My insulator calmed down when I showed him my interior panels that go in for winter, sealing up the original windows. They make my windows comparable to modern ones.He was in a bit of horror thinking that I'd be leaving them as-is all season...
I don't think they are even capable of building proper houses anymore
Re: I don't think they are even capable of building proper houses anymore
I'm glad we don't get that around here! My insulator calmed down when I showed him my interior panels that go in for winter, sealing up the original windows. They make my windows comparable to modern ones.
He was in a bit of horror thinking that I'd be leaving them as-is all season...
My insulator calmed down when I showed him my interior panels that go in for winter, sealing up the original windows. They make my windows comparable to modern ones.He was in a bit of horror thinking that I'd be leaving them as-is all season...
Re: I don't think they are even capable of building proper houses anymore
Lily left the valley wrote:Transitional. That's what they call them now. Apparently that term excuses a number of evils and just wrong choices. To be fair, I have seen a scant few that are not hideous. They exist.
I can't remember who it was that recently posted here about their effort to build a new Victorian, but they ran into a LOT of code problems. Folks who are given rules to follow that were based on safety concerns (like porch railing heights that now wreck the sight lines with the bottom of the windows) don't care what is architecturally correct. They have to make sure the code is enforced. He even had a problem where he had to lower the ceilings for a reason I can't remember (it was in his blog), which killed the wonderful windows he had originally designed for the home.
This isn't to say that happens everywhere. Still, I've heard the code issues mentioned more than once in recent years when folks try to do this very thing. The biggest complaint is almost always porch railing related. People have come up with some insane work arounds in some cases.
The other problem is finding actual craftsfolk who can do the stuff, CNC or not. You also have the difference of the wood and other materials being used, and how that can affect a build. Budget too, because a lot has changed as to how much folks "need" to make to live, what's really "needed" to meet that drives costs, etc. etc.
Code issues aside, I do wish sometimes that architects would try harder. Of course, they often also have to answer to their client, and the client may not give two spoons of syrup about whether or not the house looks like {insert your most twitch inducing transitional mistake here}.
[raises hand] "Umm, that would be me." https://jamahouse.wordpress.com/
Yes, what you posted summarizes what I've written about building a new "old house". I would just correct you where you wrote, "Folks who are given rules to follow that were based on safety concerns (like porch railing heights that now wreck the sight lines with the bottom of the windows) don't care what is architecturally correct. They have to make sure the code is enforced." We do care what is architecturally correct but aren't allowed or can't afford it (because of its, now, rarity).
~James
Fourth generation in a family of artists, engineers, architects, woodworkers, and metalworkers. Mine is a family of Viking craftsmen. What we can't create, we pillage, and there's nothing we can't create. But, sometimes, we pillage anyway.
Fourth generation in a family of artists, engineers, architects, woodworkers, and metalworkers. Mine is a family of Viking craftsmen. What we can't create, we pillage, and there's nothing we can't create. But, sometimes, we pillage anyway.
Re: I don't think they are even capable of building proper houses anymore
JRC wrote:A couple thoughts:
The house in the original post wasn't intended to be a recreation of a Victorian/historical home. It's just a high-end modern house. I do think some of the design criticisms are valid, though. (I'm on the fence about the downspouts on the front; if you're going to spend the money for copper downspouts and collection boxes, why not show them off?)
As for the CNC argument, weren't many of the details in our old houses (if they were built after 1860 or so) machine made? I'm pretty sure that most of the moldings, casings, etc. in my 1902 house were chosen from a catalogue.Gothichome wrote:So in your view it could be built. curious, that those who want a 'new' Victorian seem to fail in their attempts. Lack of education, commitment, or just not willing to step out of the McMansion mind set. I don't know. But it would be nice to see a the resaults of those with the knowledge, and commitment to build one.
It's a little of all that, IMO. Some people think that lots of gingerbread and turned porch posts, bought at the local big box store, tacked onto a house, makes it Victorian. In other cases, people just aren't willing to pay the extra cost to have historically accurate details made, instead of just using what's commonly available today; they assume that the commonly available stuff is close enough. And, then there is just the modern way of doing things, vs. doing things a little differently to achieve a more authentic look.
I think the OP house is a blend of "medieval Japanese castle" and an eclectic mix of early 20th Century American architecture. It's obviously a contemporary attempt to borrow from the traditional; without understanding how to use the traditional to best affect.
CNC is, to me, just an upgrade to the factory-machined parts found in most most homes built after the Civil War. There are fewer CNC-produced decorative parts in a modern home than there were factory-produced decorative parts in older homes.
Clem Labine (creator of Old House Journal magazine) now maintains Period Homes 'zine, website, and blog. My only criticism of Period Homes is its singular focus on high-end new old homes. It's still a nice source. https://www.period-homes.com/page/the-magazine New traditional architecture is still being built. It's just not old.
There's a distinction between liking a house because it's old vs. liking a house because it has an authentic, traditional design. Unfortunately, the latter is just so rare that most people don't know it when they don't see it.
~James
Fourth generation in a family of artists, engineers, architects, woodworkers, and metalworkers. Mine is a family of Viking craftsmen. What we can't create, we pillage, and there's nothing we can't create. But, sometimes, we pillage anyway.
Fourth generation in a family of artists, engineers, architects, woodworkers, and metalworkers. Mine is a family of Viking craftsmen. What we can't create, we pillage, and there's nothing we can't create. But, sometimes, we pillage anyway.
-
Texas_Ranger
- Knows where blueprints are hidden
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:50 pm
Re: I don't think they are even capable of building proper houses anymore
I think that's at least to some extent a matter of styles. Let me give you an example: railing heights wouldn't be an issue here in central Europe at all because even the oldest railings I've seen were at least 80 cm tall, if not 90 and that's fine by modern building regs. The same is true for window ledges.
Things get trickier with exterior wall thickness. The typical pre-WWII exterior wall is triple wythe brick, i.e. roughly 45 cm plus 2 cm of plaster on the inside and another two of render on the outside. That's with all typical variation pretty close to 50 cm in total. Modern walls are usually more like 20 cm of concrete plus 10 cm foam board and 3 mm "render", maybe 7.5 cm steel studs and 12.5 mm plasterboard on the inside - could be just spackled concrete though. Windows were usually recessed by 15-17 cm in old homes (early-20th century) but are installed flush with the concrete wall and only recessed by the thickness of the foam board. That's increasing steadily though so you're getting closer to a sensible depth again. Some builders go crazy with up to 30 cm of foam though, turning the window openings into black holes.
In general I'd say we're facing the same issues as everyone else. People trying to recreate something historic usually mess up royally, often by building a modern box and then slapping some puny foam mouldings round the door and window openings.
On the other hand in Berlin I've seen some brand new apartment buildings that looks truly nice!
Someone definitely had an eye for details, like the metal railing:
Right next to that are some examples of what I consider bog-standard current blah architecture in Europe.
Things get trickier with exterior wall thickness. The typical pre-WWII exterior wall is triple wythe brick, i.e. roughly 45 cm plus 2 cm of plaster on the inside and another two of render on the outside. That's with all typical variation pretty close to 50 cm in total. Modern walls are usually more like 20 cm of concrete plus 10 cm foam board and 3 mm "render", maybe 7.5 cm steel studs and 12.5 mm plasterboard on the inside - could be just spackled concrete though. Windows were usually recessed by 15-17 cm in old homes (early-20th century) but are installed flush with the concrete wall and only recessed by the thickness of the foam board. That's increasing steadily though so you're getting closer to a sensible depth again. Some builders go crazy with up to 30 cm of foam though, turning the window openings into black holes.
In general I'd say we're facing the same issues as everyone else. People trying to recreate something historic usually mess up royally, often by building a modern box and then slapping some puny foam mouldings round the door and window openings.
On the other hand in Berlin I've seen some brand new apartment buildings that looks truly nice!
- DSCN1870.jpg (96.99 KiB) Viewed 266 times
Someone definitely had an eye for details, like the metal railing:
- DSCN1871.jpg (63.14 KiB) Viewed 266 times
- DSCN1873.jpg (175.1 KiB) Viewed 266 times
Right next to that are some examples of what I consider bog-standard current blah architecture in Europe.
- DSCN1874.jpg (106.66 KiB) Viewed 266 times
- DSCN1875.jpg (104.21 KiB) Viewed 266 times