How exactly 'are' new houses signed off?

[Deleted member 174758]

The modern building site labourer is more often than not a cannabis smoker, and he will be high on the drug during work, nipping out for a quick drag whenever he can.

What a peculiarly warped view of the world you have, Andy. For starters, the labourers are either unskilled or at best semi-skilled with no pertinent qualifications - so they aren't allowed to install anything. In any case they lack the tools, let alone the ability, so it would never happen, other than in, say, Blackburn. Are you sure you haven't been on the puff yourself?

The labourer of the past would be a beer drinker. Cheerful and happy and looking forward to his hard-earned few pints at the end of the working day.

And now you've confirmed my suspicions. The site labourer of the 1970s was often Irish, often a hard boozer, and observed tea breaks and all other stoppages religiously. He was also frequently absent on a Monday morning due to liquor mortise following a "randy" and had to be paid in cash at close of day on Fridays to ensure he worked the full day.

Then as now it was difficult to get a decent labour, and if you get one you do your damndest to keep him. The good ones are like gold dust (or rocking horse poo in some towns)

 

[Deleted member 174758]

.That's all small beer stuff. It could all be added.

But don't you think it says a lot that these houses are still in use 100, 200 or 300 years later? The original craftsmanship that went into them made them worth saving and improving.

No. It's just that the crap ones have either fallen down, been compulsorily purchased and pulled down (as hundreds of thousands of sub standard Victorian and Georgian houses were in the 1960s and 70s), were bombed flat in WWII, or turned into a money pit for some nostalgic romantic who nearly bankrupted themselves putting right a property which might not have been worth it

Sorry, but I live in a Victorian terraced house (Jerry built), i used to live in a house which was early 17th century for the main part (if you think Vicyorian standards were poor, think again...) and I've spent 5-1/2 out of the last 8 years working on refurbs and renovations of Georgian and Victorian large structures (where construction quality is often just skin deep). So maybe I am biased?

 

[Deleted member 174758]

So what's the answer to this problem?

Proper apprenticeships. General contractor qualifications for smaller builders. Restrictions on the use of pricework and an end to construction companies being management companies employing no trades of their own. Better oversight and quality control at all stages of construction.

But this all costs money...

 

[TeaAndBiscuits]

You never hear noise about the 'good' new builds. Maybe that's because there are so few, or because it's not as interesting... I went into one of them at an estate built over the old speedway stadium in a nearby town and was impressed. The friends/owners are happy with the house and they've been in it a few years now. They're located here:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

To add to the trivia being posted about 1960s houses, my uncle purchased a new 'Wimpy' house in the late 1960s. The boundaries were set out with white wooden markers. He went down one night and spread all of his out so that his garden was wider. Those edited boundaries remain today and looking on satellite imagery, looks very obvious and odd!

Looks decent enough. The appearance is indistinguishable from new estates up and down the country. They all have a certain look to them. Usually involving cars parked here there and everywhere, both sides of the road, making access difficult.

One thing I noticed this one does have going for it after a quick streetview tour is that although they mostly don't have front gardens, each house's front door opens onto a pavement. Many of these new estates I've seen, the front door literally opens onto the roadway or maybe just one paving slab back from it. Quite how the planning laws allow this to be the case when we're apparently trying to encourage pedestrianism is a mystery.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

For starters, the labourers are either unskilled or at best semi-skilled with no pertinent qualifications - so they aren"t allowed to install anything. In any case they lack the tools, let alone the ability

So it would seem are many of the so-called skilled tradespeople that are throwing these buildings up ...

EDIT: I do understand it must be hard to maintain a quality finish if you're being pushed to complete a certain task x times per day, where x means you need to go like the proverbial clappers.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

No. It's just that the crap ones have either fallen down, been compulsorilhy purchased and pulled down (as hundreds of thousands of sub standsrd Victorian and Georgian houses were in the 1960s), were bombed flat in WWII, or turned into a money pit for some nostalgic romantic who nearly bankrupted themselves putting right a property which might not have been worth it

There's a big difference between workmanship and neglect that leads to dereliction.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

There's a big difference between workmanship and neglect that leads to dereliction.

There are areas of my home town where in the 1960s and 70s whole streets, whole areas, were comp purchased and demolished wholesale. Many of the houses were back to backs, many had either rudimentary sanitation (i.e.no bathroom and a lavvy at the end of thevyatd, or worse shared with multiple other houses). Some houses, a few, were in good order and had been modernised. Many were not

 

[denso13]

There should be a robust (as in genuinely robust) process in place

Absolutely, but house purchases are still caveat emptor. Once you've signed up for a house, sometimes off plan before it has even started, you're pretty much stuck with it. There is no incentive or any real comeback on the builder.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

So it would seem are many of the so-called skilled tradespeople that are throwing these buildings up ...

I would counter that the subbies on pricework are pressured to produce whilst at the same time the management firms running the sites (and almost all of the medium to large "house builders" in the market are management firms without a single tradesman on the books), and who sign off all works, often have extremely low standards and expect far too much to be put right in snagging without wanting to pay an appropriate price (e.g. doing things like employing labourers to undertake snagging, being unwilling to get trades back to put right defects, etc).

You are right that there is a certain attitude that speed trumps quality, particularly in house building - and a complete ignorance of the fact that quite a bit of the snagging, if picked up earlier in the build and corrected, would actually cost less overall and reduce delays. But there again - that is an example of poor management.

I also feel that some of the pricework subbies don't give a damn about what they throw in. But there are rough barstewards in all walks of life

Don't forget that architects also screw up. Examples I have experienced include forgotten fire colars in services (requiring sections of walls and ceilings to be cut out and made good), risers too small to physically work inside, wrong spec doors (x50), wrong spec fire compartment wall, understrength sub floor (meaning that we could never stop the expensive engineered oak from creaking and crackling), balconies with no drainage design (mill conversion), roof design with varying pitch end to end (a genuine cockup which nearly caused the zinc roofing guys to walk off), inadequate drainage of inner flat roofspace which flooded the building, etc, etc

 

[jeds]

I did a foundation report on a bungalow built 1962 back in November, for a second storey extension. I normally do at least three holes but the bloke didn't want the drive or the front or the rear dug up at this stage so we did it around the side. Decent foundation, 200 thick, wide enough, no problem, reasonable to carry on with planning etc. I added on the end of my report that two more holes must be checked before finally committing to build. That was done last week and we found hardly any foundation at all. Literally about 75mm and the width of the wall. Oh dear, 1960s houses not looking so good. Must have run short of cement.

 

[Notch7]

Proper apprenticeships. General contractor qualifications for smaller builders. Restrictions on the use of pricework and an end to construction companies being management companies employing no trades of their own. Better oversight and quality control at all stages of construction.

But this all costs money...

wise words

new builds are done mostly by subbies on price work.

and I hate to say it but tradesmen who work exclusively on new build can be right animals -you wouldnt want them in your house.

 

[cwhaley]

I've posted these in another thread I started, but worth re-posting for those who missed it. Some great documentaries on YouTube about the state of housing in Britain at the time of the clearances and new builds. Of particular note is the first link below outlining issues only 20 years after construction.

 

[Notch7]

I would counter that the subbies on pricework are pressured to produce whilst at the same time the management firms running the sites (and almost all of the medium to large "house builders" in the market are management firms without a single tradesman on the books), and who sign off all works, often have extremely low standards and expect far too much to be put right in snagging without wanting to pay an appropriate price (e.g. doing things like employing labourers to undertake snagging, being unwilling to get trades back to put right defects, etc)

the big six housebuilders are all driven by cashflow and shareholder profits

the best way to maximise cashflow is to get houses completed so they can be signed off and the buyers mortgage company transferring the funds.

the business approach is to not care about snagging and play a game of avoiding dealing with it to minimise after sales costs -anybody buying a new property is buying 3 years of stress threatening legal action

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Oh dear, 1960s houses not looking so good. Must have run short of cement.

So you found one example out of how many houses built in The 60s?

Have you not seen the videos of the utter ssh!te that's signed off as fit for sale these days? My house was built in 1961. The quality is leagues ahead of the depressing dolls house dimensions rubbish being thrown up today. I'll take my 60s house over modern any day.

Oh dear, 2020s houses not looking so good.

 

[Deleted member 294929]

I did a foundation report on a bungalow built 1962 back in November, for a second storey extension. I normally do at least three holes but the bloke didn't want the drive or the front or the rear dug up at this stage so we did it around the side. Decent foundation, 200 thick, wide enough, no problem, reasonable to carry on with planning etc. I added on the end of my report that two more holes must be checked before finally committing to build. That was done last week and we found hardly any foundation at all. Literally about 75mm and the width of the wall. Oh dear, 1960s houses not looking so good. Must have run short of cement.

How many other 1960 houses on the estate do you believe are in the same state of repair?