I sometimes muse, when my busy, executive lifestyle will allow me the time, about what will be on the spot where we live in a hundred/thousand/ten thousand years.
I can see no reason for the demolition of my house and it's neighbours in the foreseeable future.
They're 85 yrs old, red brick semis and quite well built on concrete bases with good brick, massive purlins and re-roofed about 30 yrs ago.
So, short of a nuclear war, a meteorite, hidden tectonic plate fault or plane crash. I wonder what it's useful life will be.
There's no need for removal due to an airport or major road expansion here and the Metrolink is about 50 ft from the end of my garden with a ' buffer ' field, owned by Railtrack specifically for a proposed widening in about 1929 which didn't happen. So, if they ever wanted to put more tracks in, they already have the space.
I look at my eldest daughter's 10 yr old house and I see built-in obsolescence, cheap untreated wood in the loft, budget skirtings/doors/frames and cheap block construction clad in bricks.
How does a well maintained house ' die ' ? If you happen to be the Duke of Devonshire, you're pretty well guaranteed that your house will go on and on, but what of us grunts, us lesser mortals ?
( We're probably sat on a dormant volcano ! Ah well, it's being pessimistic that keeps me cheerful. )
Ted
|
>> I look at my eldest daughter's 10 yr old house and I see built-in obsolescence,
>> cheap untreated wood in the loft, budget skirtings/doors/frames and cheap block construction clad in bricks.
Even worse (IMHO) is the way buildings are being put up around here..
wooden frame, clad with what appears to be chipboard, then clad in brick.
one building already caught fire during construction, and was raised to the ground, but they started again, and it is now nearing completion.
I know in medieval times buildings were of of wood frame construction, but back then they did use decent quality hard wood.
|
|
Most houses in US and Canada are timber framed and they seem to last OK.
|
Most the wooden houses in Yankee land are in dryer places. I have never been over there (not fat enough) but I don't think there is many wooden structures in wet places such as New York.
Our house (well my parents) was built in 1906 on a brook (go into the foundations and its a river) but it still seems to be standing perfectly well.
I suppose the way we live will change so much that a house built in the past 100 years will become too small. When people are all 40 stone and 10ft tall.
Ted I suggest though that this entire area will just become apart o the Irish sea in a few hundered years time! The pennines hills will become the coast line.
Some of the houses near me which were built in the late Victorian ara (circa 1900) were knocked down in the early 80's but we never really understand why. I heared a lot of stories.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 31 May 10 at 22:27
|
we have lots of clay in this country so bricks are reasonably cheap to produce
unfortunately wood imported is even cheaper so houses built of this material in our weather is in my opinion just jerry built rubbish and the only saving grace is we killed all the big bad wolves so they wont get huffed and puffed
|
The house we sold before xmas was massive to be honest Rattle. Good for larger people ;-) Modern houses are too small.
For areas in the USA like California, buildings are wooden frame to allow them to withstand the forces of earthquakes. A timber frame building will move and not fall down. A brick one could fail and therefore probably not allowed now. My brother's house is timber frame for this reason.
|
Most houses in New York State are timber frame construction as they are in the rest of the States. New York by the way is not particularly wet!
|
I was refering to the city, when I ever seen it the older building look so much like the early 20th century Manchester ones, all 4-6 story brick structures.
The ceilings in our house are about 10-12ft tall means heating is quite expensive and changing light fittings is a bit tricky but its great for tall people.
I really don't like the idea of a modern house, I can do mitering better than some of the skirton boards in new houses. The finish just often looks so poor in them.
|
|
I know what you mean about new houses Rattle. Which is why in the end we went for a newer old one. This one is only about 80 years old. About 20 years younger than the one we sold. Luckily the boiler and wiring date back from 3 years ago ;-)
|
Thats the big problem my parents have, the wiring is 14th edition (1980) and the boilder and central heating system was fitted in 1984. It also needs a new roof, partial repointing and other bits like a new kitchen. The decor is all modern but the structure around the house is all falling down.
However there is so much attention to the detail all over in the design. It is a large three bed terrace and a lot of expensive has clearly gone into the design. It had hot water and electricity (lighting only I suspect) from the day it was built way back in 1906.
Despite its faults it has so much charector and I think I would just explode in a modern house with hollow walls and tiny bedrooms. My bedroom is the smallest in the house and still manage to fit a bed, water tank, three PCs, a full size HIFI seperates system with properly spaced speakers, my workbench and room for all my business paperwork.
Houses smaller than this are sold as four bedrooms these days.
I am not sure when the best era for houses were but I suspect it probably was between the two wars. By the 1960's they are becoming the usual modern boxes.
|
>> It had hot water and electricity (lighting only I suspect) from the day it was built way back in 1906.
Our old house had some evidence still of the old gas supply to the lights etc. Taps etc and other such things on some walls and in the skirting boards etc. So ours from 1909 did not have electric originally.
House opposite ours still has the bell pulls from rooms so the servants knew who was calling.
|
>> Most houses in US and Canada are timber framed and they seem to last OK.
No they dont, they knock them down after 50 years max, and rebuild. Or rezone.
|
You'll know this spot, Rats.
Maybe before your time but where the newer houses stand used to be a pair of semis like the white houses to the left.
tinyurl.com/3akwueb
For years the one on the right slowly descended by about 6ft. People were living in the left hand one but eventually it started to be dragged down and the pair were demolished. Might have your river underneath !
A long time later, the newer houses went up.........no sign of collapse yet.
I used to step out with a girl who lived opposite .............memories !
Ted
|
I never really thought about that block of semis before, just assume it was built on a garden or something. The original houses could not have lasted long then :(. The river is the Longford Brook and I think it just misses where those semis are BUT the entire area is full of swamps (hence the old name martlidge).
There is really very little of the old brook which still remains now, I know in the playing fields they have all dried up. I used to play in the old swamps left behind by it.
I know the building next door to me has just been underpinned and I am sure ours will need it doing in the next ten years or so. The end house sold for over £250k a year ago so if the block does need underpinning there will be a lot of unhappy and skint people.
Was looking in the Kelly's directory today (1969) and its amazing how many people still live round here.
|
>> The end house sold for over £250k a year ago so if the block does need underpinning there will be a lot of unhappy and skint people.
Underpinning affects insurance and all sorts. But if a house subsides, building insurance should cover it... the house we turned away from earlier this year had underpinning, as did the neighbour. We were already not going to buy before finding this out because the front of the house had been rebuilt off new foundations - our surveyor worked that out. Well spent that £460!
With hindsight I know what might have caused the underpinning need though.... the tree stump in the garden about 3 foot from the house was about 2 foot across.
|
Thats one of the problems we have, a neighbours tree (the rear of the building which was unperinned) is touching our house. We are currently trying to get them to fell it but it may turn out to be a loosing battle.
The problem is our house dosn't seem to be build onto any foundations. Removing the floor boards just reveals a 4-5ft ditch full of mud.
|
>>
>> I used to step out with a girl
>>
Stepping out with a girl - reminds me of................my grandparents?
|
I'd beat a hasty retreat Duncan, if I were you :)
Pat
|
I said houses in California (at least near say San Fransisco) were timber frame.
Another things often done is avoiding planning requirements for a new build. The process goes like:
1. Buy a house
2. Knock down three of the four walls
3. Build a new house affixed to the surviving wall
4. Knock down the old fourth wall
5. Rebuild a new wall
The fourth wall was part of the original building so you could build onto it. When you have done this, new walls are part of the building also. There is no need for the old fourth wall to be considered part of the building - there are three new ones. Hence demolish the last part and rebuild.
Maybe they clamped down on this now?
|
In a similar vein, Rob. You may have seen this one.
The larger house was built as a shell around one of the similar houses adjacent.
They are now selling for about £450K.
The big house was erected without any planning permission and while negotiations were going on, the house inside was demolished.
tinyurl.com/39246ww
By pretending not to speak very good English and not understanding the rules, they got away with it and completed the property, much to the dismay of neighbours.
You or I couldn't do it !
Ted
|
|
I know where you mean Ted. No we wouldn't get away with it would be.
|
That house makes me laugh, the drive is to small for the 5-7 mercs or BMWS they will eventualy have!
A friend of mine (I think you know the one) parents had built in extension by avaiding most the building rules. It turns out the cheap cowboys not from Europe who did the wiring didn't bother with the earth. My friend had an electric shock as a result (no harm done) but I still dion't know if they have learnt thier lesson. They did have planning permision and I don't know how it ever passed the council inspections.
Ted that area will only get worse because most the houses are 1960's build so rather bland so a lot of them will get knocked down to be replaced my mosque like mansions.
|
|
Building rules for extensions changes a couple years ago.... if you meet certain criteria you don't need planning permission. But you will have some inspections, eg. after foundations are dug.
|
That would explain it then. Although you would think the wiring would have to be part P checked.
Thinking about it the shock may have happened before it was inspected.
While we are on the topic how long should wiring last? Ours is now 30 years old with an 8 way Wylex standard fuse box. Would this be be a problem when we come to sell?
|
|
Wiring is meant to be checked every 10 years.
|
>>While we are on the topic how long should wiring last?
>> Ours is now 30 years old with an 8 way Wylex standard fuse box.
>> Would this be be a problem when we come to sell?
>>
I suggest you stop worrying about it :-)
I have an extension lead with VIR that is 50 years old and still going strong. Plastic IIRC will last me out:-)
My wiring is over 30 years old and I have not found any problems with the cable but check light switches and pendant fittings regularly.
I have just bought MCBs from Screwfix to swop over with fuses in a Wylex box for my daughter.
There must be tens or hundred of thousands of Wylex boxes all working fine.
I cannot believe the MCBs are still on sale if the boxes were suspect.
The only comment I might expect on selling is " Suggest RCD is fitted and MCBs replace any wired fuses"
|
Governments, individuals and especially local authorities have wrought terrible damage to the domestic architecture in this country. The history can be made to look complicated but the underlying reasons are simple enough. It is suggested though that perhaps without this vandalism we would all have been, and be, poorer.
But I don't think so. Some people might be poorer but most of us wouldn't, if we had maintained our housing stock in a civilised manner instead of permitting a slash-and-burn approach by cliques of greedy opportunists. Proper artians and skilled workers, not to mention labourers, would have had more to do, not less. So they would have been all right. The owners of prefab factories and their robotized, exploited prole workers might have suffered a bit, but that might have been good for their souls....
However:
no point in crying over spilt milk. The house I have just left, down the road here, was built in 1846 and is still sound. The one I am staying in now, just a mile away and about a third the size or less, is a much-remodelled late 19th century terrace job. Even remodelled it is far nicer in internal feel than a new building the same size would be.
|
Our 1930's house has got a few of the original wooden windows (others UPVC carp)
The wood used 'wood' have been pitch pine and are as good today as they were 80 years ago.
I've seen modern softwood windows rot within 10 years.
I wouldn't want to live in a modern house, I just wouldn't feel right in it somehow,
Perhaps I need a Jowett to finish orf 'the look' though :)
What I 'wood' like to know is ~ why is it that I've seen more woodworm (beetle) in houses built in the 50's / 60's,
than in older houses built in the 30's.
|
"I sometimes muse, when my busy, executive lifestyle will allow me the time, about what will be on the spot where we live in a hundred/thousand/ten thousand years."
Ted, I have pondered a similar thing ever since I was a little boy. I often wonder what will happen to everything if man just vanished off the face of the earth. Lo and behold, Discovery been and gone and made a whole series of documentaries about it.
Check it out, "Life After People", currently running it's second series. Very entertaining and thought-provoking. Won't give any answers about your semi in South Manchester, but if you've ever wondered what will happen to La Tour Eiffel, St Pauls, nuclear power stations, Hoover Dam, domestic animals, ships, highways, cars etc etc etc...
|
|
Bet that Misubishi Colt we had in the early 2000s as an Office hack will be parked up in an overgrown lot somewhere waiting for someone to start it on the key - coakroaches and Colts will all that'll be left...
|
|
So far the longest lasting man-made monument that they have covered has been Mount Rushmore and Mitsubishi Colts.
|
I looked at the wooden framework of a partly-built house this morning. The bits of timber were joined by hammering on spiky plates of sheet metal. I wondered - how long as this going to last? In softwood?
Where is all that skill learning the 101 different kinds of timber joints, making something that will last hundreds of years?
I wonder what happens financially as a current house gets to within say 20 years of its end of life. At one point someone has borrowed 5 times his annual income and is struggling to pay the mortgage, and a building society has lent it's depositors' money on an asset that is doomed to fall apart soon. But within a few years the house will presumably be worthless and the borrower saddled with total negative equity.
Or does everybody assume that the land will be worth a million so it won't matter?
|
>> I looked at the wooden framework of a partly-built house this morning. The bits of
>> timber were joined by hammering on spiky plates of sheet metal. I wondered - how
>> long as this going to last? In softwood?
Longer than you think. Provided the vapour barrier is made and maintained ok, it will last for 100 years.
>> Where is all that skill learning the 101 different kinds of timber joints, making something
>> that will last hundreds of years?
You can have a hand crafted wooden structure if you want, with lovely dowels and mortice joints. YOu got several hundred thousand pounds?
Has to be softwood, its the only type thats sustainable.
>> Or does everybody assume that the land will be worth a million so it won't
>> matter?
The land is two thirds to 75% of the cost of the building. So yes thats a good assumption.,
|
>> >
>>
>> Has to be softwood, its the only type thats sustainable.
>>
>> >>
I don't think that is true. Oak and other hardwoods are readily available from sustainable woodland.
Of course it's expensive, but you'd have to weigh that against the cost of using inferior softwood.
|
|
Hardwoods take too long to grow in the northern hemisphere.
|
An old kid said to me if it's got a good water tight roof you have nowt to worry about!
Well this house turned 100yrs last year has a cellar under the living room and the kitchen is solid yorkshire stone, the walls are stone externally the ceiling is approx 8ft to the top the houses opposite me are older and grander and look very well.
New houses well i have looked are poky and small for my budget!, old houses are for me can't see this been knocked down but if they offer me a substanial incentive they can have it!!
|
We bought a new build house and it worked out that we got more square footage per £ than anything older. Having new has its advantages, but I would really love something old with more character.
Wouldnt buy new again though - dont like the plasterboard walls!
|
Lifetime of a house. - swiss tony
