Dark ages of architecture

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:46:31 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-72157622229110201/

Hey, I like those flat-roofed styles.

Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for
that today.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

On 7/26/2012 3:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/26/12 3:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
>>>>> evolution of a style.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>>>>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
>>>>> house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
>>>>> absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>>>>
>>>> I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture
>>>> back
>>>> then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
>>>> backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow...
>>>> different. Not
>>>> so much.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
>>> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
>>> wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)
>>
>> Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I
>> studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me
>> and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how
>> times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence
>> when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was
>> actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he
>> "eventually" became a CPA.
>>
>
> Sounds like you stopped reading after my second sentence.
> Did you miss the part where I clarified that I didn't study "enough?"
> My only point was that I know enough to know that 4 or 5 mixed styles on
> one house, on every house in the neighborhood, looks like shit.
>
>


No I saw it all, BUT I had a funny, well funny now, story to tell!!! ;~)

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>
>
>Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>
>"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>traditional local architecture.[1]"

"Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a
"McMansion".

Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil?

That definition reeks of silly envy.

>and...
>
>"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>structure in an older neighborhood."

That definition is at odds with the first definition.


What is *your* definition?

Leon wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
>>> the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor
>>> pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the
>>> framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's
>>> plantation grown material.
>>
>> Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception
>> with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything
>> seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to
>> be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the
>> day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was
>> agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys
>> had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took
>> every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest
>> that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
>> standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.
>
> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes
> in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

So - back in the day... there were tract homes. Built by the guys that came
in and slammed them up as fast as they could. My father did not want a
house like that so he contracted the best guy around. The guy did not build
this way. Every corner is a built corner - no scraps of 2x4 in the corner -
all full 2x4's. A lot of overkill throughout the house. Well - that was
back in 1960. The junk homes that were being built by the dozens at the
time are still standing - just like the house my dad had built. Today, my
mom's ceilings have some cracks here and there, the center line of the
basement has had a crack since I was a kid living there, the blocks have had
to be re-pointed in the basement walls, and the brick has had to be
re-pointed. This was one of the best contractors around. He did not do
slip shod work. Yet - his workmanship resulted in this. The tract homes
were built by guys looking to get them up in a day or two, and guess what -
they are still standing today with not much more for problems than my mom's
house has today. So much of this talk about this stuff is just not all that
valid.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Larry Blanchard wrote:

>
> Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually
> building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking
> of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.

I hope not. Brick veneer is far superior to a brick home. I'd consider a
"brick" house to be an albatross.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

-MIKE- wrote:

>
> You know.... it's not any worse than the bastardized amalgamation of
> styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia,
> today.

I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the
60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I
don't mind much at all.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 07/28/2012 08:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/28/2012 6:17 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
>> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>>
>> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
>> repair every time I turn on the tube.
>> Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>
> Actually foundations are a problem all along the Texas gulf coast.
>

...and in the Arizona desert when poured on top of the caliche soil.


Isn't caliche wonderful stuff? Especially when wet.

Dave in Texas

-MIKE- wrote:

> I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
> evolution of a style.
>
> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
> house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
> absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back
then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not
so much.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"basilisk" wrote:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-72157622229110201/

------------------------------------
Memories

Lew

Somebody wrote:

> I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a
> brick
> house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick
> veneer -
> times have changed.
--------------------------------------
Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick
outer) was built in the late '40's.

After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was
the standard offering.

This would have been the NE Ohio market.

Lew

"Richard" wrote:

> Yes. But look at the price of rent these days!
>
> Dallas average:
> http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=1922
>
> A two bed-room apartment (usually second or third floor) is more
> than
> my brand new mortgage.

-----------------------------------
Here in SoCal, that would be the low rent district.

Lew

On 07/28/2012 08:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/28/2012 6:17 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
>> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>>
>> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
>> repair every time I turn on the tube.
>> Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>
> Actually foundations are a problem all along the Texas gulf coast.
>

...and in the Arizona desert when poured on top of the caliche soil.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/26/12 2:45 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
>>> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
>>> horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly
>>> explain it. :-)
>>
>> I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has
>> taken places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of
>> years - thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say
>> that any college could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection
>> of a given professor's view point.
>>
>
> For the record, I don't remember an instructor ever saying that...
> it's my opinion.

My bad - I misunderstood your intent when I first read your comment.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/28/2012 6:17 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
>> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>
> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
> repair every time I turn on the tube.
> Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.

We were discussing tract homes built in the 50's to mid 60's. Those did
not have post tension slabs, which are the majority of the slabs that
Olshan specializes in. PTI slabs became ubiquitous in this area in the
late seventies, and are the one's that pay Nolan's fees. Almost every
tract home built in this area since then has a PTI slab.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-721576222...
>

Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses,
over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them
there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the
ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly.

I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I
can't wait
for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter
work.

MJ

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:34:24 GMT, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:44:14 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:46:31 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/
>set-72157622229110201/
>>
>> Hey, I like those flat-roofed styles.
>>
>> Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for that
>> today.
>
>I'll bet he wouldn't get out of bed for that paltry sum :)
>
>Just think of that price on a thirty year fixed note, especially after
>the inflationary '70's. (providing you managed to still have a job)

The '70s is when you wanted a thirty-year fixed note! ;-) ...sorta like
today. ;-)

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:17:21 -0500, "Dave in Texas"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Leon" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
>the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>
> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
>repair every time I turn on the tube.
>Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.
>
>Dave in Texas
>
My in-laws built houses in Houston. Once one of them said they
were going to just build houses with the slab already cracked and
design around it.

Nice pictures. Musta been a lot of indians there that forgot
their paintbrushes.

<><><><><><
It now takes me all day long to do
what I used to do all day long.

The Quartermaster

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>> one can
>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>
>>
>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>
>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>
>> and...
>>
>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>
>>
>
>I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>Pretty funny....
>http://xrl.us/mcmansion

That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
those who use derisive over-generalizations like;

"up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
to impress a bunch of people they don't like."

Really, why do you care what others have?

On 7/26/2012 9:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> I always think of mortgages as doubling the cost of the house, so
> that's about $40k, or $111.11 a month. That's easily doable today by
> most people, eh?<snicker>
>
> --


Yes. But look at the price of rent these days!

Dallas average:
http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=1922

A two bed-room apartment (usually second or third floor) is more than
my brand new mortgage.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:44:14 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:46:31 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>>
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/
set-72157622229110201/
>
> Hey, I like those flat-roofed styles.
>
> Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for that
> today.

I'll bet he wouldn't get out of bed for that paltry sum :)

Just think of that price on a thirty year fixed note, especially after
the inflationary '70's. (providing you managed to still have a job)

basilisk






--
A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse

On 7/26/2012 11:46 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
>> samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
>> homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>
> Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in
> the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance.
>
> I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
> house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
> times have changed.
>
> Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
> brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
> wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.
>


How long ago was that????

On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
>> the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool,
>> if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing
>> lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation
>> grown material.
>
> Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that
> statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but
> up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled
> labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest
> available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today.
> That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used
> it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to
> suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
> standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>> I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
>>> evolution of a style.
>>>
>>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
>>> house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
>>> absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>>
>> I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture
>> back
>> then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
>> backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow...
>> different. Not
>> so much.
>>
>
> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
> wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)

Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I
studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me
and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how
times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence
when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was
actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he
"eventually" became a CPA.



I studied architecture in high school Oh man, I hate my self..LOL

A kitchen in the middle of the house was heavily, heavily frowned upon.
We had to design and draw complete plans for a home, I put a kitchen
in the middle of my house and was told that this was impossible and
simply not done. I had to bring a Polaroid picture of our kitchen to
class, to show that this design feature did exist, before I could
proceed with the foundation drawings. Now, very commonplace.

On 7/26/2012 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:

> These homes in
> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

There was a big migration of carpenters during that period that left the
North and East and moved to California and Texas ... well known
phenomenon. The schools I went to during that period were full of sons
and daughters of carpenters and builders, many Italian, who had one
other trait besides being "yankees"... to a boy/girl, they knew their
baseball! Our LL teams were full of Bonazi's, and Trapolino's and
Minnetrea's ... and they all played shortstop or third base. :)

The stories are that most of the carpenters who migrated to CA were
union, and thus most of those tract homes built in CA in the post war
50's were union built, so there was most definitely a higher skill level
than there has been since the 70's.

One of my favorite old time carpenters from that period was Larry Haun,
who recently died. He wrote a bunch fine stuff down through the years
for Fine Homebuilding magazine:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/slideshow/larry-haun.aspx

A boatload of carpentry skill and knowledge was lost with that old man ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
>> the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool,
>> if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing
>> lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation
>> grown material.
>
> Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that
> statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but
> up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled
> labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest
> available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today.
> That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used
> it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to
> suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
> standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.
>
>> Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started
>> focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on
>> foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had
>> certainly become less skilled.
>>
>
> Maybe in Texas...
>
>

Definitely in Texas.
And everywhere else as well.
That does not mean that ALL houses built during that period were done
that way. But a substantial portion were.
I know because I was shopping for a house for the last couple of years.

Broken slabs were common from that time frame.
(and still asking over $100k)

On 7/26/2012 12:02 PM, MJ wrote:
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-721576222...
>>
>
> Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses,
> over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them
> there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the
> ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly.
>
> I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I
> can't wait
> for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter
> work.

I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.

Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started
focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on
foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had certainly
become less skilled.

There are plenty exceptions for either period though.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

--------------------------------------
Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick
outer) was built in the late '40's.

After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was
the standard offering.

This would have been the NE Ohio market.


My wife and her sister came into this house [
http://www.pbase.com/speedracer/image/79076095 ] about 30 miles from San
Antonio in 2002 and we soon bought her sister's half. It was built after
WWII and prior to 1950. Exterior walls are a hollow yellow clay tile block
with a full brick veneer; wall thickness is ~8-3/4 inches. At all the
window openings the interior side of the wall tile blocks are wider by four
or five inches a side to allow for the rope and pulley window weights.
Replacing the 35 X 36 kitchen window required the 'brick-to-brick'
measurement to fit the new unit between the brick and then boxing in and
reconfiguring the interior trim. Otherwise, you'd be looking a four of five
inches of the backside of the brick veneer.
There is a centered, load-bearing stud wall [front-to-back] and a
handful of partition walls that connect with the exterior walls and
everywhere there is contact between the two has seen drywall tape come
undone. I've done away with the tape altogether. Thankfully, there is
Liquid Nails or, I theorize, Loc-tite adhesive since I can get away without
sealing the color down prior to painting. I'm guessing the rate of
expansion/contraction eventually pulls the two walls apart. The Liquid
Nails fix has shown new cracks where the central, load-bearing wall meets
the exterior walls at both ends - front and back. So far [three years down
the road] the cross-walls are holding in the corners. Several years of
drought conditions, I believe, are a contributing factor. I wish I knew
what kind of footing(s) those walls are sitting on.

Dave in Texas

basilisk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-72157622229
> 110201/
>
>
> basilisk

+1

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
>> house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
>> absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>
> Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart
> in the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of
> maintenance.
>
> I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
> house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer
> - times have changed.
>
> Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually
> building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking
> of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.

In Holland just about all houses were built with double-walled brick
exteriors. I remember that shoddy building practices at times resulted
in mortar bridging those 2 walls, an absolute no-no since it wicks
moisture from a rain-wet outer wall to the inside. Sometimes the
occupants only found out after heavy rain, sometimes fairly long after
they occupied the home. Expensive repairs needed. Almost all these
homes with double brick walls should be retrofitted with insulation in
the cavity. As far as sturdy is concerned, the method of construction
is different, yields a rather inflexible home (not good in earthquake
country), but if built well on good foundations, the home should last for
hundreds of years.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> You know.... it's not any worse than the bastardized amalgamation of
>> styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia,
>> today.
>
> I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of
> the 60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today -
> which I don't mind much at all.

It is a matter of taste. Many people around here (NJ) just love Tudor-
style homes. I happen to hate that, though I can appreciate a well-
designed Tudor in its class. The open, Art-Deco or Scandinavian style of
this drawing that Basilisk linked to is something I can appreciate just as
much, if not more. But "de gustibus non est disputandum"

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

MJ <[email protected]> wrote in
news:5f5dfb82-3643-4248-9db1-86c63cc41781@lq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-721576222.
>> ..
>>
>
> Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses,
> over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them
> there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the
> ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly.
>
> I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I
> can't wait
> for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter
> work.
>
> MJ

I think that a recent This Old House series was on just that style of
house, although vastly more upper class then Basilisk's original. They
didn't spare any money redoing it.
<http://tinyurl.com/br2vdl8>
or
<http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/products-and-services/resources/0,,10
62246,00.html>

And it suffered from original design, craftsmanship or material
shortcomings plenty! --
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote:

> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten
> 2008 already?

What the hell kind of question is that? Some of us here have trouble
remembering last week, and you're throwing numbers like 2008 out there?
That just ain't right...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:

>
> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
> the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool,
> if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing
> lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation
> grown material.

Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that
statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but
up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled
labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest
available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today.
That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used
it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to
suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

> Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started
> focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on
> foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had
> certainly become less skilled.
>

Maybe in Texas...


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
repair every time I turn on the tube.
Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.

Dave in Texas

-MIKE- wrote:

>
> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
> horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain
> it. :-)

I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken
places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years -
thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college
could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's
view point.

>
> You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
> when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
> let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just
> of different songs, but different styles. Every song you
> listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway,
> military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and
> Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in
> one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one
> artist.

Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that
are true to a form.

>
> That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion
> subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood.

Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few
beers...

>
> (*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from
> bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't
> want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-)

Well - that's a whole different conversation.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/26/2012 2:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
>>>> the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor
>>>> pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the
>>>> framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's
>>>> plantation grown material.
>>>
>>> Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception
>>> with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything
>>> seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to
>>> be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the
>>> day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was
>>> agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys
>>> had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took
>>> every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest
>>> that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
>>> standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.
>>
>> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes
>> in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>
> So - back in the day... there were tract homes. Built by the guys that came
> in and slammed them up as fast as they could. My father did not want a
> house like that so he contracted the best guy around. The guy did not build
> this way. Every corner is a built corner - no scraps of 2x4 in the corner -
> all full 2x4's. A lot of overkill throughout the house. Well - that was
> back in 1960. The junk homes that were being built by the dozens at the
> time are still standing - just like the house my dad had built. Today, my
> mom's ceilings have some cracks here and there, the center line of the
> basement has had a crack since I was a kid living there, the blocks have had
> to be re-pointed in the basement walls, and the brick has had to be
> re-pointed. This was one of the best contractors around. He did not do
> slip shod work. Yet - his workmanship resulted in this. The tract homes
> were built by guys looking to get them up in a day or two, and guess what -
> they are still standing today with not much more for problems than my mom's
> house has today. So much of this talk about this stuff is just not all that
> valid.
>

I think a lot of it has to do with a good plan and engineering.
I distinctly recall when I was about 15 years old the guy building a
house across the street for his daughter and her family. He did the
framing himself with a helper. He was going to use "x" amount of nails
in every stud and so on, not like the all of the other track homes in
the neighborhood built by a few builders.

A year or two later we had a rather nasty hurricane and his house was
the first to loose its entire roof, even with "x" amount of nails.. ;~)
Our house almost directly across the street lost all of the fencing in
the back yard, all of the cedar ridge rows and the front porch columns
blew down.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:50:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>>> one can
>>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>>
>>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>>
>>>> and...
>>>>
>>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>>> Pretty funny....
>>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>>
>> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
>> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
>> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>>
>> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
>> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
>> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>>
>
>Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
>counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
>top 10 counties for bankruptcies.

Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't
afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
>
> > Really, why do you care what others have?
> >
>
>I don't.

Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than
you.

> But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
>in debt.

...and your derision for what people own changes that how?

>It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
>already?

If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:30:49 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 7/28/2012 6:20 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>> "-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 7/26/12 12:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
>>> fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
>>> bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
>>> old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. Keep in mind that those houses had to be put up very quickly,
>> due to the fact that the boomers were being born and suburbia was
>> exploding. What allowed them go up quickly was that simply design, not
>> any shortcuts and lack of skill by the carpenters of that time.
>>
>>
>> Hey, Swing, think Sharpstown or Oak Forest as post-WWII
>> tract-housing booms.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>
>
>That area, Sharpstownish, 59 Bellaire, Fondren is loaded with these
>type homes.

Frank Sharp specials we used to call 'em.

<><><><><><
It now takes me all day long to do
what I used to do all day long.

The Quartermaster

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:34:24 GMT, basilisk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:44:14 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:46:31 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/
>set-72157622229110201/
>>
>> Hey, I like those flat-roofed styles.
>>
>> Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for that
>> today.
>
>I'll bet he wouldn't get out of bed for that paltry sum :)
>
>Just think of that price on a thirty year fixed note, especially after
>the inflationary '70's. (providing you managed to still have a job)

I always think of mortgages as doubling the cost of the house, so
that's about $40k, or $111.11 a month. That's easily doable today by
most people, eh? <snicker>

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:33:13 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 7:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>
>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>
>> "Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a
>> "McMansion".
>>
>
>What part of "as well as" do you not get?

SO if it only meets two of three of the above criteria, it's not a McMansion?

>> Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil?
>>
>
>Wow, really? When did I say anything about evil?

Read on...

>> That definition reeks of silly envy.
>>
>
>I think you're inferring a lot.

Raead on...
>
>>> and...
>>>
>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>
>> That definition is at odds with the first definition.
>>
>
>I don't see it being at odds, at all.

I certainly do. Or is a "McMansion" just any house you don't like?

>> What is *your* definition?
>>
>
>What's your agenda, here? You clearly have one and are trying to steer
>me into it. So just get to it.

It's hard to understand you when there are no common words.

>I think I made the reasoning behind my objection to these houses pretty
>clear. There's no hidden malice or envy involved. I think they are f'n
>ugly and completely lacking in style.

Your other posts in the thread belie this.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:24:59 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
>> basilisk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-72157622229
>>> 110201/

I rather like some of the "mid-century modern" houses. That's a particularly
bad example of a cracker-box, though.

>>> basilisk
>>
>> +1

>
>You know.... it's not any worse than the bastardized amalgamation of
>styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today.

Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".

On 7/26/12 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
> basilisk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Stumbled on this while wandering around.
>>
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/42353480@N02/3918900066/in/set-72157622229
>> 110201/
>>
>>
>> basilisk
>
> +1
>

You know.... it's not any worse than the bastardized amalgamation of
styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 10:47 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> You know.... it's not any worse than the bastardized amalgamation of
>> styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia,
>> today.
>
> I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the
> 60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I
> don't mind much at all.
>

I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
> samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
> homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in
the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance.

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
times have changed.

Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 7/26/12 11:46 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
>> samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
>> homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>
> Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in
> the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance.
>
> I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
> house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
> times have changed.
>
> Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
> brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
> wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.
>

Sorry, but I'll take the stud wall with veneer.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 12:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
> fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
> bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
> old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.
>

I agree. Keep in mind that those houses had to be put up very quickly,
due to the fact that the boomers were being born and suburbia was
exploding. What allowed them go up quickly was that simply design, not
any shortcuts and lack of skill by the carpenters of that time.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
>> evolution of a style.
>>
>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
>> house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
>> absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>
> I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back
> then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
> backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not
> so much.
>

Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)

You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not
just of different songs, but different styles. Every song you listened
to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway, military march, big
band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and Gregorian chant. Every
song. You couldn't listen to any one song in one style. You could
listen to an album in any one style by one artist.

That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion subdivisions
in any *affluent neighborhood.

(*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from
bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want
or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 2:45 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
>> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
>> horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain
>> it. :-)
>
> I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken
> places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years -
> thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college
> could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's
> view point.
>

For the record, I don't remember an instructor ever saying that... it's
my opinion.


>>
>> You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
>> when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
>> let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just
>> of different songs, but different styles. Every song you
>> listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway,
>> military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and
>> Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in
>> one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one
>> artist.
>
> Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that
> are true to a form.
>
>>
>> That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion
>> subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood.
>
> Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few
> beers...

Like I said before, we'll have to include you in the next google+
hangout beer summit. :-)



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 3:24 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
>>>> evolution of a style.
>>>>
>>>> All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
>>>> software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
>>>> house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
>>>> absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.
>>>
>>> I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture
>>> back
>>> then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
>>> backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow...
>>> different. Not
>>> so much.
>>>
>>
>> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
>> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
>> wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)
>
> Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I
> studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me
> and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how
> times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence
> when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was
> actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he
> "eventually" became a CPA.
>

Sounds like you stopped reading after my second sentence.
Did you miss the part where I clarified that I didn't study "enough?"
My only point was that I know enough to know that 4 or 5 mixed styles on
one house, on every house in the neighborhood, looks like shit.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
>> though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
>> horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain
>> it. :-)
>
> I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken
> places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years -
> thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college
> could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's
> view point.
>
>>
>> You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
>> when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
>> let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just
>> of different songs, but different styles. Every song you
>> listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway,
>> military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and
>> Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in
>> one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one
>> artist.
>
> Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that
> are true to a form.

I don't have a trained eye, but it's interesting. In the history of
furniture design, and music, there are plenty of places where they
combine some of the old with some of the new. I guess that's just how
evolution happens.

We have many new subdivisions from the housing-boom of not too long ago,
full of what I think of as "cookie-cutter" houses (because they all look
the same). I think I'd prefer to see "mixed-up" architectures, just to
stimulate the eye a little. %-) And yes, this includes "McMansion
subdivisions", as you call them.

>
>>
>> That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion
>> subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood.
>
> Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few
> beers...
>
>>
>> (*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from
>> bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't
>> want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-)
>
> Well - that's a whole different conversation.
>

On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>

Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>> one can
>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>
>
> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>
> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>
> and...
>
> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
> structure in an older neighborhood."
>
>

I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
Pretty funny....
http://xrl.us/mcmansion


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 7:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>
>>
>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>
>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>
> "Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a
> "McMansion".
>

What part of "as well as" do you not get?


> Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil?
>

Wow, really? When did I say anything about evil?


> That definition reeks of silly envy.
>

I think you're inferring a lot.


>> and...
>>
>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>
> That definition is at odds with the first definition.
>

I don't see it being at odds, at all.


>
> What is *your* definition?
>

What's your agenda, here? You clearly have one and are trying to steer
me into it. So just get to it.

I think I made the reasoning behind my objection to these houses pretty
clear. There's no hidden malice or envy involved. I think they are f'n
ugly and completely lacking in style.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>> one can
>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>
>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>
>>> and...
>>>
>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>> Pretty funny....
>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>
> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>
> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>

Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
top 10 counties for bankruptcies.


> Really, why do you care what others have?
>

I don't. But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
in debt.
It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
already?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 7:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:50:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>>>> one can
>>>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>>>
>>>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>>>
>>>>> and...
>>>>>
>>>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>>>> Pretty funny....
>>>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>>>
>>> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
>>> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
>>> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>>>
>>> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
>>> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
>>> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>>>
>>
>> Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
>> counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
>> top 10 counties for bankruptcies.
>
> Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't
> afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
>>
>>> Really, why do you care what others have?
>>>
>>
>> I don't.
>
> Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than
> you.
>

More than me? That's a big assumption on your part.


>> But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
>> in debt.
>
> ...and your derision for what people own changes that how?
>
>> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
>> already?
>
> If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.
>

Hey man, if you live in one of these monstrosities, I'm sorry I offended
you. I suggest you get over it. Get your panties out of the wad and
ignore me.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:47:43 -0500, Leon wrote:

>> I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
>> house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
>> times have changed.
>>
>>
> How long ago was that????

Somewhere between 1945-1955 - that's as close as I can remember.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 7/26/12 8:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:28:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/12 7:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:50:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>>>>>> one can
>>>>>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>>>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>>>>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>>>>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>>>>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>>>>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>>>>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>>>>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>>>>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>>>>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>>>>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>>>>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>>>>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>>>>>> Pretty funny....
>>>>>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>>>>>
>>>>> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
>>>>> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
>>>>> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>>>>>
>>>>> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
>>>>> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
>>>>> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
>>>> counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
>>>> top 10 counties for bankruptcies.
>>>
>>> Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't
>>> afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
>>>>
>>>>> Really, why do you care what others have?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't.
>>>
>>> Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>> More than me? That's a big assumption on your part.
>
> Is it? You clearly believe people who like toys are to be looked down upon.
>

You need a general reading comprehension course. I don't give a rats
ass what people buy with their own money. That's irrelevant to me. I
enjoy the freedom of this country and it's free market.
I do think it is very unwise to get so far indebted at such high
interest rates (credit cards) or to mortgage your house to pay for your
entertainment ("toys" your word) and use your home as a personal ATM.
Doing that kind of stuff is pretty stupid and maybe people who do that
should be looked down upon. The amount of personal debt for the average
household in this country is staggering and most people with this kind
of debt are truly just a few paychecks away from bankruptcy. It is
foolish at best.


>>>> But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
>>>> in debt.
>>>
>>> ...and your derision for what people own changes that how?
>>>
>>>> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
>>>> already?
>>>
>>> If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.
>>>
>>
>> Hey man, if you live in one of these monstrosities, I'm sorry I offended
>> you.
>
> I have two fairly large houses but that's certainly not the point (neither a
> monstrosity like the one pictured). Your derision of those who like certain
> toys is unhelpful, in general. You sound just like an Obama class-warrior.
>

While I feel no obligation to explain myself to you, I am about as
opposite of that as one could get. I explained above.


>> I suggest you get over it. Get your panties out of the wad and
>> ignore me.
>
> On the defensive now? Why? Did I nail it?
>

Not at all. I just wish you would've gotten to your agenda sooner
without the subterfuge. You clearly wanted to paint me a certain color.
Didn't work.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 9:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/12 8:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:28:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/12 7:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:50:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>>>>>>>> one can
>>>>>>>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>>>>>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>>>>>>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>>>>>>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>>>>>>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>>>>>>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>>>>>>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>>>>>>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>>>>>>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>>>>>>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>>>>>>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>>>>>>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>>>>>>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>>>>>>>> Pretty funny....
>>>>>>>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
>>>>>>> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
>>>>>>> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
>>>>>>> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
>>>>>>> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
>>>>>> counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
>>>>>> top 10 counties for bankruptcies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't
>>>>> afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really, why do you care what others have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than
>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More than me? That's a big assumption on your part.
>>>
>>> Is it? You clearly believe people who like toys are to be looked down upon.
>>>
>>
>> You need a general reading comprehension course.
>
> Hardly. You *clearly* implied it with the following generalization;
>
> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>
>> I don't give a rats ass what people buy with their own money.
>
> Belied by the drooling derision, above.
>
>> That's irrelevant to me.
>
> Then why the animus?
>
>> I enjoy the freedom of this country and it's free market.
>
> If that were true, you'd not have posted the above.
>
>> I do think it is very unwise to get so far indebted at such high
>> interest rates (credit cards) or to mortgage your house to pay for your
>> entertainment ("toys" your word) and use your home as a personal ATM.
>
> Strawman noted.
>
>> Doing that kind of stuff is pretty stupid and maybe people who do that
>> should be looked down upon. The amount of personal debt for the average
>> household in this country is staggering and most people with this kind
>> of debt are truly just a few paychecks away from bankruptcy. It is
>> foolish at best.
>
> Strawman. The point is that a "McMansion" implies this, to you. That's a
> sickness.
>>
>>>>>> But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
>>>>>> in debt.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and your derision for what people own changes that how?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
>>>>>> already?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey man, if you live in one of these monstrosities, I'm sorry I offended
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I have two fairly large houses but that's certainly not the point (neither a
>>> monstrosity like the one pictured). Your derision of those who like certain
>>> toys is unhelpful, in general. You sound just like an Obama class-warrior.
>>>
>>
>> While I feel no obligation to explain myself to you, I am about as
>> opposite of that as one could get. I explained above.
>
> Your words say otherwise. If you really felt that, your objections would be
> about the absurd architecture not the (obviously unknown) financial health of
> the owners.
>

My objections WERE with the architecture. I made the other statement as
a side note, which is all you seem to be obsessed with.


>>>> I suggest you get over it. Get your panties out of the wad and
>>>> ignore me.
>>>
>>> On the defensive now? Why? Did I nail it?
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. I just wish you would've gotten to your agenda sooner
>> without the subterfuge. You clearly wanted to paint me a certain color.
>> Didn't work.
>
> Agenda? I don't like the politics of envy. Envy an ugly emotion and one that
> is at least as destructive as financial incompetence. That's why Obama is
> using the tactic.
>

I've already explained to you it's the over-indebtedness I take issue
with. Your lack of understanding isn't my problem. Maybe you're the
one who's defensive? Maybe I touched a nerve. Either way, I don't
really care. You clearly want to feel superior in some way and are
projecting your own issues on me, branding me as envious. I'll say it
again, get over it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:28:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 7:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:50:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>>>>> one can
>>>>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>>>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>>>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>>>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>>>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>>>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>>>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>>>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>>>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>>>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>>>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>>>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>>>>> Pretty funny....
>>>>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
>>>> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
>>>> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>>>>
>>>> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
>>>> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
>>>> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
>>> counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
>>> top 10 counties for bankruptcies.
>>
>> Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't
>> afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
>>>
>>>> Really, why do you care what others have?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>
>> Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than
>> you.
>>
>
>More than me? That's a big assumption on your part.

Is it? You clearly believe people who like toys are to be looked down upon.

>>> But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
>>> in debt.
>>
>> ...and your derision for what people own changes that how?
>>
>>> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
>>> already?
>>
>> If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.
>>
>
>Hey man, if you live in one of these monstrosities, I'm sorry I offended
>you.

I have two fairly large houses but that's certainly not the point (neither a
monstrosity like the one pictured). Your derision of those who like certain
toys is unhelpful, in general. You sound just like an Obama class-warrior.

>I suggest you get over it. Get your panties out of the wad and
>ignore me.

On the defensive now? Why? Did I nail it?

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:26:37 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>-MIKE- wrote:
>
>> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten
>> 2008 already?
>
>What the hell kind of question is that? Some of us here have trouble
>remembering last week, and you're throwing numbers like 2008 out there?
>That just ain't right...

;-)

On 7/28/2012 9:19 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 7/28/2012 6:17 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
>>> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>>> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>>> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>>> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>>
>> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
>> repair every time I turn on the tube.
>> Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.
>
> We were discussing tract homes built in the 50's to mid 60's. Those did
> not have post tension slabs, which are the majority of the slabs that
> Olshan specializes in. PTI slabs became ubiquitous in this area in the
> late seventies, and are the one's that pay Nolan's fees. Almost every
> tract home built in this area since then has a PTI slab.
>
> You are right about the high failure rates for post tension slabs
> and I will certainly take your word that those are Olshan's
> bread'n'butter. I well remember Tom Tynan preaching the the negatives
> of the post tension foundation when he blew into Houston back in the
> early 90s (?) all the while he was selling Du-West Foundation Repair. I
> grew up in a 1953 tract house (South Post Oak and Willowbend) that
> years ago acquired a slew of concrete piers (before they started driving
> the round concrete blocks into the gumbo) and my current 1957
> [non-tract] NW Houston, one-story ranch has 23 piers under it, done
> before I bought it in 1990 (me bad for buying into that).

Post tension slabs are theoretically great for this expansive clay in
Houston, but the spec's have to be religiously followed. Since most of
the developers now use subs who do turnkey slab work, and who do nothing
else, they should have the science down, so now they are generally much
better slabs than they used to be.

Although I will not build with a PTI, if you do things correctly you
should have a pretty good slab. However, most don't builders around here
don't bother to get out of their air conditioned Lexus, take their
blazer off, and follow through.

Biggest problem is getting the concrete at the spec'ed mix (not as big a
problem as it used to be), and in a timely manner (a traffic jam on a
particular day can be the cause of a slab failure years later). A "hot"
load, or one that has to be watered, will develop stress cracks before
the spec'ed time to tension the slab, which does not forebode well for
the future.

When it comes to foundation slabs, I'm on of the few builders around
here who requires test cylinders for every load, has an engineer's tech
on site during the pour, and one of the rarer ones who actually has the
cylinders tested at 7, 14 and 30 days to insure they meet the
compressive strength requirements of the Foundation Plan. (the old
builder trick is to put the concrete contractor on notice that you're
taking test cylinders for the pour, but then either don't take them, or
don't bother to have them tested if you do).

Since the above generally adds about $800 to $1K to the cost of the
house, no modern tract home builder is going to go to that expense in a
subdivision.

In all the times I've done cylinder testing, it saved my bacon on only
one occasion, but it was worth all the money previously spent on
testing, guaranteed.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/28/2012 6:17 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>
> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
> repair every time I turn on the tube.
> Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.
>
> Dave in Texas

Actually foundations are a problem all along the Texas gulf coast.

On 7/28/2012 6:20 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On 7/26/12 12:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
>> fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
>> bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
>> old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.
>>
>
> I agree. Keep in mind that those houses had to be put up very quickly,
> due to the fact that the boomers were being born and suburbia was
> exploding. What allowed them go up quickly was that simply design, not
> any shortcuts and lack of skill by the carpenters of that time.
>
>
> Hey, Swing, think Sharpstown or Oak Forest as post-WWII
> tract-housing booms.
>
> Dave in Texas


That area, Sharpstownish, 59 Bellaire, Fondren is loaded with these
type homes.

On 7/26/2012 3:24 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>> I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a
>> brick
>> house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick
>> veneer -
>> times have changed.
> --------------------------------------
> Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick
> outer) was built in the late '40's.
>
> After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was
> the standard offering.
>
> This would have been the NE Ohio market.
>
> Lew
>
>
>


Ohhhhhhhh, Actually there is a lot of strictly cinder block, filled
with cement, construction down her in Texas.

"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 7/26/12 12:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
> I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
> fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
> bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
> old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.
>

I agree. Keep in mind that those houses had to be put up very quickly,
due to the fact that the boomers were being born and suburbia was
exploding. What allowed them go up quickly was that simply design, not
any shortcuts and lack of skill by the carpenters of that time.


Hey, Swing, think Sharpstown or Oak Forest as post-WWII tract-housing
booms.

Dave in Texas

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:47:43 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:



>>
>> Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
>> brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
>> wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.
>>
>
>
>How long ago was that????

I lived in three of them in my life. Built in 1898, 1948, 1950. All
are still in excellent condition. It was a very popular form of
construction when I lived in Philadelphia but it did give way to frame
and veneer. Mostly a cost and insulation issue.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/12 8:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:28:48 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/12 7:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:50:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
>>>>>>>>> one can
>>>>>>>>> define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
>>>>>>>>> unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
>>>>>>>> of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
>>>>>>>> neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
>>>>>>>> sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
>>>>>>>> lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
>>>>>>>> traditional local architecture.[1]"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
>>>>>>>> multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
>>>>>>>> larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
>>>>>>>> seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
>>>>>>>> boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
>>>>>>>> located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
>>>>>>>> structure in an older neighborhood."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
>>>>>>> Pretty funny....
>>>>>>> http://xrl.us/mcmansion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
>>>>>> those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
>>>>>> those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
>>>>>> because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
>>>>>> to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
>>>>> counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
>>>>> top 10 counties for bankruptcies.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't
>>>> afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Really, why do you care what others have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More than me? That's a big assumption on your part.
>>
>> Is it? You clearly believe people who like toys are to be looked down upon.
>>
>
>You need a general reading comprehension course.

Hardly. You *clearly* implied it with the following generalization;

"up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
to impress a bunch of people they don't like."

>I don't give a rats ass what people buy with their own money.

Belied by the drooling derision, above.

>That's irrelevant to me.

Then why the animus?

>I enjoy the freedom of this country and it's free market.

If that were true, you'd not have posted the above.

>I do think it is very unwise to get so far indebted at such high
>interest rates (credit cards) or to mortgage your house to pay for your
>entertainment ("toys" your word) and use your home as a personal ATM.

Strawman noted.

>Doing that kind of stuff is pretty stupid and maybe people who do that
>should be looked down upon. The amount of personal debt for the average
>household in this country is staggering and most people with this kind
>of debt are truly just a few paychecks away from bankruptcy. It is
>foolish at best.

Strawman. The point is that a "McMansion" implies this, to you. That's a
sickness.
>
>>>>> But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
>>>>> in debt.
>>>>
>>>> ...and your derision for what people own changes that how?
>>>>
>>>>> It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
>>>>> already?
>>>>
>>>> If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey man, if you live in one of these monstrosities, I'm sorry I offended
>>> you.
>>
>> I have two fairly large houses but that's certainly not the point (neither a
>> monstrosity like the one pictured). Your derision of those who like certain
>> toys is unhelpful, in general. You sound just like an Obama class-warrior.
>>
>
>While I feel no obligation to explain myself to you, I am about as
>opposite of that as one could get. I explained above.

Your words say otherwise. If you really felt that, your objections would be
about the absurd architecture not the (obviously unknown) financial health of
the owners.

>>> I suggest you get over it. Get your panties out of the wad and
>>> ignore me.
>>
>> On the defensive now? Why? Did I nail it?
>>
>
>Not at all. I just wish you would've gotten to your agenda sooner
>without the subterfuge. You clearly wanted to paint me a certain color.
> Didn't work.

Agenda? I don't like the politics of envy. Envy an ugly emotion and one that
is at least as destructive as financial incompetence. That's why Obama is
using the tactic.

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 7/28/2012 6:17 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
>> the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
>> indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
>> probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
>> they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.
>
> That would explain why I see Nolan Ryan pitching Olshan foundation
> repair every time I turn on the tube.
> Actually, foundation failures are very common in the Houston area.

We were discussing tract homes built in the 50's to mid 60's. Those did
not have post tension slabs, which are the majority of the slabs that
Olshan specializes in. PTI slabs became ubiquitous in this area in the
late seventies, and are the one's that pay Nolan's fees. Almost every
tract home built in this area since then has a PTI slab.

You are right about the high failure rates for post tension slabs and I
will certainly take your word that those are Olshan's bread'n'butter. I
well remember Tom Tynan preaching the the negatives of the post tension
foundation when he blew into Houston back in the early 90s (?) all the while
he was selling Du-West Foundation Repair. I grew up in a 1953 tract house
(South Post Oak and Willowbend) that years ago acquired a slew of concrete
piers (before they started driving the round concrete blocks into the gumbo)
and my current 1957 [non-tract] NW Houston, one-story ranch has 23 piers
under it, done before I bought it in 1990 (me bad for buying into that).

Dave in Texas