Were Old Houses Built Better?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2018
- In this episode of The Build Show Matt will walk you though several older homes he’s remodeled to see how they were built, and where he found problems (or didn’t find problems) when he took them apart. He will also explore some remodels from the last 20 years and show some problem areas on these newer homes.
The Elements of Building Book Matt Referenced - amzn.to/2xhsRGS
Dettmore Home Improvements on Instagram (Picture Referenced) - / dettmore101
Be sure to hit the Subscribe button! New Build Show videos every Tuesday and Friday. Follow Matt on Instagram here:
/ risingerbuild
The Build Show store on Amazon has all Matt's Favorite Tool and Books. www.amazon.com/shop/mattrisinger
Huge thanks to our Show sponsors USG/Tremco, Polywall, Huber, Dorken Delta, Prosoco, Rockwool & Endura for helping to make these videos possible! These are all trusted companies that Matt has worked with for years and trusts their products in the homes he builds.
www.Securockexoair.com/en.html
www.Dorken.com
www.Poly-Wall.com
www.Huberwood.com
www.Prosoco.com
www.Rockwool.com
www.EnduraProducts.com
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.77[2/2] "รับทราบ" แก๊งเพื่อนรัก 10 ปี ที่ไปไหนก็มีตำนาน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ifc0ofD51B0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 2404707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tn3bGHiBWkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Matt, excellent video! You remind me of a young American version of Canadian Mike Holmes. I love the attention to providing a great built home using the best materials, design's and techniques along with science. Your quality show's inside and out.
The Enigmaone 007 totally agree!
nowhere near what Mike Holmes is....
Holmes is informative but comes across arrogant. Matt>Mike
Naw, Holmes would have seen that "little bit" of termite damage on the first house and decided to tear down the whole thing... possibly the whole block would have to go...
Mike Holmes is an actor. An actor who preys on the uninformed picking who he wants to help and who he doesn't. He in his ignorance has stated that mosquitoes cannot see LED light and that aluminum rusts. If you want to trust that, there is a cliff that all of the other cattle are running over.
One also has to consider survivorship bias when looking at old things. Bad buildings from back in the day may be long gone. What we have left are the best buildings from a given time period.
Great observation
Definitely, tenement style housing from 100 years ago made with mediocre materials has probably all been raised by now.
Which begs the question from the video: How do we design houses today to take advantage of the successful things of the past, but improve them with today's modern efficiencies. It seems a lot of houses today are efficient, but not durable in the slightest. We should really strive to do both rather than one or the other.
excellent point.
They also aren't sustainable. A lot of the foams and synthetic insulators require cheap energy (petroleum) to be produced.
Older houses were also built with different assumptions, particularly regarding the frequency of modification. You don't build your house with 2-foot-thick stone walls if you think you might live there only 5-7 years and the next owner will want to "update" everything.
On the other hand, if you're there to stay and think you'll pass it on to your kids, then you might invest in some really nice craftsmanship.
It's hard to recoup the costs of quality when you sell. American home-buyers pay for _appearances_ and amenities, not quality--about which they know precious little when it comes to buildings (and much else).
Also old houses were built with old growth timber
@Daniel Prazenica old growth is much better wood. Typically the trees have tighter growth rings and that makes the softwood lumber harder / stronger. A modern spruce or pine 2x4 has fairly large growth rings.
Modern forestry practices are meant for the fastest growing trees possible. I would snag that old house your looking at in a second assuming the roof is good and the building wasn’t leaking
@Daniel Prazenica not sure if you are talking about lead in the house or lead in the soil in the yard. Lead in the soil I don't know how you would deal with that. Lead in the house from old pipes and old lead based paint the only way to deal with it is the basically take it all out, i.e. gut the house take all lead water pipes out and all of the old lath and plaster and trim that would have potentially been painted with lead based paint. Do not sand the paint or walls as it will only create a fine lead dust and make the situation even worse. The best thing to do in this case is basically just redue all of the plumbing and drywall and trim in my opinion. Lead can be really dangerous, I have read articles of kids who have died back in the day from long term lead exposure because of lead based paint and drinking water delivered though the old lead pipes. Don't take a chance with the lead in my opinion!
@Daniel Prazenica ya lead dust on surfaces is almost impossible to correct without remodeling. Some people try to paint over lead based paint but its a band aid. I think your better to move on if gutting the place is not on the agenda, like you said it will be very expensive
Exactly.
Today's "standards" are based upon govt regulations partnered with insurance companies, and the help of the media cleverly promoting the "approved" crap as popular "current trends"
Today's standards: instant gratification at the expense of the inevitable loss & regret of tomorrow using landfill-bound materials & requirig major purchases & repairs in the not-distant future.
I have an 1890 house. It's challenging keeping the beauty of the old while bringing up the efficiency. I think you have to appreciate the old homes.
New homes and old homes are good in their own ways.
I was super lucky when the 100 year old house I recently purchased turned out to be built of solid Australian red cedar. Floor joists, wall frames, windows, all trims, ceiling joists and beams. Even the walls and ceilings were red cedar ply board. It still has the original tin roof with no rust.
There is no insulation but it is so cool in summer and holds the heat in winter (even in snow). Its also very sound insulated as well. I live near a main road and railway and can hardly hear the truck/train sounds. Someone knocks on my door and I can't hear them even a room away.
In comparison, the 1930's extension for the kitchen was built using pine, Masonite, cheap ply, and fibro. Freezing cold in winter, boiling hot in summer, drafty yet stuffy at the same time, and with various parts needing replacing every decade (info from previous owners). I only need to paint the old part of the house but I will have to insulate and repair most of the extension. I'm considering having the extension all torn down and re-done.
We live in the northeast corner of the US, and there are many old homes here, and plenty of them are still being lived in while remaining significantly original in structure. Yes, of course bathrooms & kitchens have been modernized, they've been rewired, but you still find uninsulated homes, homes with original windows, homes with original doors and working fireplaces, etc. And as you said, the houses do well with the changing weather. And living in a few different houses like that myself (and knowing many others who do as well), I know that our bills are not through the (uninsulated) roof in summer or in winter. The house does well in retaining heat and staying cool in the summer. Last year we used one window unit a/c and 3 window fans throughout the entire 2000 sq. ft. house, and we were comfortable. We slept fine---and we slept under covers, not on top of them. ;) Now, we've lived in homes built in the 60s & 90s, and those houses offered us no improvement in heating/cooling. In fact they were worse in some cases. And on top of that we would regularly run into mold issues in those we which we have never had in any of our older houses.
@@lissamk3990 How is it that they do fine with weather extremes, with no insulation?
Our house was built in 1932 and it is wood. We also bought the house next door(also built in '32) for $4000 it still had the original toilet because it had been vacant for a couple of decades. Both very strong built house. We didn't throw away the toilet, still have it in storage.
On another note, if there is a house fire, new lumber burns twice as fast as the old.
"Not Chip and Johanna shiplap"
Matt throwing shade!
I was just talking about that "shiplap" a few days ago. True craftsmanship is being beat out in large by cheaper alternatives. Some areas worse than others.
I think he just implied the people throwing up shiplap for decorative purposes or accent walls. Not true structural shiplap.
Old houses did have a form of cooling. Most I've seen around my area had these windows above the doors all the way up to the ceiling that would let the hott air escape.
I would add that I think my basement with the thick walls helps keep my house cool in the summer. I don't run ac much at all here. I'm also right on a lake, in a valley and have trees all around me for shade, I'm sure that helps too.
Yep. People think I'm crazy when install a full size single screen and open the top of the windows.
that is called a transom
That was the original intention of double hung windows. They allow cross ventilation, even in a room with only one window. Also, older 1800 homes would often have a transom window over the room entry door to allow air transfer even when the door was closed.@@y2kmadd
Wartime houses are like the cheapest of their time and still hold up today for the most part.
There were still tons of them that were torn down, so compared to other housing it's hard to say whether they were better or not.
Old houses that are still standing were built well, but our old friend time has picked out all the turds.
Survivor bias.
Or ones that were well maintained and remodelled. Or ones that were not sold and replaced with freeways, shopping areas, or apartments.
Don't know what the figures are like jn the USA but in the UK most houses built 100 years ago are still standing. Well excepting that nothing was built during WWI. Whats been knocked down thats over 100 years old generally was either bombed in WWII or was slum housing.in major cities. Something like over 50% of the housing stock predates WWII and over 20% is over 100 years old. You would struggle to sell a house built to USA standard's in the UK, and I would imagine from what I have seen most of Europe.
Nothing but survival bias indeed.
No one remembers the failures, it's why psychics are able to be successful. The UK has torn down most of their old buildings, and the ones that are left have been gutted out completely and rebuilt to more modern standards. Only 20% of the markets housing remains of the older shells, after an eon of building doesn't say, boy they sure made them well. It says that hardly anything could survive.
But then again I do remember the 1980s and how much was torn down across the UK, to try and remove the huge amounts of dogs before they fell down on their own, and killed more people.
It's partially true. I see plaster as a better idea than drywall for example. But during the plaster age for people who couldn't afford a real smooth plaster job there was stuff like Masonite walls, wood paneling, etc. All those Masonite/wood panel walls are pretty much long gone, and unlike drywall burnt like mad in a fire, too. But, there's 100 year old plaster walls with just a crack or two in them that are otherwise perfect while 20 year old drywall is full of nailpops and seams. So yeah, survivorship bias was part of it.
I owned a house in southern Missouri built in 1912 framed out of Black Oak!! The lumber in the house was worth more than the house.
There's a house near me that has exposed redwood roof joists and roof sheathing. It's beautiful, and worth a fortune too.
Wow! That's crazy
Depends on what you're doing with it. Black and red oak are far more porous than white oak but unless you're building a boat with it, its not really an issue. Framing a house with it would be plenty strong as long as you made sure to keep moisture out. That goes for any kind of lumber though.
Pre-1970? southern CA entire home even stucco starter homes entirely framed (every 2x4, 2x6 etc) in red wood.
Then why did you sell it?
Hard part is finding contractors that are honest and actually knowledgeable that don’t cut corners, top quality stuff here 👍
Maybe update the shit school system to train boys in physical construction and mentorship. That's how it's suppose to work, instead you rather they sit on their asses and learn stupid shit when their developing minds are literal super computers
For all the houses I worked on over 45 years , Many older houses were stout and solid ,Many newer houses were absolute junk.
The oldest was built in 1865.
It depended on the masons and carpenters , either pro or DIY.
Materials were selected via cost in almost all homes prior to approx 1967-9.
Older homes were as a rule built to shed rain and snow , hence steep roofs and large overhangs and no soffit or fascia on most.
I can't speak for other nations but in Norway, old houses were build't to last for hundreds of years, with multiple generations in mind, the house i grew up in were over 200 years old and still standing to this day looking mint, I've helped my grandfather sometimes in the loft and the basement doing some work, holy balls folks, those nails were what i can describe as long as 40cm long, the wood used for those roof beams were as thick as your average fridge, it's just incredible how well made those old houses are.
No matter were you look you don't see any cheap shortcuts, they seemed to care allot about the long term, same for the walls, thick wood used, and lot's of it, they were also really clever to make sure it wasn't so tight that the air quality got bad, they made some breathing room so the ventilation is great, and it has a good effect on the wood, the new houses are what they call cardboard rubbish.
Near hermetically sealed, they use pre fabricated walls with thin wood beams and some plywood, heck those are even stapled and glued together, I've seen how they're made, there is a saying here, the old houses are the ones who laughs in the end, usually when we have lot's of wind and bad weather the old houses are standing while the new ones are missing roofs, wall segments flying apart, the biggest mistake you do is buy a new house, buy an old one and restore it.
Now days they give a rats ass about reliability and quality, they want it fast, they want it cheap, they want it very simple, so they get, garbage, old houses are worth fixing and taking care of, while new ones you might as well tear them down, besides old houses usually have allot of character to them, new ones don't, personally i hate modern design, all cubical and lifeless.
I so agree. If anyone wanted to break into a "modern" house here in the US all they have to do is remove the thin plastic siding, a bit of pink fiberglass insulation and punch a few holes in some 1/2" thick drywall and voila!!! They are IN your house. What a joke. Unfortunately, the joke's on us. Reminds me of the childhood fairy tale called "Three Little Pigs" where the big bad wolf huffed and puffed and easily blew down the pigs houses that were made of sticks and straw.
I could not agree more.. I am norwegian as well.. I rent an old farmhouse, timber walls.. old. Not very fancy, but easy to keep warm with the wood stove in the kitchen, and the bedroom over the kitchen acting as an insulator to the roof. As soon as i get a chance to own.. i will buy and fix something old.. no new crap for me.. this house is also , being just wood and stone..very nature friendly... no toxins.
I agree
Norwegian houses are some of the best in my opinion. The cabins I visited were all handmade and immaculate for how old they are.
Most Norwegian houses built 200 years ago were terrible one room shacks, which is why a third of the population immigrated to the US. They mostly didn't survive more than a generation. You're comparing the cream of the past to the very average housing now.
I own a 200 year old solid stone house and its pretty comfrotable, except the creaking floor its as comfortable as my modern house
My house is 166. Hand hewn Timber frame I believe by the Swiss. Dairy farm house. We're trying to learn to insulate correctly. I also want to keep some of the timbers exposed in the ceiling and the roof.
I was given the remnants of a circa 1940 fireplace mantel that was removed during a minor living room remodel...basically a box made of 1" thick sweet gum lumber with an inside frame made of 2x4 pine scraps that were probably laying around the site when the house was being built. The sweet gum doesn't have much character but the pine "scraps" inside were clear old growth white pine with amazingly tight grain. Woodworking is a hobby of mine and I've never seen such nice pine in my life. Spent more time salvaging as much of that pine as I could than I did salvaging the sweet gum!
I purchased a house that turned 150 years old recently, I’m currently continuing to improve “her”. Amazing, as I purchase a flipped house before this and will just say that even though it was 100 years newer, leaps and bounds better in many ways. Lead paint is the main negative, be we’ve encapsulated it. For the lumber that was used to build this, floor boards are 2-1/2 x 7-1/2, walls studs are 4x3. Amazing. I’d expect it to last another 150. I don’t believe anyone will be saying that about some of the major builder home companies.
Wait are you saying the older home is built better or the new? Sorry I got confused
I don't watch this channel often but I watched this video and I'm glad I did. Some New building strategies disgust me. Almost Everything is fake, superficial or inefficient
Fake stone facades,
Fake non structural brick exteriors,
Fake boarders,
Fake pillars,
Superficial prefab fireplaces that just leak air into the house,
Superficial roofs with multiple different roof styles and extremely cut up,
Superficial vaulted ceilings,
Inefficient overhangs that provide little protection from sun or rain.
Inefficient dark roofs that get to 150 degrees in Texas heat.
Inefficient walls that soak up heat and moisture
Inefficient slab foundations that crack.
Vitruvius said a house must be three things: durable, beautiful, and usable. A lot of newer constructions FAIL on all three fronts.
Vitruvius didn't live in 2018 where the standard of living is far better than during his life. You can't compare the people who are living in these so called inefficient houses with houses in the past that weren't inefficient....a large portion of these people would have a much smaller house thats not nearly as nice, energy efficient, and single car household etc....we are stretching are dollar now which allows those who normally wouldn't have had nice things to now have them....no one had 5 TVs 30 years ago....now people living in poverty do. They have cell phones too....remember that
@@actionjackson9121 hi. There is nothing new under the sun. We are not stretching the dollar at all with home building. The builder's are commanding high dollar by creating "value".
What value is added to the owner of the house by having fake boarders?
Some of the older houses were not as inefficient as you would think. That whitewashed house for example- I have a white painted house and the the temperature of the wall is usually 5 degrees above ambient in full sun, where my neighbors' brick siding is at 40 degrees above outside temp in full sun.
The house with 5 ft overhanges meanse- means that between the equinoxes(March 21 to Sept 21), if it has a north south orientation, the walls are in FULL shade.
Remember that everything else being the same a smaller house is an easier house to heat and cool. So no matter how efficient a 5000 SQ foot mcmansion is, it still takes a lot of energy to heat and cool it
The standard of living is merely temporary brought on by the discovery of cheap energy. Suburbs, cookie cutter homes, will be a blip in the history of man. We've thrown millennia of building techniques for convenience. Science has given us a lot of tools and materials that we could benefit from, particularly the Internet, but I don't see petroleum derivative products as one of them, at least in the long term.
I hope the mcmansion is on its way out
Consider the volume of construction happening constantly, coupled with the scarcity of materials relative to 100 years ago. The way old houses were built was not sustainable, clearly.
In Britain, we have houses still standing after 4-500 years, and some churches and cathedrals are 1000 years old. There are timber buildings in Japan dating back that far. I think most modern houses now being built are going to need serious work within 100 years max.
Hi Phil. I don't think any of the timber buildings in Japan are ACTUALLY that old. MAYBE a few... Mostly, the climate here is extremely punishing to almost all materials, and that's without even taking the typhoons and earthquakes into account... Secondly, the sugi timber used for most buildings is actually very soft and susceptible to rot - it's a step above balsa wood, but not much, and weaker even than modern SPF. The secret is they basically tear them down and rebuilt with new materials, exactly the same in every detail, every couple of decades! The few that are actually that old would have been made with hardwoods that are now virtually unavailable in quantity in Japan.
BTW - you'll be interested to know I keep Japanese native Apis Cerana here, in Warre style hives. Now THOSE hives even survived a typhoon!
Yes, but many are wrecks and miserable places to live. All sorts of BBC shows about dilapidated old wrecks needing huge investments to become livable again.
@Nothing Noone True enough, however framed/stud-built houses are not going to make it through the test of time. Even if it's survivorship bias, it doesn't change the fact that 2x4/6 construction won't last nearly as long.
Climate in the US is way different. 35c in the summer. -17c in winter.
Greetings from the west Coast of Ireland, we bought our cottage as a derelict in 1997, built around 1900's solid stone with blue Bangor slate roof tiles. Once we got the fires going and settled in, the place came alive. 2018 now no damp no cold just cosy and comfy, happy days
Lucky you.
back in my day they built houses out of caves! those things lasted!
I forget the actual date but from what I heard the oldest original roof is located in New England and was made of White Pine. I have worked on homes there dating from the early 1700s so if my memory serves me correctly that would be roughly the date of the roof. Old growth wood is so far superior to the farmed wood we build with today. Like you said, tight growth rings inhibit water from soaking in along with the pitch that acts like a preservative
In a small home maybe. There are copper roofs dating back before Jesus.
Pantheon had a copper roof for 600 years until it was stolen to be used as a roof for another church, and was finally melted to make weapons after 1700 years. It would still be there had it not been stolen and melted down.
Good video. One of the things that has changed is the type of timber we use. My grannys house was built from virgin long leaf pine; the house is over 100 years old and still standing. Today, we use timber from young fast growing slash pines which rots fairly quickly.
My house is about 120yrs old, stone built, with old growth oak support beams. I've lived in new builds and all I had were problems. This one is perfect now that I've rewired it.
5:40 I’ve had 2x4s from ~100 year old houses that I had to drill pilot holes to drive in 16 penny nails.
I've re-used even sixties Douglas Fir, and you had to pre-drill everything. I've heard wood also gets harder with time. No idea if this is true or not.
Just built a work bench from some old rough sawn I had in my barn loft. Broke off so many screws and bits. Impact driver and pilot holes to get it done. That work bench will surely outlive me.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 That Fir is some tough stuff too. My old floors were Fir. They were pretty beat up to refinish, so I just kept them as subfloor where I could, worked pretty well.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 It's true. As they dry out and compress they are incredibly hard, and still straight. Old growth wood and masonry wins every time.
Bingo
German guy here. I don't understand the houses in the USA. German houses are so very different. I live in a Bavarian village in a 200 year old stone house, and it's not what you expect. It has some flaws (the previous owner tried to insulate the roof and did a less than stellar job), but otherwise, it's a perfectly normal house, no mold anywhere, warm in the winter, cool in the summer, without insulated walls, just stones and plaster. We need new windows and a new front door some time in the near future, though.
this guy is selling something. That stone house and several others he showed would be just like yours in Germany… cool in summer hot in winter
Most of the US would have much newer construction than what would be in Germany and other established areas across the pond. Most homes in the US were/are built as part of a community build and development; Which also means that many of those older Gems end up getting knocked down if they aren't inhabited, and nobody can find the owner. Whereas more of your established villages in Germany and other countries were built with quality intended during the time for families to pass down for generations keeping families together. What the US model leads to is industrial, cookie cutter JUNK built for speed and profit; rather than quality and longevity. Your thicker walls of stone and plaster are going to much more difficult for the outside climate to penetrate, as long as it is all taken care of.
Even newer homes in Germany are built to a much different standard than homes in the US, with many more regulations for efficiency, regular home health inspections and other things. Unlike the US, where you're basically pulling teeth from an un-sedated crocodile to add additional regulations because once again the US so about capitalism beyond a fault it isn't funny.
To Americans, investing in a house designed to last 200 years is like investing in a car designed to last 200 years. Technology and tastes advance. We consider it better to rebuild more frequently (typically every 75 to 150 years), and to rebuild in modern proportions and with modern amenities. Also, here in California, we build out of wood because the weather is good, we have a lot of wood, and light weight is an advantage in seismic design.
th-cam.com/video/2_2lGkEU4Xs/w-d-xo.html
Part of the reason you see so much more masonry in older European homes compared to older American homes is that Europeans clear cut a large portion of their forested land. North America didn't really get its start until European colonization happened in the 17th century. At that time, there were virgin forests all over the East coast of what would become the USA and Canada and they were heavily harvested. But because of the USA's comparatively late start compared to European nations, we had our first forestry laws in the mid-1800s which started limiting how many trees were taken. You'll find plenty of masonry homes in the US though, simply because some areas lacked easy access to trees. The Southwestern USA and Northern Mexico saw vast use of adobe construction. And, like your Bavarian home, the large thermal mass helped keep them cool in the hot summers and retained heat in the winter months.
As far as homes today, we don't build them to last 200 years because its simply not practical. You do find lots of masonry construction in places like Florida though. The exterior walls on most homes out there are concrete block or cast concrete or a combination of both. You could almost knock down every single interior wall in a home like that and it would stand up just fine with a couple supports for the roof truss in the middle.
Here in Chicago there are a number of what they call "Georgian" houses with no overhangs at all. Not only do they look ugly and not offer any shade for the side of the house/windows...or any ventilation for the attic...it also turns out that they're likely to rot.
I live in a home that was built in 1930. We don't have central air but we have a lot of huge oaks to shade the home. We also have ceiling fans in most rooms. And, the house is brick...real brick. The brick is still beautiful after 90 years. The joists are rock hard...amazing quality materials. The only downside is the lack of insulation in the walls. I'm adding rock wool as I do remodeling.
Here in Finland we still have a ton of post-WW2 rebuild era houses that were all built using the same basic design. There was a shortage of several materials at the time, so these houses are basically all wood (which we had a lot of), from the framing to the insulation which is leftover sawdust. No plastic anywhere, which means the structure lives and breaths. Most of these houses are still perfectly OK as long as the roof has been kept watertight and there have been no prolonged leaks from water pipes. It was only the later houses from 60s-70s on that started suffering from rot and moisture, thanks to plastic layers and insulation materials that are incabable of dispelling the moisture that inevitably gets there. And obviously some of these good, healthy older houses were ruined in the energy crisis era by adding modern insulation, or by blocking air flow to the cold attic. Or by using latex paint outside - that's enough to seal the wood off and make it rot. It's only now that the building industry is starting to realize the mistakes they've made. Too bad so many people have had to suffer from the air quality problems inside these later houses. It's a big price to pay from fractionally smaller heating costs.
What kind of paints should be used instead of latex? I have to repaint the overhangs on my house. Latex is what is mainly available now here in Canada unless you use oil-based paint for metal...
my birthhouse is from 1654 (its a Traditional bavarian house with masive Wood) got a overhang roof with over 1 meter on all sides and it looks like it is very new made
I saw the last house, with a proper alignment of insulation and an air gap between the outer shell and the inner layer. And all I could think of: DAMN you nearly built a Dutch standard house. You should take a look at how we make em here, mostly out of brick (in and out) with controlled mechanical ventilation, concrete floors and more. You will see most of the "best" practices you encourage being standard here, with even more details to prevent moisture from creeping up through the foundation and more.
When I look at remodels and rebuilding programs originating in the US, I am always creeped out by how the most fundamental areas of a house are treated. As a structural engineer, who never forgot the basic practices of thermal and water bridging that were standard in my education, I am so amazed that such a low standard is accepted in the US. Yes it is cheap and fast, but by god I can feel the rot of the main structure coming up as I see houses being built overthere.
Maxx Kroes That is actually quite interesting. I worked on a few apartment blocks when for Sweden when I was working for a precast concrete factory in Germany, and couldn't tell much of a difference. And having been to Sweden the last year for a project as lead engineer for a new lock that we are designing there, I couldn't really see that much different from the outside, though I should look into the matter a bit deeper now.
Ordos20
Concrete FLOORS?! Why? I can see using masonry as an EXTERIOR material, but anything on the inside is protected from the elements and will last forever, provided the exterior is maintained.
5% of worldwide CO2 emissions come just from making concrete! I think it ecologically absurd to make something of concrete when it doesn't add any value.
@@bcubed72 strenght, some Mediterana counturies also build roofs from concrete and terra tiles over it
Americans builds only JUNK! Before Americans used to built-to-last in the 60s, 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s, 10s, 1900 to 1800 but not anymore, unless you specifically ordered it built according to your specifications with a powerful engineer-lawyer making a contract for all contractors and sub-contractors that they must face the heavy handed consequences if they cheat-cut corners!
@@bcubed72 it's efficiency Vs emissions depends on its lifespan bear in mind !
Thanks for sharing, I just wish as Americans we built homes like the Germans do. I’ve stayed in a lot of Airbnb homes/condos across Germany and Switzerland. And I’m always amazed by how the Home is constructed. I’ve stayed in both old construction and new.
OSB is a scourge on the housing industry. OSB is everywhere now, even the flooring. The problem is that when it gets wet, the wood expands (as all wood does), and it breaks down the glue bonds. The stuff literally falls apart after a few years of exposure to water. Old wood houses were built out of cut lumber, so this process took a lot longer. Even plywood is more resistant to water, although not great it has glue too.
But the trend is towards cheaper and cheaper building materials that do not handle water as well. Vinyl siding for example is very common now. But how long can vinyl survive in the elements? 20 years? So your siding becomes like an asphalt roof and needs to be replaced every 20 years. But the damage may already be done.
I HATE VINYL SIDING WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING! THAT GARBAGE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!!
Even the old houses in your video are pretty new compared to what Europeans would consider old. I grew up in a house that was built in the early 16th century, it is holding up pretty well, only had to replace a single beam and remove the old stone oven.
wood doesn't rot if its left to breathe, as long as it can dry out properly, its fine. most VERY old houses are only in bad shape because of modern attempts to prevent damp, which only serves to seal in the moisture and cause rot... Even painting wood will stop it from drying out in the summer.
The Japanese say if you want a house to stand for 300 years you need 300 year old trees.
having each of my houses get older and older as I moved, I will say, older is (usually) better. went from a new 2008 built house which was absolutely garbage, to a 2000 built house which was better but still bad to a 1980s house which is absolutely solid all around in its construction. the 2000+ houses I do not expect to live more than about 50 years before they need to be torn down or 100% renovated inside and out.
I agree, I had a house built tin 2011. I had the luxury most do not, which was to be there on site every day. However, even with my being there, the contractors still got away with shoddy crappy practices. If you have an 80’s built home, be careful of what you may going in some of the walls if you make renovations. I lived in a 1980’s built home and we wanted to add two bedrooms and redesign the kitchen. There were empty cardboard cases of beer in the walls between the sheet rock, and we had found a lot of shoddy construction. But my brother renovated an old Victorian home from the 1850’s which some slumlord modernized for a boarding home and covered up all the beautiful wood. He found stained glass windows, and all kinds of hidden features an then he began restoring instead of renovating. Tha house is still standing, and its 2 blocks from the Atlantic Ocean.
As a painting contractor, I did an 1883 "painted lady" Victorian, wood frame building. What surprised me was that in spite of extensive paint peeling, there was no rot anywhere on the house.All the windows were original double hung and still were in good shape. My theory as to why the house was in such good shape was the nature of the old balloon frame construction with no insulation. Even if the framing should get occasionally wet, there was so much air moving in those walls that they rapidly dried out. Wood that can dry out does not rot, it is when it stays wet that fungus start eating away at the wood.
Lack of vapor barriers also allowed moisture to exit, albeit at the cost of the paint on the exterior peeling. That job took 170 gallons of paint and primer for a complete two coat paint job and requiring 145 man/days of labor.
My wife's parents live in the first farm house in their area - it was built in 1856. I've done some work in the house for them and it's built like a tank. Framed with true 2x4 hardwood studs.
Before watching. my guess: thicker and heavier materials means that even sub-optimal construction will make up for any mistakes.
I'd love if you did a video on how you would build different houses to last on different budgets that would be cool.
I grew up in a large Victorian, which my family and I lived in from 1985 to 2006. To give you a description - it's four stories tall; has eight bedrooms (with walk-in closets in each room); three bathrooms; 15-20 foot ceilings on the main level; grand staircase; three different living rooms as well as two sitting rooms and two four-seasons sun rooms (one on the second floor and the other just off the kitchen); chandeliers in the entrance, sitting rooms, living rooms, and dining room. Of course, fireplaces all over as well and a full attic and basement. Since it's a Victorian, it's well over 100 years old now. In 2006, prior to selling the house, my parents had an appraiser and structural engineer come over to check the house out. They both said the house was "over-built" and will probably last another 100+ years barring any catastrophe.
My parents now live in a house built 16 years ago and apparently this house will only last MAYBE 80 years, also barring any catastrophe. With that said, older houses are just built better.
Why did they sell it? Sounds like my dream house. Sigh..............
@@reesedaniel5835 By 2006 my siblings and I had all but moved out, leaving my parents pretty much by themselves in a huge house. It was just too large for two people to live in, so they sold it and downsized. I do remember my mother telling me she was sick of climbing four stories worth of big staircases all the time. It's unfortunate they sold it, but that was their choice. I loved living there and plan to live in a Victorian mansion like that myself one day.
WOW! that comparative picture of the cross section of both old and new lumber is incredible. The new stuff looks like a sponge in comparison to the density of the old stuff. I sent you an email after your last "do houses need to breathe?" video hoping you would address this issue and you knocked it out of the park! thanks for a great video! I would love to see some in-the-lab testing done on old and new timber to see just what attributes the old lumber has in comparison to the new. You can see the density, which probably prevents moisture from permeating in the first place, but I wonder if the wood itself doesn't also contain phyto-compounds that act as antifungals, just like treated lumber today is treated with fungicides. Trees grow in fungi-rich environments and have to produce fungicides and bactericides and pesticides of their own, I bet that old stuff destroys the new stuff in phyto-pesticides.
Dense wood absorbs water slower but also dries slower, but compared to the "sponge" it absorbs less water, and tend to deform less and retain strength better when wet (think boat-building).
It is much stronger anyway.
With regards to fungi they usually can not penetrate more than a millimeter or so into wood unless it is constantly moist and has started to rot, dense wood is more resistant, and especially "sour" types of wood, like oak.
The downside is lower insulation value for the dense wood.
Good video; good information shared. Thanks. My house was built around 1880 in the Pacific Northwest. The exterior ship lap wood was probably milled from cedar that were 4 or 5 hundred years old. Very few knots. Also, the wood seems to have hardened over the last hundred years. Material wise there's no comparison to what is available now.
Matt your shows are so great I wish I was 40 yrs younger and just starting a career. The depth of your coverage's of various products and reasoning behind their uses and your methods of construction are outstanding. One thing you might want to talk about are T-studs and their amazing strength and unparalleled thermal break statistics.
My old rock house, built in 1934, has a few problems. It has a full basement. There is no sill that the first floor is build upon. Instead, the floor joists were imbedded into the rock. Over time, termites attacked the joists in those pockets. So nothing was holding the floor up. The only thing that resembles a sill plate is at the ROOF line. So the roof is built on to that. The other thing is load bearing walls and roof structure. No trusses, no collar ties, no ceiling joist tying together the roof rafters. Instead, ceiling joist were run in whatever direction was the shortest. So ceiling joists in room 1 might run North South. Then room 2 might be East West. Then the next room another direction. This makes almost every single interior wall to be load bearing. One really nice thing with my old house is all the woodwork: trim, doors, everything was made out of clear chestnut. Beautiful woodwork!
The only thing is new houses arent going to last as long as a stone house. If your concern is to build a home to last hundreds of years, why would you build it from glued sawdust, foam, and sticks?
Stone houses are porous and have high thermal conductivity. Unless you live someplace with a mild year-round climate a real stone house isn't going to be comfortable. To parody your argument, caves will last thousands of years long than stick-built homes, so why don't we go back to living in caves? As he explains in the video, if that's your standard of comfort then knock yourself out.
A well built wood framed house will last hundreds of years. I am not aware of any old stone houses that don't have major wood frame elements. A stone house will only do as well as those wood framed elements. It is the protection of the wood framing that is important for durability.
Real stone houses have a high thermal mass they heat up slowly and cool down slowly.
Stone houses take a while to heat up and cool down, which creates the illusion of insulation, but the reality is they have poor thermal resistance so you expend a ton of energy. They're the opposite of energy efficient. That's why I said they're really only tolerable in mild climates, such as around the Mediterranean. It is possible to stack two stone wythes and put insulation in the center, but your walls will be insanely thick and it'll take a lot of hard manual labor. If stone houses actually were practical in our modern world we'd build them more. They're not, but people like to romanticize them.
How many real courses in physics did you take in college? The temperature inside a real stone house remains at the average annual temperature for the place that the house is located. Like the widely promoted earth sheltered houses.
Rule of thumb. Don't cut corners. In the long run it is not worth it.
yes, many times I think people cut corners in order to save money, but they end up paying the price in the long run.
It's _always_ less expensive to do it right the first time.
Hey Matt, I love all your great TH-cam videos !
You remind me of my teachers back in the days from woodworking school in Innsbruck! (my home town in Austria).
I can see that you are mastering a great challenge applying and using logical building physics and chemistry remodeling residential historic homes to a very high quality standard on the east cost and in the south.
This country needs people like YOU !!
Thanks!
Anselm, Pasadena CA
Very kind. Thanks
3:00 Here in Hungary we have hundreds year old mudhouses with wooden beams, and suprisingly they are in a very good condition. They are also covered every 5-10 years with lime-washing, which makes it very strong and termite resistant.
I have become extremely skeptical of a lot of modern building materials. I suspect companies are finding materials that are easy to manufacture and install, then they lobby the building associations to get "recommended" for something or other usage. They'll sell the product for 10-15 years all over the continent before people realize it's junk and the science behind it was just some dude's theory.
Hit the nail on the head. How about the fact that all these toxic chemicals in building materials will harm the inhabitants and certainly cause cancer within the next 10-50 years. Contemporary building has no soul, no quality and is just disposable and empty.
Did you see the new zip wall system? What crap. I see major lawsuits soon
I wonder if this is why we now have "sick building syndrome". Where people get stick often just because they work in a certain building
It's all about the dollar. No company has ever stayed in business by selling old ideas even if they have insurmountable proof of performance. Instead there is insane pressure within to create the next big thing and that new thing has to be eligible for patent protection or its not worth the time it takes to pitch it to the Board. I liked the Ice and Water Shield idea... but the resultant styling needs some help or it'll all end up in a landfill when the style needs to be changed to keep up with the changing tastes. Creating a bubble like that is going to be incredibly messy to modify once its completed.
It's well documented that although new houses are more efficient to heat / cool but the health benefits of a drafty house are worth opening a window a little bit despite the season.
Gorky D, Reptilian Lord, big 0 HillBillyVilly - You are all right on these points. As a scientist living in a +200 yo house I can see the difference between the modern houses built with cinder blocks & modern insulation : they heat a lot in winter, they cool them down a lot in summer (±40°C/104°F) with huge electricity bills.
Let alone the *toxicity,* *death accelerants* that I posted above : *lead paints* , *plywood & OSB* glued with formaldehyde (neurotoxic), fire-retardant (mainly PBDE carcinogenic), polystyrene foams, *LEDs lights carcinogenic at close range & harming retinas* (especially in children). Houses, *cars,* planes, water...
Aaah, this good ole buddy *Asbestos* ... All the rage in the 70s. _You payed to put it and now you pay to remove it._
I'm not _against_ new material : Africa is plagued with *lung cancer because of opened wood fires.*
There are great ones in labs & out. We just should be cautious.
re: the heating bills, I grew up in an old house and we didn't spend more on heating that anyone would now. The difference is, we heated only part of the house - the parts where there was plumbing.
Bedrooms were heated only for a couple of hours a day so that you could get to sleep and then in the morning for an hour or two, just to get out of bed. Otherwise, only the first floor and part of the first floor was cold.
That might sound to someone like it's a horrible thing, but it's not that bad. I wouldn't imagine that the bedrooms got colder than about 50 degrees in the winter, and you were asleep anyway.
The only exception was below-zero forecasts, we left the heat on at a low level just to keep the pipes from freezing (water heating).
The idea of a house being warm end to end and all rooms and all floors is a modern thing.
I agree. I spent some time in Japan where most houses are not insulated. It can get pretty cold but you get used to it. There are electrical heating units but they're used during the day and only in certain rooms. At night it gets cold but you don't feel it much since you're sleeping under thick futon blankets =)
I am a commercial construction worker and I understand the products that are being put out there today I see what you're talking about wrapping everything with the new standards and I understand how it all works I never seen it done in residential but I think it's a very good thing
Back when I lived in Montgomery New York, we rented a house that was built in the 1840s. There were essentially no improvements made to the house over the next 160 years. The layout was original. The heart pine floors were original. The horsehair plaster, 15 inch high trim, milk painted pocket doors and plaster crown molding were all original. The double hung 6 pane windows were original down to the bubbly old glass. The electric and plumbing was run on the outside of the walls as an afterthought, and there were only 4 light switches in the whole place. The only additions were the kitchen and bathrooms, as the original house didn't have them.
It's exactly as you said. The quality of the masonry in the foundation, the timber construction with brick infill, and the cedar windows all held up amazingly for their age and the bare minimum amount of care that went into preserving them. There was some rot and termite damage, but the house was absolutely solid.
Unfortunately, there was no inslulation whatsoever. Getting the house up to 70 degrees in the winter was a chore in itself. The 6 foot tall windows leaked heat like crazy and the giant fireplaces in every room didn't help either, even though they were boarded up. In the summer, you could put your hand on the kitchen ceiling and it would be hot from the sun beating down on the shingles. Hot to the touch.
At the end of the day, it was a great experience, but I'm glad I was renting. Getting that house to a state of comfortable livability would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, possibly more. I'm at least glad it's not going anywhere. That house will outlive me and my grandchildren.
I live in a 1880's house I absolutely love it. I live in buffalo, ny - it gets (-40) here some winters, and yet I only have to run the heater in the morning and it stays warm all day with my 2 foot thick exterior walls - not too unlike that stone house. I've been here 10 years now - with NO maintence at all other then some cosmetic work and cabinets. It is built to last the ages.... Just the idea of buying a new ticky tacky year 2000 house makes me gag and This guy can speak for himself when he says "They didnt have the same comfort standards back then".... I actually have to open some windows to let the heat out of this house sometimes :-P And then in the summer - same thing with the a/c.... It can be like a refrigerator indoors.... Maybe texas building standards were not that high back then, but even then I'd rather spend a little extra $$ on electric then on a contractor every other year.
I've built hundreds of cookie-cutter houses as a young framer around Rochester. I believe your house will still be there long after these newer homes are gone. All homes have mistakes made by the people designing and building them. The new materials cannot handle moisture and water like the old days.
That being said, if you gutted your house and used all new materials and methods on the interior like a typical modern home, your exterior would suffer the consequences.
2 foot brick is ridiculously thin when it comes to insulation under really cold or hot climate. And when it comes to new materials a 7 inch thick SIP wall provides enough insulation to keep a 1000 sqf house warm in - 30c in Siberia using just a couple of 1kw convectors. Not even a 5 foot brick wall is as good.
then why do they not bother with 7 in SIP walls in Siberia?
They do.
Untamedlion, this guy isn't thinking about old style basements, they cool a house very well. My dad and I never bothered with an AC (I used a fan some when I was a teen), we had cool air from the basement coming up through the floor heater. Half of our basement was dirt also.
I want to build my own house :( I marvel at the old rough cut wood in my grandpa's old house. Wormy chestnut is awesome.
The difference between craftsman and builders.
*Thank you* from Europe, you nailed it. It is global.
BRCC
my house built in the 20s was built by craftsman. the only reason to use so much cedar in my eyes is to protect the bones of the house from insects.
Craftsman makes good tools, I never heard of that builder's brand
@me and me the newest products are all made to last a lifetime. Even modern osb can be rained on a number of times before it's ruined. It'll actually last longer than some plywood that delaminates. Now he real problem is buildings using new materials and old methods. That and some of the materials from the 80s 90s and early 2000s was crap. Like tar impregnated sheathing. Might as well be cardboard.
I lived in ancient dwellings in Italy. In my apt in the Alps, over 800 yrs old, 3 foot thick walls, plaster peeling on the lower half of walls all the time, tiny windows with little insulation, tiny rooms, inadequate living space, or space for ,more than a 10 gallon hot water heater in our 2 bdrm place. (they didn't have hot water other than that heating on the hearth) The whole place was heated by an old iron stove thing tthat worked well. If you were close to it. And you had to keep it fed with wood. It was musty inside and dark from tiny windows. In Sicily we lived in a 150 yr old dwelling with rubble masonry outside and the weird concrete block/brick mix for interior walls. No insulation. Great in summer. Misery in winter. Fixing electrical (which was of course added much later and not particularly skillfully) meant meandereing channels in the walls. Italy is big on using lime washes for paint interiors as late as the 90s which meant OCD friends could ruin your kitchen trying to clean all the tomato sauce splatters off the wall with a sponge.
Lastly, dear friends of mine inherited a 1890 mansion in a northern city. Its a CONSTANT money pit. I won't recant the ills of the gorgeous house we grew up in, but boy does aged beauty come with a heavy pricetag.
I wish you had given us building science class in architecture school. Thanks a lot. Very informative, your passion is contagious.
I was literally huddled under my duvet in September with my thermostat on 68 while watching this. Lmao
Very interesting video! Thank you. Our house (in Ohio) was built in 1926. Most of the houses in the village are from the 1880's to 1930's and very well maintained. The furnace system was retro-fitted with A/C in the '60s. It is not an energy efficient home but I think due to location our heating/cooling bills are quite reasonable, and the heat/cool is only used about 6 months per year. It's a neat old house and I like it much better than newer ones I have owned.
Matt, Best episode ever! The thoughtful slow sit down lecture is awesome! Thank you so much for the humility, showing us your past learning experiences. Thank you for practicing construction and approaching learning in this way.
I used to live in a new house, which had it´s wooden window frames rotting within 5 years and not long thereafter the flat roof started to leak and in one place we had tar dripping down to the floor (hot water pipe next to tar paper ingenious idea). Not to speak of mold in the bath (central toom, hence no window and the ventilation channel was way too small, unless the rotor would run like 10x as fast) and these #### bought all sorts of spare parts which were no longer in production, thus 10 years later, every repair required custom made pieces!
On the other hand, as a European, I´ve seen *wooden structures* last 500 years with little maintenance at times even *1000 years.* The timber frame houses are funny in how they warp over time and yet even manage to withstand earthquakes. Similarly, I was stunned in awe when I first got to Rome, seeing all that remains from the Roman Empire. Today's *concrete tends to crumble after 30 years* and they built things that withstood a thousand years literally!
Is it ancient knowledge lost? Maybe at times, but mostly, we just buy cheap, while they built to last. Just think about wood. Today, we throw it into an oven, which destroys like 10% of it and leaves the rest damaged, whereas back then every piece was dried for years if not decades. Apparently, it does even make a difference, when you chop a tree.
I live in a home that was that was built in the late 20s and you damn right houses like this were built better. In my attic the roof is framed in like 4x6s i believe and this place had 3 large pine trees fall on the house during a huracaine. Some shingles and roof was good to go vs across the street my friend whos house built in the 90s one pine tree crushed his roof
I did a job for a customer that had a 100 year old house, 7 bedroom, 5 full baths and 2 half baths. 3 car heated garage with original steam radiators, not a single crack in the concrete slab!!! Still has original slate roof. He told me he uses enough natural gas during the winter, that he's partially responsible for global warming.
I'm sure the amount of carbon consumed to tear down and rebuild with new materials would exceed the energy consumed by conditioning.
This reminded me of my grandparents house. Every summer, weekend, and holiday I stayed with them. They had a house that was built in 1912 and it was fairly large but they paid very little for it in the early 80's. Their were window units and has heaters in most rooms but my grandpa only used one window unit in the main living room and only when he was watching his games. The same went for the winter months. One of my aunt's actually caught fire while warming herself in the morning with the stove. In the summer the attack fan would run while the doors stayed open with screen doors and in the winter 3 or 5 quilts would be stacked on you. In the summer you went to bed sweating and in the winter you'd wake up and see your breath. In 2006 my uncle contacted someone to install central heat and air and handed grandpa the bill. Unbelievable he used it. The house is solid as a rock but they have since passed. They sure were tough people my grandparents. Tough time's create tough people.
I love the style of putting good window in the basement and then bordering them up that's an awesome Style very old fashioned
Love this video. Thanks. I would like to see comparisons of southern (warm) old houses and northern (cold) build techniques for century and older homes. As an owner of a 150 + year old house in Canada and having gutted and remodeled I find the biggest issues are level problems (floors and walls), lack of internal wall and exterior wall insulation, and foundation drainage to name a few but I have to say the triple brick is solid and the interior wood framing and roofing system is mint. Cheers.
Absolutely despise any house built with any particle board or any type of engineered wood.
It will be interesting to see how many “building science” homes are still standing 100 years hence.
i would bet that it would not even last a full decade.
Exactly.
Today's "standards" are based upon govt regulations partnered with insurance bullies, and the help of the media cleverly promoting what govt & insurance wants as popular "current trends"
Today's standards are instant gratification at the expense of the inevitable regret and loss of tomorrow.
Everything these days is disposable and designed to become "outdated", obsolete, and inoperable... hitting landfills as quickly as the operating system updates on our electronicz drop.
@@cintadavinport5337 You thought you were still on Reddit, but this is TH-cam.
Matt, your instruction makes me question the building I have done in the past few decades. Excellent stuff. I have always maintained that the secret to good building is controlling water. You cannot eliminate water, but you can direct it away from the vulnerable places, like along the foundation and any opening--windows, doors, vents etc. And this idea of putting your thermal control outside the structure is revolutionary to me. I can see a dozen applications for it already. I think I need more education, but what a great idea. Isn't this sort of the idea of the old dwellings built into the side of a hill?
Yes yes yes. Because of robust materials, stone, hardwood, lime plaster etc... and the craftmanship was incredible.
Some dismiss this as survivor bias, but the difference is even expensive homes nowadays aren't made to last.
I remember talking with a mason and he said: throughout history there have always be *SOME* builders who built it cheap and took the money.
The ones that survive are the good ones. Survivor bias.
I know of houses that have been flooded and washed off their support piers 3 times. At present these houses are absolutely beautiful and in excellent condition. The secret is the way they are constructed. Underneath the wall finishes you find that the boards nailed to the studs are diagonal, therefore creating triangles.
builder for 45 years, says well done! Without apprenticeships like I served, we desperately need folks like you. loved watching the video, liked, and subscribed.
I watched my old 1950 built house being torn down and hauled to the landfill and all I could think of was all those high quality floor joists, roof joists, etc... going to waste.
Dave Joseph Ouch, in Winnipeg, Winkler and the west of Canada we have a lot of ReStores, a division of Habitat for Humanity (originated from Georgia) www.habitat.ca/en/about Wish more contractors were conscious about saving old wood and other high quality materials.
Portland is the best.
I have a 1960’s old cabin on a rotten pier and beam foundation. The framing is still good and strong. I tried very hard to bring it back to life. Our new house looks great from the outside. But the builder used lots of recycled 2 by 4 which can only stay in a vertical position. Once it’s covered, no one can tell the difference. I love old mid century houses.
50s dont have anything special. I'm working on a 1889 brick building that has 15x15 wood pillars and 15"x3" joists. You couldnt build that these days.
Houses from the 1950s-80s are the worst houses. Half assed workmanship, stupid designs, toxic materials everwhere.
This was tremendous - I appreciate the objective reasons for some superior parts of old buildings: old growth lumber, thick masonry walls, deep overhangs. I also appreciate the caveats: poor insulation, high energy requirements for temperature control.
Some things were better, some things were not.
My house was built in 1919 by a doctor in a town of only 375 people today and has had only 3 owners. It was built with insulation made of what looks like maybe straw or hemp sheets that was compressed mechanically, surprisingly it works fairly well. The only damage and/or rot is where the previous owner tried to update it. (he didn't put the flashing on right) When it lost its shingles in a tornado the only thing that didn't make it was the plaster and some shellac on the floors. It has had very little updating aside from a new furnace (coal to gas) and a new water heater and being switched from a rainwater cistern to city water.
The framing is all full dimension lumber 2x12 joists, 2x6 exterior walls, and 2x4 interior walls so I would have to say that in this case it was built better,
Awesome video, I’m not sure why TH-cam recommended it to me, as I don’t watch much on house remodeling, but I’m glad it did. It did make me want to learn more about building science. I’m very much looking forward to buying (or possibly building) my first home and until then as I’m waiting and saving up my funds I’m excited about learning more.
One thing I want to say though, as a person who doesn’t have much of a high comfort standard, I’m thankful everyday to have a roof over my head at all (as I ashamedly admit that I have spent some time homeless) and from the bottom of my heart I would love love love to live in that 1880’s house, or 1930’s house, just as it was built.
In the room with pink wall paper, showing the moisture marks under the windows, is not one possible explanation the addition of the window cooler unit causing condensation buildup on window which dripped down? Factor in the window only has a single pane of glass.
What's interesting about the house that is insulated on the outside is that it could also be insulated on the outside for double insulation. I live in northern Canada where it is regularly -35 Celcisus in winter.
Fantastic video Matt! Thanks alot!
Informative video. We lived in a small 800 sq ft house built in 1925. That thing was the most solidly built structure I've ever lived in despite being nearly 100 years old. It creaked but wasn't moving anytime soon. Even our 1970's ranch that we have now is clearly not built as well as that house was, although it's still better than my folks new build (2019) which is already having issues with drywall, roof, etc.
We must salvage the wood elements as well as everything else from all structures that offer good salvage. We must do this. One day it will be a billion dollar industry.
When I started "harvesting" lumber from old structures here in the northeast people thought I was wasting my time
i have bought and sold over 400 houses, and i bought this one house recently and this is the first, and only house that i ever bought that the wood is so hard that i can barely screw drywall screws into it. Its an older house but it a beautiful house.
I have demo'd old barns that had 100 year old oak lumber in them. You want to talk about hard. We had to cut a bunch of nails off flush because we could't get them pulled even with a cheater bar. Had to pre-drill and use screws because it was too difficult to nail when the wood was reused.
Love my old home, built-in 1899 and still strong. been updated a few times to keep up with the times, but still maintains the charm
Loved your brief discussion @ 24:00 about QUALITY. One of my fav books explores the metaphysics of Quality: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
I used to live in Defiance Missouri until 2010. There's a historical house there that was built by Daniel Boone and his sons.
They built the first level of the home out of river stone. The wood that they used was black walnut that they chopped down and hand hewn themselves. Most people don't remember that Mr. Boone was also a blacksmith. He made all of the nails used for the construction himself. They started construction in 1803 and completed it in 1810.
When I took a tour of it in 2009, the guide said the reason that he chose black walnut was it was resistant to mold, mildew; and bugs like termites hated it so they wouldn't try to eat it.
The house is now owned by Lindenwood university and is used as a teaching tool to show how people lived during colonial times. They give tours often. At the end of the tour I was on, the guide stated that the university bought the property from the descendants of the Boone family. According to them, they made no improvements to the home. Since the school owned it, they were only required to install a couple of floor posts for support as required by state building codes. Other than that, we were walking on the same floors as Daniel Boone would've in 1820 when he died there. They claimed that not even one nail was ever re-hammered, or flooring restained or sanded. His home was constructed 199 years before my tour.
If I ever build that little cabin in the woods someday; I already know that it's going to be made out of Black Walnut and nothing else. I don't know how much greener you can build than that.
I hope you traveled back in time and planted a grove of black walnut a hundred years ago with a secure trust funding arborists to maintain it since then, otherwise good luck on that powerball.
Finding Walnut can be difficult and expensive. I’d go with Cypress for the cabin’s sills and build everything else with kiln-dried Black Locust or Osage Orange if you can find it. Especially if the cabin is small.
Ayyy I live right behide Linderwood! I'll might have to check it out!
They didn’t have everything engineered to a spec, they went overkill on everything. Leave a 100 year old house out in the elements for 10 years and it’s still standing. Leave a 10 year old house out in the elements for 10 years and it’ll be dilapidated and garbage
That makes alot of sense. Atleast for the houses that survived long time
But the old house will smell mildewy like an old house, be drafty, be costly to heat and cool, have systems that are hard to maintain and will be haunted.
@@Wee162 I trust my grandpas beat up farmhouse more then I trust my trailer his house has holes in the siding but if a trailer has holes in the tin itll rot out in a year
Damn you should build a oldstyle house lets see how you like it then hahaha
Grandpas house burnt down from the chimney
My favorite part of the video is putting the insulation on the outside of the house @20:00'ish. I like it!
I could watch these videos all day long (and sometimes I do!). Thanks for all you do Matt.
Watching your videos makes me want to never buy another house. Going to build my own.
this is my new favorite channel. Reminds me of watching Bob Vila as a Kid!
Here in the U.K. we still don’t have AC.
-12°c /10°f in winter
33°/92° in summer.
You’re either sweating cold or wet here in the UK. Houses survive just fine
New Zealand - Timber Lockwood House of the Year 2020.!!!
th-cam.com/video/1d5-Zobr9Lg/w-d-xo.html
lockwood.co.nz/#intro .
lockwoodreadybuilt.co.nz/#readybuilt .
th-cam.com/video/1d5-Zobr9Lg/w-d-xo.html ..!!!
Video answered most of my questions. Thanks man, I just recently started working for a builder and I’m doing a lot of old demos. I run into old and new materials all the time and wonder what they were used for and why. I watch a lot of your videos and have picked up a good amount of knowledge between working and learning from you.
When I was in Austin I lived in an older apartment/house that was old as the Austin house you remodeled. No insulation, tons of airflow, lots of windows... old as old could get.
It was indeed super cold in the winter and unbearably hot in the Summer. Location was great, but only Spring and Fall were livable. My liquid soap solidified during cold winter mornings!
Great video comparison. My old house has that real 2" rough lumber that actually measures 2". Not so sure I like the waterproof peel and stick skin as a modern solution. I think anything that you stick on with adhesive will eventually be a problem in certain areas. A small breach from a mouse puling and eating the membrane for example and moisture gets in and it can't get out and then as the wood rots the peel and stick lets go. The issue is that water can not escape with that waterproof skin if it gets behind it. I think I'd rather use marine plywood staggered kind of like board and baton but with really thick batons and have that as the inner seal to put your strapping and then siding on. Even that would eventually develop air leaks and breaches as aging occurs. But it wouldn't mold or rot easily.
Love my house built in 63, on the coast of N.C. . I re-did it top to bottom, still a bit drafty, but sealed up just enough to be competitive as newer houses. No mold, mildew, moisture problems.
Man I love the way you teach. The examples are excellent!
I lived in a home that was built in 1920. No insulation with plasters walls. Asbestos siding. Natural gas heat was so cheap it didn't matter.
Iver hangs? Hhmm we call them: "eaves". We find them to be crucial to house design. We even design the eaves to extend down so as to allow sun light in the windows in Winter (low sun angle) and keep shade on the windows in Summer (higher sun angle). We literally design the eaves to extend down depending on the latitude of the house location.
So I'm guess you make the north side of the houses eaves extra long cause it gets little sun in winter if you go that hardcpre...
my house is 1975 with 3-4 foot overhangs. Its a bungalw with a little MCM inspiration. It has engineered trusses which was unique for the time. so we opened up walls and created a modern open concept place.
I live in the same house my great great great grandfather built in 1876. It has 8x8 timber framing and 2x8 floor joists. Even the barn, with a foundation that caved in completely on one side is still standing strong (don’t worry we’re going to fix it). When people say old buildings are built well they aren’t joking, they were built to last, not built to code.