Construction Time Again: The quality crisis in American building
thebaffler.com
thebaffler.com
This nails it. American “cities” are mostly low-density sprawls where everyone has a useless yard surrounding their home which serves as mostly an aesthetic flourish. But rebuilding American cities with functional parks and high-density housing and everything in walking distance is deeply unpopular because, like most of this, Americans just don’t know what they’re missing because they’ve been sold a dead-end dream.
Because you'd need to bulldoze everyone's existing houses to replace them with the high density housing to be able to use that city space.
When you mention allowing businesses in subdivisions people act as if you're suggesting a McDonald's and a Walmart instead of a local breakfast shop and cafe and a small salon and a cute general store. But that's really all thats necessary. It takes just a tiny bit to turn a house into a suitable business.
I'd take the McDonald's and Walmart any day over the rest. In fact, I have a McDonald's and several supermarkets(including discount stores) within walking distance.
In your vicinity you'd want to have your basic necessities, not businesses catering to those who can afford to buy their breakfast and/or coffee every day.
Thats literally what McDonalds is??
I mean, there's even a haircut named after this phenomenon (the "meet me at McDonald's").
Chiefly, they're not essential and do nothing for those who can't afford to eat out or will go there once a month maybe because they're at work when it's open.
A large supermarket with the scale and logistics to offer low prices and long opening hours serves the population at large, not just the affluent.
And that's the first thing what you want in a thriving city, otherwise you're just making a theme park.
If you convert a bunch of detached SFHs to office and retail space...you've effectively demolished that housing. You've also now created low density commercial space which has the same space inefficiency as low density housing.
Just because a converted SFH makes a business "cute" doesn't mean the space is being better used.
When you were in the pod during your 8 hour turn, you'd either be at work for 8 hours, or keeping physically fit on the federally mandated fitness treadmills.
We wouldn't even need streets at that point, because where would there be to go?
While we might not be able to implement this utopia immediately, it's something that all liberal progressive people should be striving for.
I live in a townhouse with shared walls on both sides and we never hear our neighbours. I’ve asked them if they hear us (we have teenagers) and one said never, the other said sometimes an occasional thud (teenagers wrestling).
Similarly we have a private outdoor space or deck and a shared open area. Both are great and well designed. I think it can be done well.
I know too that often it is not.
If you're used to the stick-built homes and ballon framing, then the article quote from Vanwyck is right: “The majority of North Americans haven’t experienced high-quality housing, and so they also don’t know what they’re missing and what they can ask for.”
In the apartment house I live in Sweden, I hear less of my neighbors than when I lived in a detached house in the US. The walls and floors here are SOLID! I had to get a impact drill so I could install curtains, the concrete is that tough.
Some apartment complexes have a private courtyard garden where you can bbq and play with the kids (and play with the dogs, though you'll need to go elsewhere to let them pee and poop), and have the upkeep paid by your rent.
Ours doesn't, but our nearest park is across the street and the nearest big playground 5 blocks away, see https://www.google.com/maps/@58.2841034,12.2930193,3a,75y,23... . And we have several large shared rooms in the basement where the kids can play on wet dreary days, or hold a birthday party or, in my case, work during the COVID restriction years.
Now, I hate mowing and gardening, which is why I also paid someone to do it for me in the US. For those who like it, I can totally see how having a yard would support that hobby.
The fact that you can hear your neighbors through the wall is a sign of terrible design and construction choices. Hell, most sane apartment layouts minimise if not eliminate shared walls entirely.
Build proper walls!
It get that average Joe in the anglosphere is clueless when it comes to aparments, bike lanes and other uncommon issues, but why are planners illiterate too?
Even when they invest the top dollar, they still can't get it right.
I lived in an apartment in Czech republic and never heard my neighbours, never had a noise complaint.
Moved to UK, and in a terraced house I could hear my neighboir's baby crying. Had neighbours call police over parry noise in a detached house (!). Wtf.
I was shocked to discover that in UK separations between apartments are just made of drywall - thats a security risk!
In Czech republic the apartment building has a yard, a lawn, a space for a barbeque and a playground for kids. This is not rocket science.
Apartment in UK has a concrete courtyard that looks like a prison, and a tiny lawn in the front with a big sign "no ball games" and "do not step on the grass".
Ex-communist countries actually know how to build apartments that work, any shorcoming are due to lack of money. If you pay top dollar, you get nice and livable apartments.
In Anglosphere, apartments suck no matter how much you pay, either the planners can't read or learning from counties with the most experience is beneath them.
Not sure if buildings are like that in the Czech Republic, although the Chinese learned these techniques from the soviets so it wouldn’t surprise me.
Why do you think so? That's extremely short, even the worst quality soviet blocks last more.
Europe has some apartment blocks that are 200 years old.
They can last more than 30 years with lots of extra maintenance, the problem comes when that maintenance isn’t applied.
Different people have different tastes and preferences. Of the ~30,000 municipalities in the country, we have exactly one that resembles the high density walkable/transit-oriented city described above. Do you really think that ratio accurately reflects Americans' preferences?
There's at least most of NYC, Boston, & Chicago.
And listening to their leafblowers/lawnmowers/other yard tools blasting a thousand decibels of noise on the weekends is?
A lot of the mowers etc are turning over to electric so the cacaphony of weekend 2 strikes is fading away
My yard is definitely not useless. It is a safe place for my kids to play. It allows my family to garden. I grow fruits and vegetables. I can entertain guests outdoors in a relatively private space. I have space to hang up a hammock. Sure maybe for some people it is useless, but for a lot of other people, it isn't.
> But rebuilding American cities
The fact that you have to rebuild the city is a pretty big drawback too...
> high-density housing
This implies a high density of people. Some people, myself included, don't like to be around a lot of people. Functional parks and everything being within walking distance wouldn't be worth dealing with crowds of people to me.
Just bear in mind that people elsewhere also want the same goals you have, and are happy with different ways to get those goals.
You want a safe place for my kids to play. I agree! Many people want that.
Your solution is a yard, which you need to maintain, or pay someone to maintain. Others live in housing complex with plenty of yard space, or live close by to parks, where someone else takes care of the grounds.
You don't want to deal with crowds, so you don't care if you don't live within walking distance of functional parks in the like. But this also means you're going to be driving your kids around a lot, since they can't walk to the park, or go to school, by themselves. (Even if they take the bus, they are stuck with a specific schedule, giving the less independence of movement.)
Which may be fine - I can understand how being in a car for a long time can be more calming for some than being around people for a short time!
You like to garden. Some housing complexes have community gardens, because their residents like to garden too. And there are community gardens which, at least in some places have space allotted by city (similar to how public parks work) so don't directly face market pressure and land rentals.
I've certainly been in apartment buildings with relatively private outside space where residents could entertain others, play with kids, read a book, work from home, and so on. And with its own private swimming pool, tennis courts, playgrounds, and so on.
I've visited https://www.cotaticohousing.org/ , with "cooperative living that combines private residences with extensive common facilities". They have a shared carpentry shop, eating/party area, and two spare guest apartments which can be booked for visitors.
My meaning is that there are many ways to get the goals you want, without the specific method you prefer.
Others in the US don't have the same crowd concerns you have. Yet for most part, they don't have the ability to live anywhere else, or have any experience to know what those alternatives might be!
> The fact that you have to rebuild the city is a pretty big drawback too...
If only you were around in the mid-20th century when the urban core of many US cities were torn down to rebuild for cars - maybe we would have more options now. But I guess your point is that since they made a bad decision then we can't change our minds now?
> This implies a high density of people.
It can also imply a medium density of people.
A thesis in the linked-to piece is that certain types of construction don't exist in the US, so people don't know the options even exist. This guides their understanding of what is appropriate. It points out how these design differences are part of a large interwoven set of ideas which extends to how American cities are designed.
wunderland followed up on that latter point. I agree with the general thesis, but I think wunderland stated it rudely and disdainfully. I think wunderland also fell into the trap of contrasting "low-density" housing with "high-density", which makes people think of Manhattan skyscrapers, when there are plenty of sorts of medium-density housing that gets what wunderland wants. (I can provide examples if you wish.)
In my comment I wanted to highlight that yes, certainly there are many Americans who like "low-density sprawls where everyone has a useless yard" and (correctly!) reject that characterization. Which I think is fine - it's not like Europeans don't have have single-family homes.
But there are plenty of other people who do want alternatives, like walkable neighborhoods. These people have many of the same goals - a safe place for kids, somewhere to garden, outdoor semi-private area for entertaining friends, etc. - but don't want what they regard as the clear negatives of living in single-family detached housing. I listed a couple to be clear: yard maintenance, and required chauffeur service for the kids.
I've talked to people at that housing co-op in California. They got the idea from Danish housing practices. Making it fit into California housing law was tricky, because unlike in Denmark, the CA laws weren't designed with that in mind. Yet while the people I met there really enjoyed it, I know it's not for everyone. Just like how there are people in Denmark who live in single-family detached houses.
Or, I've read stories of people in the US who want to set up a part of town with restricted car traffic (something like Barcelona's car-free superblocks), only to face massive protests from people who want to be able to drive everywhere, and see this as a restriction on their freedom.
Not realizing, perhaps, that car-traffic roads restrict the freedom of others, like the freedom for children to play on the streets in front of their home. But we've been sold the myth that "streets are (only) for cars", making it hard to remember that that's not the only thing they are used for.
The goal isn't "there should be no cars anywhere" but that "there should some places with cars and some places without."
As wunderbar quoted from the article: "From building codes to systems of labor and construction, everything is designed with the detached single-family home in mind: zoning that bans apartments (and density and affordability) over large swaths of urban America."
It's hard to see what isn't there. Don't let your enjoyment of your current situation make you blind to how others may want alternatives.
From hurricane resistance in Florida (tying the roof to the building) to lightning rods up a little north. Midwestern basements for tornado protection to east coast stilts for avoiding floods. To northeastern fireplaces and furnaces for keeping warm to insulation and good ductwork for keeping cool in Arizona. To earthquake resistance in California to keeping the house dry in Washington. And roofs to hold the load of snow in Montana.
It’s incredible we have a common resource (timber) to solve the large number of needs our collective housing market requires. And even with those unique needs, houses will feel quite similar and consistent throughout the country. Prefabrication would be a different market for every need, not a massive win in market efficiency (trailer homes for example were an attempt to accomplish this but didn’t provide a format better than a stationary house)
I wish they used heavier lumber to build homes and treated it for flame resistance better. I lived in a concrete apartment in Asia for a few years. The walls were hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and there were so many crevices in the wall for bugs to colonize. I very very quickly appreciated the wood homes I grew up in - even the kitchen floor being wooden and not concrete is such a nice comfort for my feet and knees
Why are lightning rods needed up north, or at least moreso, compared to Florida?
The area between Orlando and Tampa in FL is the lightning capital of the US. As in, it gets the most strikes per square mile in the US.
Softwood lumber, especially Douglas Fir, grows so fast that we farm it here. It's a crop! Thirty or forty year cycle.
This is what Europeans never understand, because they have no native Douglas Fir over there. The mutation that lets them grow so fast isn't found in any of Europe's native species (which are mostly hardwoods anyways): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5592940
> and treated it for flame resistance better.
I don't. Almost all wood treatments off-gas toxic chemicals. The floor of my wellhouse is treated lumber and I don't care to spend much time in there. It's great for making decks though. Downside is that the treatments corrode screws and nails, so you have to use epoxy-coated fasteners but even those don't last more than a decade or two.
Flame resistance is what sheetrock is for.
At 3 feet (~1 meter), you're only at an R-value of ~7.2 - which you can get with 2 inches of fiberglass.
I don't doubt the building is cool in the summer and warm in the winter, but I suspect the reason is different than the brick walls.
It does need heating in winter like any normal house, but does not het hot in summer days
The problems are not a lack of regulation but too much, which drives the push for all the sameness you see in construction methods; it's stagnation.
If you don't believe me, go to your library and leaf through the IRBC, the international residential building code, which is incorporated by reference into building code ordinances everywhere...
Regulations lack any kind of competitive mechanism to forcibly correct them, even in the face of unwilling regulators. This is the fundamental problem.
Note that competition doesn't have to mean markets. Universities compete fiercely with each other for the best students, and it works. Researchers compete with each other for space in the most prestigious journals (and journals with each other to attract the best articles!). None of these are markets, but they are competitive, which regulatory apparatus is not.
Name one example in the past 50 years when the marlet has improved energy efficiency of a consumer product without government intervention.
Britain was building houses without insulation in the walls, manufacturers were building dishwashers and other household appliances that would consume over 10 W when they are switched off. Vacuum cleaner manufacturers still routinely commit fraud, because nobody tests this stuff
Laptop CPUs and GPUs would be another. Look at the success of ARM in cell phones and the Apple M1/M2 chips.
The Japanese car makers got their foothold in the American car market with very fuel efficient cars in the mid to late 1970s, before various fuel efficiency laws were passed.
You don't buy an airplane, you buy a plane ticket, and you choose it based on price.
An airline buys the Airplane, they calculate their expenses to set ticket prices. They will buy a more efficient airplanes.
Consumers suck at managing efficiency, they will buy an inefficient fridge that's going to cost twice as much over it's lifetime, because they don't measure and keep track of these things.
As an American, the thing I find most unnerving is the low standard of workmanship and materials in 21st century homes of middle-class neighborhoods. Incompetent installation of plumbing, electrical, and HVAC lead to all sorts of problems for the homeowner soon after purchase. Finish materials -- even safety critical ones like railings and bannisters -- are the cheapest possible and need replacing within the first decade of ownership. "Builder-grade" means "barely serviceable."
I bought a house built in the late 1970's -- late enough that there's no lead or asbestos, but early enough that material quality and construction was still decent. The cabinets are original and look new. The trim material throughout is all real wood. It was hit by a tornado before I was born and everything is still solid.
A friend has bought several "newer" houses and is always complaining about how nothing works right and is always breaking. I suggested he look into an older home, but he was priced out in his town. He also was unwilling to exchange home size for build quality like I was.
I'm told that if you hire custom builders you can get better craftsmanship and materials, but it's unclear if good build quality is actually reflected at sale time.
How much freedom do we allow?
On one end of the spectrum, the fully suburban city (like your average American city) allows virtually no freedom. As land value rises, you hit a maximum density (prescribed by minimum lot size, maximum height, minimum lot setbacks, parking requirements, and maximum number of housing units) and this becomes the shape of the city.
If you allow more freedom on some or all of these dimensions, then as land value rises developers will purchase lots and infill or redevelop.
The rest of the city stuff that urbanists talk about (trains, bike lanes, parks and walkability, etc) all become increasingly valuable to everybody as density goes up.
So the options are freedom or suburbs. Many Americans prefer suburbs, which is understandable. The American suburban dream is a beautiful one, but undoubtedly built to suppress freedom (from inception: a way to allow middle class white people to escape the minorities and poors of the city in post-war america, keeping them away through redlining first and then by stringent zoning and expensive housing later)
- Do you have issues with pests? More precisely, how often do you have to use mousetraps or call an exterminator?
- What's your recurring home maintenance schedule like?
Two things that really bother me about American-style homes are the seemingly rapid deterioration and the failure to design out pests. It's easy for a stick-frame building to develop a defect sufficient to allow mouse ingress, and once inside, the hollow walls afford them many inaccessible places to nest. I really hate having to regularly kill, or at best relocate and traumatize, creatures that are just looking for a safe place to spend the winter. I have imagined that European-style concrete buildings, with tight-fitting prefab components, would be easier to own, but I have never actually asked anyone with a comparably located home.
I also think that the author needs to come to Florida and look at new home construction. The vast majority of new SFH homes being built are concrete block due to various factors (hurricanes, termites, etc).
There are physical limitations to construction. Sometimes things take time to set and/or cure. Even when doing the work, it’s not like you can have five guys working on a single pipe at the same time, hence the “breaks.”
Most accessibility affordances have a negligible cost when designed in from the beginning and are significantly more expensive to retrofit. (E.g. designing a staircase with an integrated ramp is cheap; adding a ramp to an existing staircase often is not.)
Ensuring that everyone has equal access to society seems like a pretty worthwhile goal and I'd hate to see people locked out of it to save a fraction of a percent in costs.
But if only 1 person was in a wheelchair it wouldn't make sense to spend trillions of dollars making the world accessible to that person.
There's tons of people with tons of disabilities.
It just so happens that there's lots of people with certain disabilities, and if we can do things that aren't too cost prohibitive to make life way easier for a lot of people than we should.
But it's still a debate about cost.
And obviously different people will have different views.
My EU aparment has an elevator, and you can get to every room in a wheelchair.
Can you get into the upstairs bedroom on an average american home in a wheelchair?