When were the 'best' houses built?

[pred]

All this talk of handwork, 99 change hands which brings me onto AS, he had been thanked 99 times, so being a decent guy I went onto woodworking and gave him one!!

 

[pred]

Back in the 30's there was a lot more tradesmen that took pride in their work

Wow, impressive that someone your age is still working!

Someone my age!! Ha! I'll have you know that Grinling Gibbons taught me how to nail two planks together..

 

[Whitespirit66]

My general rule is only buy houses from the 1930s to 1960s. Certainly nothing after the 70s. Some of the late 80s stuff that was built in parts of Bristol (Bradley Stoke) had to be rebuilt in the 90s, and other houses from 80s to date seem to be abysmal. Small rooms, low ceilings, high density and tiny gardens.

 

[plugwash]

One thing I have noticed, however, is that in those days they often seem to have used rather shallow foundations

The house itself had foundations that must have been no more than 18 to 24 inches!

There are two main reasons for this

1. In 'the old days', developers were able to build more-or-less anywhere they wanted in the absence of planning controls, and good building land was readily available. As time has gone on, developers are having to work on less reliable ground - areas such as quarry waste, tips and brownfield sites, which all usually require more substantial foundations.

2. Up until the War, most mortar for brickwork was lime-based. Lime mortar has a long-term plasticity which enables the brickwork to accommodate slight movement, without undue cracking. Modern cement mortar on the other hand is hard and cannot take uneven settlement without cracking so - again - the foundations have to be substantial to prevent uneven settlement.

Which makes sense for new builds.

What i'm not so convinced about is whether we should really be using "modern" foundations for extensions to existing properties (which afaict is what building regs insist on) or whether it would make more sense to match the characterstics of the existing structure.

 

[AronSearle]

Yes, but someone would have to put their neck out and say it will work.

It mostly did, but subsidence sometimes happened, no sensible person would put their name to a design that would 'most likely' work.

 

[securespark]

My Gran (24.12.03) lived in 20 Sanderstead Avenue in Golders Green NW2.

Built in the 30's, it was sadly flattened during the Blitz and rebuilt later. She literally wept when she saw the difference in the quality: doors were warping, timbers not as sturdy, no oak anywhere, floorboards skinnier.

So, sure: 50's is better than the boxes of today, but to my dear old Gran, 30's was King!

 

[ChaserXV]

In terms of structural quality and sturdiness I'd say the 1920s - 1930s semi-detached and detached houses. By no means are they perfect though, you'll notice many houses built in this era are rendered, more so the houses built in the 30s, this is to cover the poor quality brick/brick work that lies beneath.

 

[Alfie25]

Some good points made there, particularly about proper tradesmen, skill and the use of hand tools versus the house builders of today and their array of power tools. I think next time I'll be looking in the 30's - 60's era.

 

[pred]

Back in the 30's there was a lot more tradesmen that took pride in their work

Wow, impressive that someone your age is still working!

I'll have you know: Grinling Gibbons taught me how to nail two planks together!!

 

[ladylola]

Ah , nails...... all cordless drills and pozi screws today

 

[JBR]

In terms of structural quality and sturdiness I'd say the 1920s - 1930s semi-detached and detached houses. By no means are they perfect though, you'll notice many houses built in this era are rendered, more so the houses built in the 30s, this is to cover the poor quality brick/brick work that lies beneath.

You may be right. Our '20s bungalow is rendered on the front, but the unrendered back looks OK. Still standing too!

 

[OwainDIYer]

My Gran (24.12.03) lived in 20 Sanderstead Avenue in Golders Green NW2.

Built in the 30's, it was sadly flattened during the Blitz and rebuilt later. She literally wept when she saw the difference in the quality: doors were warping, timbers not as sturdy, no oak anywhere, floorboards skinnier.

So, sure: 50's is better than the boxes of today, but to my dear old Gran, 30's was King!

There were shortages of building materials and rationing continued into the 1950s.

Some late '60s / early '70s speculative builder stuff is truly awful. Traditionally-built council stuff is usually solid, as councils employed site agents and knew they had future maintenance responsibility for the building.

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

My Gran (24.12.03) lived in 20 Sanderstead Avenue in Golders Green NW2.

Ain't that more Cricklewood than GG, SS?

 

[securespark]

Perhaps she was a bit of a snob....

Either way, I enjoyed living there. Nice house and garden, great area, parks, schools etc...

 

[r.bartlett]

One thing I have noticed, however, is that in those days they often seem to have used rather shallow foundations

The house itself had foundations that must have been no more than 18 to 24 inches!

There are two main reasons for this

1. In 'the old days', developers were able to build more-or-less anywhere they wanted in the absence of planning controls, and good building land was readily available. As time has gone on, developers are having to work on less reliable ground - areas such as quarry waste, tips and brownfield sites, which all usually require more substantial foundations.

2. Up until the War, most mortar for brickwork was lime-based. Lime mortar has a long-term plasticity which enables the brickwork to accommodate slight movement, without undue cracking. Modern cement mortar on the other hand is hard and cannot take uneven settlement without cracking so - again - the foundations have to be substantial to prevent uneven settlement.

My house was built around 1900 and had a '70's extension when we bought it. As we wanted to build on top we had to underpin the extension (poor builders through the ages) first and the underpinner called me over to show me the original house foundations which were a row of bricks about 12" below the surface.

As the extension progressed a measurement issue brought out the fact that the front wall of the old house was/is 100 mm out of true. It's pretty much agreed the extension with it's new foundations are holding up the old house.

Brickwork: to save money they built with the bricks side on. Then rendered them. The standard of insulation is dreadful but due to construction we can't do anything about it...

When people say "They don't build like they used to" they are actually referring to places like the House of Commons which is an amazing building if you've ever managed to get inside and around it.

sad to say but we could shut down 1/2 the power stations if we demolished 90% of the housing stock and rebuilt houses properly.