Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Stumbled on this while wandering around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...7622229110201/ basilisk |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
basilisk wrote in
: Stumbled on this while wandering around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...et-72157622229 110201/ basilisk +1 -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
basilisk wrote in : Stumbled on this while wandering around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...et-72157622229 110201/ basilisk +1 You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
"basilisk" wrote: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...7622229110201/ ------------------------------------ Memories Lew |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
-MIKE- wrote:
You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today. I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the 60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I don't mind much at all. -- -Mike- |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 10:47 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote: You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today. I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the 60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I don't mind much at all. I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the evolution of a style. All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance. I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer - times have changed. Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348.../set-721576222... Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses, over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly. I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I can't wait for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter work. MJ |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 12:02 PM, MJ wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348.../set-721576222... Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses, over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly. I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I can't wait for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter work. I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had certainly become less skilled. There are plenty exceptions for either period though. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
-MIKE- wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the evolution of a style. All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not so much. -- -Mike- |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Larry Blanchard wrote:
Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved. I hope not. Brick veneer is far superior to a brick home. I'd consider a "brick" house to be an albatross. -- -Mike- |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Swingman wrote:
I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better standard is either stupid or fooling themselves. Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had certainly become less skilled. Maybe in Texas... -- -Mike- |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 11:46 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote: All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance. I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer - times have changed. Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved. Sorry, but I'll take the stud wall with veneer. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 12:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. I agree. Keep in mind that those houses had to be put up very quickly, due to the fact that the boomers were being born and suburbia was exploding. What allowed them go up quickly was that simply design, not any shortcuts and lack of skill by the carpenters of that time. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote: I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better standard is either stupid or fooling themselves. Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had certainly become less skilled. Maybe in Texas... Definitely in Texas. And everywhere else as well. That does not mean that ALL houses built during that period were done that way. But a substantial portion were. I know because I was shopping for a house for the last couple of years. Broken slabs were common from that time frame. (and still asking over $100k) |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote: I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the evolution of a style. All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not so much. Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just of different songs, but different styles. Every song you listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway, military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one artist. That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood. (*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-) -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote: I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better standard is either stupid or fooling themselves. Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Larry Blanchard wrote in
: On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote: All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance. I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer - times have changed. Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved. In Holland just about all houses were built with double-walled brick exteriors. I remember that shoddy building practices at times resulted in mortar bridging those 2 walls, an absolute no-no since it wicks moisture from a rain-wet outer wall to the inside. Sometimes the occupants only found out after heavy rain, sometimes fairly long after they occupied the home. Expensive repairs needed. Almost all these homes with double brick walls should be retrofitted with insulation in the cavity. As far as sturdy is concerned, the method of construction is different, yields a rather inflexible home (not good in earthquake country), but if built well on good foundations, the home should last for hundreds of years. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: -MIKE- wrote: You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today. I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the 60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I don't mind much at all. It is a matter of taste. Many people around here (NJ) just love Tudor- style homes. I happen to hate that, though I can appreciate a well- designed Tudor in its class. The open, Art-Deco or Scandinavian style of this drawing that Basilisk linked to is something I can appreciate just as much, if not more. But "de gustibus non est disputandum" -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
MJ wrote in
: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348.../set-721576222. .. Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses, over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly. I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I can't wait for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter work. MJ I think that a recent This Old House series was on just that style of house, although vastly more upper class then Basilisk's original. They didn't spare any money redoing it. http://tinyurl.com/br2vdl8 or http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/p...esources/0,,10 62246,00.html And it suffered from original design, craftsmanship or material shortcomings plenty! -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
-MIKE- wrote:
Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years - thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's view point. You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just of different songs, but different styles. Every song you listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway, military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one artist. Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that are true to a form. That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood. Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few beers... (*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-) Well - that's a whole different conversation. -- -Mike- |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 11:46 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote: All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance. I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer - times have changed. Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved. How long ago was that???? |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Leon wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: Swingman wrote: I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better standard is either stupid or fooling themselves. Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock. So - back in the day... there were tract homes. Built by the guys that came in and slammed them up as fast as they could. My father did not want a house like that so he contracted the best guy around. The guy did not build this way. Every corner is a built corner - no scraps of 2x4 in the corner - all full 2x4's. A lot of overkill throughout the house. Well - that was back in 1960. The junk homes that were being built by the dozens at the time are still standing - just like the house my dad had built. Today, my mom's ceilings have some cracks here and there, the center line of the basement has had a crack since I was a kid living there, the blocks have had to be re-pointed in the basement walls, and the brick has had to be re-pointed. This was one of the best contractors around. He did not do slip shod work. Yet - his workmanship resulted in this. The tract homes were built by guys looking to get them up in a day or two, and guess what - they are still standing today with not much more for problems than my mom's house has today. So much of this talk about this stuff is just not all that valid. -- -Mike- |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 2:45 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote: Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years - thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's view point. For the record, I don't remember an instructor ever saying that... it's my opinion. You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just of different songs, but different styles. Every song you listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway, military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one artist. Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that are true to a form. That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood. Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few beers... Like I said before, we'll have to include you in the next google+ hangout beer summit. :-) -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: -MIKE- wrote: I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the evolution of a style. All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not so much. Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he "eventually" became a CPA. I studied architecture in high school Oh man, I hate my self..LOL A kitchen in the middle of the house was heavily, heavily frowned upon. We had to design and draw complete plans for a home, I put a kitchen in the middle of my house and was told that this was impossible and simply not done. I had to bring a Polaroid picture of our kitchen to class, to show that this design feature did exist, before I could proceed with the foundation drawings. Now, very commonplace. |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Somebody wrote:
I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer - times have changed. -------------------------------------- Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick outer) was built in the late '40's. After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was the standard offering. This would have been the NE Ohio market. Lew |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 3:24 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: -MIKE- wrote: I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the evolution of a style. All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not so much. Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he "eventually" became a CPA. Sounds like you stopped reading after my second sentence. Did you miss the part where I clarified that I didn't study "enough?" My only point was that I know enough to know that 4 or 5 mixed styles on one house, on every house in the neighborhood, looks like ****. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:
These homes in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock. There was a big migration of carpenters during that period that left the North and East and moved to California and Texas ... well known phenomenon. The schools I went to during that period were full of sons and daughters of carpenters and builders, many Italian, who had one other trait besides being "yankees"... to a boy/girl, they knew their baseball! Our LL teams were full of Bonazi's, and Trapolino's and Minnetrea's ... and they all played shortstop or third base. The stories are that most of the carpenters who migrated to CA were union, and thus most of those tract homes built in CA in the post war 50's were union built, so there was most definitely a higher skill level than there has been since the 70's. One of my favorite old time carpenters from that period was Larry Haun, who recently died. He wrote a bunch fine stuff down through the years for Fine Homebuilding magazine: http://www.finehomebuilding.com/slid...arry-haun.aspx A boatload of carpentry skill and knowledge was lost with that old man ... -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 3:24 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote: I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer - times have changed. -------------------------------------- Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick outer) was built in the late '40's. After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was the standard offering. This would have been the NE Ohio market. Lew Ohhhhhhhh, Actually there is a lot of strictly cinder block, filled with cement, construction down her in Texas. |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 3:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 3:24 PM, Leon wrote: On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: -MIKE- wrote: I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the evolution of a style. All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit. I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not so much. Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he "eventually" became a CPA. Sounds like you stopped reading after my second sentence. Did you miss the part where I clarified that I didn't study "enough?" My only point was that I know enough to know that 4 or 5 mixed styles on one house, on every house in the neighborhood, looks like ****. No I saw it all, BUT I had a funny, well funny now, story to tell!!! ;~) |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/2012 2:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote: On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: Swingman wrote: I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material. Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better standard is either stupid or fooling themselves. Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock. So - back in the day... there were tract homes. Built by the guys that came in and slammed them up as fast as they could. My father did not want a house like that so he contracted the best guy around. The guy did not build this way. Every corner is a built corner - no scraps of 2x4 in the corner - all full 2x4's. A lot of overkill throughout the house. Well - that was back in 1960. The junk homes that were being built by the dozens at the time are still standing - just like the house my dad had built. Today, my mom's ceilings have some cracks here and there, the center line of the basement has had a crack since I was a kid living there, the blocks have had to be re-pointed in the basement walls, and the brick has had to be re-pointed. This was one of the best contractors around. He did not do slip shod work. Yet - his workmanship resulted in this. The tract homes were built by guys looking to get them up in a day or two, and guess what - they are still standing today with not much more for problems than my mom's house has today. So much of this talk about this stuff is just not all that valid. I think a lot of it has to do with a good plan and engineering. I distinctly recall when I was about 15 years old the guy building a house across the street for his daughter and her family. He did the framing himself with a helper. He was going to use "x" amount of nails in every stud and so on, not like the all of the other track homes in the neighborhood built by a few builders. A year or two later we had a rather nasty hurricane and his house was the first to loose its entire roof, even with "x" amount of nails.. ;~) Our house almost directly across the street lost all of the fencing in the back yard, all of the cedar ridge rows and the front porch columns blew down. |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote: Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately, though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-) I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years - thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's view point. You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just of different songs, but different styles. Every song you listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway, military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one artist. Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that are true to a form. I don't have a trained eye, but it's interesting. In the history of furniture design, and music, there are plenty of places where they combine some of the old with some of the new. I guess that's just how evolution happens. We have many new subdivisions from the housing-boom of not too long ago, full of what I think of as "cookie-cutter" houses (because they all look the same). I think I'd prefer to see "mixed-up" architectures, just to stimulate the eye a little. %-) And yes, this includes "McMansion subdivisions", as you call them. That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood. Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few beers... (*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-) Well - that's a whole different conversation. |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:24:59 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 8:56 AM, Han wrote: basilisk wrote in : Stumbled on this while wandering around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...et-72157622229 110201/ I rather like some of the "mid-century modern" houses. That's a particularly bad example of a cracker-box, though. basilisk +1 You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today. Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)". |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)". Wiki does a decent job of describing it..... "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture.[1]" and... "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood." I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic. Pretty funny.... http://xrl.us/mcmansion -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)". Wiki does a decent job of describing it..... "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture.[1]" "Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a "McMansion". Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil? That definition reeks of silly envy. and... "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood." That definition is at odds with the first definition. What is *your* definition? |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 7:23 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- wrote: On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)". Wiki does a decent job of describing it..... "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture.[1]" "Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a "McMansion". What part of "as well as" do you not get? Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil? Wow, really? When did I say anything about evil? That definition reeks of silly envy. I think you're inferring a lot. and... "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood." That definition is at odds with the first definition. I don't see it being at odds, at all. What is *your* definition? What's your agenda, here? You clearly have one and are trying to steer me into it. So just get to it. I think I made the reasoning behind my objection to these houses pretty clear. There's no hidden malice or envy involved. I think they are f'n ugly and completely lacking in style. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)". Wiki does a decent job of describing it..... "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture.[1]" and... "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood." I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic. Pretty funny.... http://xrl.us/mcmansion That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly those who use derisive over-generalizations like; "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like." Really, why do you care what others have? |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:46:31 -0500, basilisk
wrote: Stumbled on this while wandering around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...7622229110201/ Hey, I like those flat-roofed styles. Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for that today. -- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt |
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Dark ages of architecture
On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- wrote: On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)". Wiki does a decent job of describing it..... "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture.[1]" and... "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood." I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic. Pretty funny.... http://xrl.us/mcmansion That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly those who use derisive over-generalizations like; "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like." Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the top 10 counties for bankruptcies. Really, why do you care what others have? I don't. But I do care that so many people in this country are so far in debt. It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008 already? -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Architecture DC Magazine Fall 2011 | Home Repair | |||
AVR & VON NEUMANN vs HARVARD ARCHITECTURE | Electronics Repair | |||
architecture style question | Woodworking |