmanship? What about brand-new houses in Australia, for example? They look absolutely fantastic. MM |
General quality of new houses?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:40:39 +0100, Simon Pleasants
wrote: On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 18:29:24 GMT, "John Smith" wrote: Hi, How do new houses generally compare in build quality to old houses say those built around the 1900s? When I look at new houses being built they look as if they are made of very cheap looking materials - the wood, for example, looks very thin and nasty? Just curious, John. I'm no construction expert so I cannot offer that sort of response. I can say, speaking as a (more or less) first time buyer from last summer that I looked at over 30 houses, old(ish), new and very new. Generally speaking the houses from the 50s and 60s had a much more solid feel internally. However they mostly needed redecorating (unless aging wallpaper is your style), re-wiring (unless a single socket per room is adequate for you) and a host of other issues, such as patchy central heating (normally added later and not always even handedly) attached to a large, loud boiler, presumably not as efficient as modern ones (and certainly much bigger). We also had issues with the kitchens and bathrooms in these places - as a general rule. Most had been double glazed in the 80s. In their favour, they were generally bigger inside and had much bigger gardens. The soundproofing was better and they felt more sturdy. You got more house for your money, but then you needed the money to spend putting in modern kitchens / bathrooms / boilers etc. The houses from the early to mid 90s we visited were by far the worse. Shoddily built, shoddily finished, already looking tatty and in need of repair. Sound proofing was none existant - the walls might just as well have not been there. Double glazing all wood, and already in need of serious repainting, likewise sophets (sp?). Good use of space was about the only plus point. Houses post 2000 or so came out top. Noticeable improvement in soundproofing (especially between floors), windows and sophets all UPVc, small, quiet boilers, high pressure hot water systems, excellent use of space, very good bathrooms and kitchens. In the end it was this that won it for us. Every room has bucket loads of power points, phone points, TV aerials, no-where is unheated. The actual construction of the house is more difficult to comment on because I lack the expertise to do so, however I can say that there is much evidence it was finished in a big rush and with extreme carelessness. Whilst dodgy wiring, dodgy water sensors, dodgy taps, dodgy windows, abundent nail pops have all been fixed quickly by Persimmon, there are other things that they cannot "fix". These include the fact that there is a hardly a 90 angle in the house, all of the window reveals are crooked in some way or another, doors that don't fit the frames, or where the catch doesn't line up. How are you supposed to put up straight curtain poles when the windows and ceilings are both not straight, but to different degrees from one another? Then there's bits of trunking, made of dry wall, presumably to hide pipes, which are so crooked that even to the naked eye on the other side of the room you can see how out of alignment it is. I'd have kicked their arse if I was the original owner, but I got it when it was just shy of 2 yrs old. Compared to the benefits though, the annoyances are trivial. Oh, I have also had to repaint the whole place from top to bottom because the quality of paint used originally was dire. One word: Persimmon. MM |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter