Lincsong
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 6,907
- Location
- Shining City on a Hill
$4000 got you a house in the "sticks" in 1946. But it was considered "affordable". That house in Oakland is indicative of it's value. Plus it's very "vintage".
Lincsong said:$4000 got you a house in the "sticks" in 1946. But it was considered "affordable". That house in Oakland is indicative of it's value. Plus it's very "vintage".
Lincsong said:There really were no "mass produced" houses until the 1940s. Therefore, with demand for housing high and materials scarces most of the 1940's homes, were shodily built. If it was a custom made house it was probably well built, otherwise they became run down neighborhoods by the mid 1960's.
Lincsong said:There really were no "mass produced" houses until the 1940s. Therefore, with demand for housing high and materials scarces most of the 1940's homes, were shodily built. If it was a custom made house it was probably well built, otherwise they became run down neighborhoods by the mid 1960's.
LizzieMaine said:Don't forget the prefabricated housing popular in industrial towns from the 1910s to the 1930s -- the Sears and Roebuck kit houses are the most famous examples of these. They were shipped as pre-assembled segments packed in crates, which were then put together at the building site. Many of these have held up surprisingly well. New England mill towns still have streets full of these houses, each one identical to the one next door.
LizzieMaine said:Don't forget the prefabricated housing popular in industrial towns from the 1910s to the 1930s -- the Sears and Roebuck kit houses are the most famous examples of these. They were shipped as pre-assembled segments packed in crates, which were then put together at the building site. Many of these have held up surprisingly well. New England mill towns still have streets full of these houses, each one identical to the one next door.
jamespowers said:Just about all those houses around here are still around. They weren't that shoddily built if they are still around nearly 70 years later. lol
Then again, all the custom built houses are still around as well over 80 years later.
The California climate is very forgiving for the most part. [huh]
LizzieMaine said:Don't forget the prefabricated housing popular in industrial towns from the 1910s to the 1930s -- the Sears and Roebuck kit houses are the most famous examples of these. They were shipped as pre-assembled segments packed in crates, which were then put together at the building site. Many of these have held up surprisingly well. New England mill towns still have streets full of these houses, each one identical to the one next door.
Lincsong said:There's a lot of chicken koops that are well over 80 years old, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one. Old homes are nice, but they are a money pit.
LizzieMaine said:I don't think it's just building materials, either -- I don't think the standard of workmanship today can hold a candle to that of the pre-war era. I work in a building that was renovated five years ago to the highest standards of current workmanship -- very expensive, highly detailed work. And yet, I'm dealing with doors that don't fit their frames anymore, cabinetry that's coming apart, leaks in the roof. If the work were fifty years old, I might expect that kind of thing, but five years is a bit ridiculous. If this is the best work that 21st Century money could buy, I'd hate to see what kind of work Joe Punchclock can afford.
Paisley said:My hundred-year-old house is in good shape. In 2003, it had three feet of snow on the roof and didn't even creak. The floors are pretty beat up, but I think that's to be expected.
Miss 1929 said:Sounds like the floors will be lovely underneath! We did that in our house and discovered they were beautiful maple, not oak as we thought at fist, we had to remove the grime of the ages to see the real color, But worth it, and healthier for the little ones than carpet with lord knows what in its fibers...
Re these houses in Oakland, yes, 86th avenue really is the ghetto. I live in a neighborhood in Oakland that is not ritzy at all, but I don't go out there. When we were house hunting, our hearts were broken by a huge Craftsman with all its original detail... on 86th. The vibe was BAD out there.
I think besides housing, you have to look at the percentages people paid for everything, Food was actually much more expensive and not as varied as it is now (in the USA that is). People paid a bigger percentage for that, and medical care was all on the consumer - there were no benefits packages with jobs for the working class.
LizzieMaine said:I don't think it's just building materials, either -- I don't think the standard of workmanship today can hold a candle to that of the pre-war era. I work in a building that was renovated five years ago to the highest standards of current workmanship -- very expensive, highly detailed work. And yet, I'm dealing with doors that don't fit their frames anymore, cabinetry that's coming apart, leaks in the roof. If the work were fifty years old, I might expect that kind of thing, but five years is a bit ridiculous. If this is the best work that 21st Century money could buy, I'd hate to see what kind of work Joe Punchclock can afford.
Lincsong said:Pre-war is the key word. Most of the War and Post War housing in the mid to late 40's were slapped together quickly and materials were shoddy; chewing gum, spit and tin foil. Going around house hunting and seeing some 1946 or 1947 built house; 800 square feet, two bedroom, single bath, most were made with green wood, cheap pine and fir doors and cabinets, uninsulated, bare wires, fuses, no 220 volts. They're just not worth the price or hassle.
jamespowers said:To each his own.
You can have the modern stuff made with green wood, wallboard that will kill you and particle board construction. [huh]