Why are residential buildings from the 1950s-1970s of such crap quality?

[TWAK]

The custom ones look cool, especially in SF and Sac/the I-80 corridor. The cookie cutter ones? Eh, still better than the 90's and beyond variety.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I think most 1950s residential construction is still of pretty high quality

My parents have owned two 1950s homes, a 1970s home and a 2005 home. 3 homes in Canada, 1 in USA (only one at a time).

The current c.1953 house "retirement bungalow" is the best built of them all. Original owner was from Italy, he and his wife lived in the home their entire lives, and had it built to his specs. Huge addition they put on in the 1970s was done really well too. My folks are only the 2nd owners of the home.

Of the apartments I've lived in the older ones-pre WW2 were better construction quality than the newest c.2000 one I lived in.

Although lamented, the "Commieblock" Canadian concrete high-rise popular from the late 1960s to late 1980s are usually pretty well built. The ones I've been in anyway. niwell knows what I'm talking about. Thick walls so you can't hear the neighbors.

Best built apartments I've seen were 1920s ones in Buffalo. They just look and feel solid like something from NYC.

[JManc]

I lived in an ADU that was a part of a $3.5 million house built in 2021 in the East Bay and that thing was built out of cardboard. I could hear the owners farting upstairs.

[Wigs]

While I haven't been in any of the units, these are my fav 1920s residential buildings in Buffalo, built as luxury apartments and have remained luxurious.

The Campanile - 925 Delaware Ave
• Video Link

800 West Ferry
• Video Link

The ones that I've been in (I was sober enough to recall anyway ) are:
83 Bryant St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RaaPebv3tW2A2xFM9
1290 Delaware Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZPognmWEmtYCtHrh8

[dave8721]

I live as a kid in a solid 1960 suburban home and it stood up to Hurricane Andrew with some minor roof damage that turned 1980s homes nearby into piles of rubble.

[benp]

I always wanted to live in one of the 2-story units with the balconies at 800 W. Ferry, and for years I never noticed the gargoyles extending from the upper floors. Fun fact is that they have the face of the original building owner/developer, Darwin R. Martin, whose father (also Darwin Martin) had commissioned the Frank Lloyd Wright' Larkin HQ building (now lost), along with his home (now a museum) elsewhere in Buffalo.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Although lamented, the "Commieblock" Canadian concrete high-rise popular from the late 1960s to late 1980s are usually pretty well built. The ones I've been in anyway. niwell knows what I'm talking about. Thick walls so you can't hear the neighbors.

Yeah all the ones I've been in have very little noise transfer between units. As I posted above these are all very structurally sound buildings, though vary considerably in terms of interior condition. Some are quite run down inside and poorly managed, while others have been renovated and are in good shape (usually but not always the ones under condo ownership).

[Crawford]

Those Buffalo prewar apartment buildings look great. Not many cities have those kinds of buildings.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Those Buffalo prewar apartment buildings look great. Not many cities have those kinds of buildings.

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Those Buffalo buildings are gorgeous. Seems to me like these prewar luxury apartment buildings are limited to cities in the northeast/midwest, no?

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Those Buffalo buildings are gorgeous. Seems to me like these prewar luxury apartment buildings are limited to cities in the northeast/midwest, no?

San Francisco and LA both have them. In SF they're all over Pac Heights, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, etc. A bit more scattered in LA, but there's a nice cluster of them on Rossmore by the Wilshire Country Club.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Those Buffalo buildings are gorgeous. Seems to me like these prewar luxury apartment buildings are limited to cities in the northeast/midwest, no?

Nope.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by edale

San Francisco and LA both have them. In SF they're all over Pac Heights, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, etc. A bit more scattered in LA, but there's a nice cluster of them on Rossmore by the Wilshire Country Club.

There's quite a few in Oakland as well.











PC: homebucket

And some others:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jYgFiHo5yrTn3TH88
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2UcpUhtJF9Xfw7Lo8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GDZDFzxNsVZrF9io8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zc9WoWnLAY3qVyRL7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FDbJMsULQXM1vNuS9

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

San Francisco and LA both have them. In SF they're all over Pac Heights, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, etc. A bit more scattered in LA, but there's a nice cluster of them on Rossmore by the Wilshire Country Club.

Oh right, I absentmindedly omitted LA and San Francisco.

[pj3000]

Awesome buildings, but not prewar residential luxury apartment buildings.

Originally Posted by homebucket

There's quite a few in Oakland as well.

[chris08876]

I'm going to go out of the limb at great expense of public whipping at the town square but ... we sort of need poor quality or as they say crap quality these days considering the big shortage of housing.

Utilitarian in bulk might be needed. Folks need housing, and cities need to grow. Its very evident that what is occurring at the moment just isn't meeting demand. Cheaper housing, but one that can be built in mass is needed. Nothing fancy, nothing that will skyrocket costs and ones which costs will be translated to the consumer... just basic, utilitarian housing if its apartments or rentals or basic purchasable units/houses.

Less luxury, more basic functionality.

The 50's onward witnessed a big boom due to the post-war demand and so, with higher frequency, not everything will be catered of the utmost quality. One could say these days, with costs the way they are, we need quality to degrade. Cheaper and meets the basic needs of folks who just want a roof over their head without getting raped in costs.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm going to go out of the limb at great expense of public whipping at the town square but ... we sort of need poor quality or as they say crap quality these days considering the big shortage of housing.

Agreed. I noticed the vast majority of new MFH construction in Houston caters to the professional class with rents well out of reach for working/ lower middle class who don't want to live in the hood. My mom is looking for an apartment closer to me and she's priced out of everything built in the past 10-15 years. A lot of the "cheaper" apartments are aging and will eventually need to be replaced or totally renovated which will inturn price out current tenants.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm going to go out of the limb at great expense of public whipping at the town square but ... we sort of need poor quality or as they say crap quality these days considering the big shortage of housing.

Utilitarian in bulk might be needed. Folks need housing, and cities need to grow. Its very evident that what is occurring at the moment just isn't meeting demand. Cheaper housing, but one that can be built in mass is needed. Nothing fancy, nothing that will skyrocket costs and ones which costs will be translated to the consumer... just basic, utilitarian housing if its apartments or rentals or basic purchasable units/houses.

Less luxury, more basic functionality.

I disagree that we need "poor quality" housing -- I think that is preposterous.

Quality is a relative term, but considering that we've built quality "utilitarian in bulk/utilitarian housing" and "cheaper housing that can be built in mass" before (i.e., in the 1950s and 60s), we are fully capable of doing it again... except now we can do it to much improved construction and energy code standards.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm going to go out of the limb at great expense of public whipping at the town square but ... we sort of need poor quality or as they say crap quality these days considering the big shortage of housing.

We're getting plenty of poor quality construction, it's just being marketed as "luxury".

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I would say that the stuff being built today is equally as bad but for different reasons, the main issue being that today's developments are huge and monolithic, some taking up entire blocks. Or they consist of two or three buildings that are identical or clearly related. Anchoring these developments is come combination of an expensive grocery and/or coffee chain, local chain restaurant, fitness/yoga/pilates studio, or bank branch. In other words, the amenities of a nice suburban strip mall.

You must be talking about those boxy 5+1s popping up everywhere. It's good infill, but those things probably won't age that well.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I disagree that we need "poor quality" housing -- I think that is preposterous.

Quality is a relative term, but considering that we've built quality "utilitarian in bulk/utilitarian housing" and "cheaper housing that can be built in mass" before (i.e., in the 1950s and 60s), we are fully capable of doing it again... except now we can do it to much improved construction and energy code standards.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

We're getting plenty of poor quality construction, it's just being marketed as "luxury".

Agree with both