On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>
> https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>
> The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled some
time
> in the thirties. It's an attractive house.
>
> Today there are all manner of factory built "modular" houses that can be
> installed on site, with a bit of finishing required. Some are really
> nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.

As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of individual
2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears kids had to be knocked
together one nail at a time.

And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most families ever
make is assembled almost exactly as it was in ~1930. Roof trusses are
often shipped assembled (to the detriment of attic space) but the rest
of a house is usually stick built, with work halting for bad weather, etc.

I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to improve that
situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories and ship them to site -
but apparently it's a difficult problem. Many attempts have failed.

But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> >
> > One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled
> on site:
> >
> > https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
> >
> > The house across the street from mine is one, built or
> assembled some time
> > in the thirties.  It's an attractive house.
> >
> > Today there are all manner of factory built "modular"
> houses that can be
> > installed on site, with a bit of finishing required.
> Some are really
> > nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
>
> As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of
> individual 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears
> kids had to be knocked together one nail at a time.
>
> And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most
> families ever make is assembled almost exactly as it was in
> ~1930. Roof trusses are often shipped assembled (to the
> detriment of attic space) but the rest of a house is usually
> stick built, with work halting for bad weather, etc.
>
> I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to
> improve that situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories
> and ship them to site - but apparently it's a difficult
> problem. Many attempts have failed.
>
> But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
> https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
>

OK, interesting.

My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction
from my time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a
lot of labor and steel costs that way.

If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather
than a software designer.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/22/2023 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>  >
>>  > One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>>  >
>>  > https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>>  >
>>  > The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled
>> some time
>>  > in the thirties.  It's an attractive house.
>>  >
>>  > Today there are all manner of factory built "modular" houses that
>> can be
>>  > installed on site, with a bit of finishing required. Some are really
>>  > nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
>>
>> As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of individual
>> 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears kids had to be knocked
>> together one nail at a time.
>>
>> And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most families ever
>> make is assembled almost exactly as it was in ~1930. Roof trusses are
>> often shipped assembled (to the detriment of attic space) but the rest
>> of a house is usually stick built, with work halting for bad weather,
>> etc.
>>
>> I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to improve that
>> situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories and ship them to site -
>> but apparently it's a difficult problem. Many attempts have failed.
>>
>> But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
>> https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
>>
>
> OK, interesting.
>
> My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction from my
> time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a lot of labor and
> steel costs that way.
>
> If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather than a
> software designer.

Designing this system had to have been a huge effort. I'm sure multiple
CEs were involved.

As you know, I tend toward retro-grouchery. Regarding printed concrete,
I wonder what happens if they owners later want to remodel.

One engineer friend of mine built his own home on remote country
property, using a book's "innovative" construction techniques that were
purportedly much better than standard methods.

When I visited him years later, he said he'd like to hang the author of
that book. By then he had done an addition to the original house, but he
used conventional construction.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 9:13:34 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> > >
> > > One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled
> > on site:
> > >
> > > https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
> > >
> > > The house across the street from mine is one, built or
> > assembled some time
> > > in the thirties. It's an attractive house.
> > >
> > > Today there are all manner of factory built "modular"
> > houses that can be
> > > installed on site, with a bit of finishing required.
> > Some are really
> > > nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
> >
> > As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of
> > individual 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears
> > kids had to be knocked together one nail at a time.
> >
> > And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most
> > families ever make is assembled almost exactly as it was in
> > ~1930. Roof trusses are often shipped assembled (to the
> > detriment of attic space) but the rest of a house is usually
> > stick built, with work halting for bad weather, etc.
> >
> > I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to
> > improve that situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories
> > and ship them to site - but apparently it's a difficult
> > problem. Many attempts have failed.
> >
> > But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
> > https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
> >
> OK, interesting.
>
> My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction
> from my time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a
> lot of labor and steel costs that way.
>
> If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather
> than a software designer.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Coming from an earthquake zone I don't understand why more single family dwellings aren't made with reinforced concrete as the outer walls. When you are in a wooden structure and a 4.0 occurs there's usually no damage but cracked wallboard here and there (I presently half several cracks in the ceiling wallboard that are too much trouble to fix myself so will leave them until I have to hire a contractor). Just 10 years ago I redid the front and back family rooms and it was such an improvement that I should have completely redone the whole house., But then the wife returned and dump her stuff EVERYWHERE and there's is no room anywhere to work.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 11:20:28 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:37:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 05:33:31 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:22:17 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 1:08:15?PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I would have expected that on a bicycles.tech group that there
>>>>> > would be people that build up their own bikes but aside from
>>>>> > Andrew apparently not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee, let's recap what happened the last time someone besides tommy
>>>>>decided to post a message about their latest build.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/h-RVKnBFnds/m/hKCQ4lNXAQAJ
>>>>>"Does that look like the bike of a guy who claimed to be a racer? Or a
>>>>>guy that is over 5'4" tall? I don't care what size he is or what way he
>>>>>rides but misrepresenting himself is bullshit and gets tiresome. Compare
>>>>>that to my normal ride"
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's just set aside the fact that I very clearly stated I set it up for
>>>>>my wife who does not race, has never raced, and will never race.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/h-RVKnBFnds/m/OamKR05aAQAJ
>>>>>" it has that damned unicrown fork on it that was always a POS."
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's just set aside that it was actually a Steelman fork (From Brent
>>>>>Steelman of Steelman Cycles) - generally considered to be one of the
>>>>>higher-end steel forks available, and anyone familiar with the pre-trek
>>>>>CX bikes made by Bontrager would know Bontrager didn't put POS unicrown
>>>>>forks on his bikes - the Steelman fork was OEM on the Bontrager CX.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/h-RVKnBFnds/m/Pht5ZR3sAQAJ
>>>>>" What was with that crap that he was going to "return to racing CX"?
>>>>>The bike was totally inadequate and physically he doesn't even have the
>>>>>proper body type."
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's just set aside that the bike was marketed by Bontrager (pre-trek)
>>>>>as a CX racing bike, and professional CX racers run just as wide a
>>>>>morphological range as road racers, with 2022 world champion Tom Pidcock
>>>>>at 5'7" 130#, and current CX world cup leader Eli Iserbyt at 5'5" and
>>>>>125# on the 'smaller' end of riders.
>>>>>
>>>>>So tommy, why would anyone want to post anything about building their
>>>>>own bikes when they see you being such a fucking asshole when someone does?
>>>>
>>>>Granted it is much a matter of semantics but Tom doesn't "build"
>>>>bikes, he "assembles" bikes. i.e. gets the parts and puts them
>>>>together... with a multitude of problems :-)
>>>
>>>A guy who "assembles" houses out of parts he bought isn't building
>>>houses?
>>
>> One definition I came across was "The first little pig built his house
>> from straw, the second from sticks and the third from bricks" :-)
>>
>> But does one order a bedroom, a living room and a kitchen and have
>> them delivered on a big truck? Or does one order a stack of 2 x 4's
>> and some boards?
>
>One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>
>https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>
>The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled some time
>in the thirties. It's an attractive house.
>
I grew up in such a house. From what the original owner's wife told us
the "kit" consisted of the individual frame timbers cut to length and
walls were sized so that 4 x 8 (standard size) plywood panels were
used for sheathing.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>>>>
>>>> https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>>>>
>>>> The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled
>>> some time
>>>> in the thirties.  It's an attractive house.
>>>>
>>>> Today there are all manner of factory built "modular" houses that
>>> can be
>>>> installed on site, with a bit of finishing required. Some are really
>>>> nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of individual
>>> 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears kids had to be knocked
>>> together one nail at a time.
>>>
>>> And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most families ever
>>> make is assembled almost exactly as it was in ~1930. Roof trusses are
>>> often shipped assembled (to the detriment of attic space) but the rest
>>> of a house is usually stick built, with work halting for bad weather,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to improve that
>>> situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories and ship them to site -
>>> but apparently it's a difficult problem. Many attempts have failed.
>>>
>>> But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
>>> https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
>>>
>>
>> OK, interesting.
>>
>> My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction from my
>> time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a lot of labor and
>> steel costs that way.
>>
>> If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather than a
>> software designer.
>
> Designing this system had to have been a huge effort. I'm sure multiple
> CEs were involved.
>
> As you know, I tend toward retro-grouchery. Regarding printed concrete,
> I wonder what happens if they owners later want to remodel.
>
> One engineer friend of mine built his own home on remote country
> property, using a book's "innovative" construction techniques that were
> purportedly much better than standard methods.
>
> When I visited him years later, he said he'd like to hang the author of
> that book. By then he had done an addition to the original house, but he
> used conventional construction.
>

Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix it with some method
of construction, certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
lasted as long as perhaps expected?

Roger Merriman

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>>>>>
>>>>> The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled
>>>> some time
>>>>> in the thirties.  It's an attractive house.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today there are all manner of factory built "modular" houses that
>>>> can be
>>>>> installed on site, with a bit of finishing required. Some are really
>>>>> nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of individual
>>>> 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears kids had to be knocked
>>>> together one nail at a time.
>>>>
>>>> And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most families ever
>>>> make is assembled almost exactly as it was in ~1930. Roof trusses are
>>>> often shipped assembled (to the detriment of attic space) but the rest
>>>> of a house is usually stick built, with work halting for bad weather,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to improve that
>>>> situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories and ship them to site -
>>>> but apparently it's a difficult problem. Many attempts have failed.
>>>>
>>>> But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
>>>> https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, interesting.
>>>
>>> My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction from my
>>> time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a lot of labor and
>>> steel costs that way.
>>>
>>> If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather than a
>>> software designer.
>>
>> Designing this system had to have been a huge effort. I'm sure multiple
>> CEs were involved.
>>
>> As you know, I tend toward retro-grouchery. Regarding printed concrete,
>> I wonder what happens if they owners later want to remodel.
>>
>> One engineer friend of mine built his own home on remote country
>> property, using a book's "innovative" construction techniques that were
>> purportedly much better than standard methods.
>>
>> When I visited him years later, he said he'd like to hang the author of
>> that book. By then he had done an addition to the original house, but he
>> used conventional construction.
>>
>
>Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix it with some method
>of construction, certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>
>Roger Merriman

My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
but still standing today.

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2023 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled
>>>>> some time
>>>>>> in the thirties.  It's an attractive house.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today there are all manner of factory built "modular" houses that
>>>>> can be
>>>>>> installed on site, with a bit of finishing required. Some are really
>>>>>> nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of individual
>>>>> 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears kids had to be knocked
>>>>> together one nail at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most families ever
>>>>> make is assembled almost exactly as it was in ~1930. Roof trusses are
>>>>> often shipped assembled (to the detriment of attic space) but the rest
>>>>> of a house is usually stick built, with work halting for bad weather,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to improve that
>>>>> situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories and ship them to site -
>>>>> but apparently it's a difficult problem. Many attempts have failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, interesting.
>>>>
>>>> My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction from my
>>>> time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a lot of labor and
>>>> steel costs that way.
>>>>
>>>> If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather than a
>>>> software designer.
>>>
>>> Designing this system had to have been a huge effort. I'm sure multiple
>>> CEs were involved.
>>>
>>> As you know, I tend toward retro-grouchery. Regarding printed concrete,
>>> I wonder what happens if they owners later want to remodel.
>>>
>>> One engineer friend of mine built his own home on remote country
>>> property, using a book's "innovative" construction techniques that were
>>> purportedly much better than standard methods.
>>>
>>> When I visited him years later, he said he'd like to hang the author of
>>> that book. By then he had done an addition to the original house, but he
>>> used conventional construction.
>>>
>>
>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix it with some method
>> of construction, certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
> but still standing today.
>
Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few to many
hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
building and so on.

Roger Merriman

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:40:51 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/2023 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/2023 11:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/2023 11:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One used to be able to order a house kit, to be assembled on site:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://thecraftsmanblog.com/the-history-of-sears-kit-homes/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The house across the street from mine is one, built or assembled
>>>>>> some time
>>>>>>> in the thirties.  It's an attractive house.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today there are all manner of factory built "modular" houses that
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> installed on site, with a bit of finishing required. Some are really
>>>>>>> nice buildings, not the stereotypical double-wide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it, the Sears houses were kits composed of individual
>>>>>> 2x4s, etc. Unlike the modular houses, the Sears kids had to be knocked
>>>>>> together one nail at a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is amazing to me that the biggest investment most families ever
>>>>>> make is assembled almost exactly as it was in ~1930. Roof trusses are
>>>>>> often shipped assembled (to the detriment of attic space) but the rest
>>>>>> of a house is usually stick built, with work halting for bad weather,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recently read an article about the repeated efforts to improve that
>>>>>> situation - to do sub-assemblies in factories and ship them to site -
>>>>>> but apparently it's a difficult problem. Many attempts have failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But ideas are always cooking. This looks kind of interesting:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/vL2KoMNzGTo?t=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> My (small) understanding of reinforced concrete construction from my
>>>>> time laying and tying rebar is that they can save a lot of labor and
>>>>> steel costs that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were my house, I'd prefer a CE and an architect rather than a
>>>>> software designer.
>>>>
>>>> Designing this system had to have been a huge effort. I'm sure multiple
>>>> CEs were involved.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, I tend toward retro-grouchery. Regarding printed concrete,
>>>> I wonder what happens if they owners later want to remodel.
>>>>
>>>> One engineer friend of mine built his own home on remote country
>>>> property, using a book's "innovative" construction techniques that were
>>>> purportedly much better than standard methods.
>>>>
>>>> When I visited him years later, he said he'd like to hang the author of
>>>> that book. By then he had done an addition to the original house, but he
>>>> used conventional construction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly something to the if it isn?t broke don?t fix it with some method
>>> of construction, certainly some structures and infrastructure haven?t
>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>> but still standing today.
>>
>Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few to many
>hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
>structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
>building and so on.
>
>Roger Merriman
>
Well, if you can build a house, or barn, that will last a couple of
hundred years, and isn't expensive at all, then it seems logical to
so?

I worked, one summer, re shingling the barn roof at the Calvin
Coolidge homestead (Calvin Coolidge - a U.S. president). the only
metal fasteners in the whole barn were the hand forged nails holding
the shingles.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix it with some
method
>>> of construction...

I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home construction is that
it seems there ought to be a better way. A house is the biggest expense
most families take on. It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't
changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest expense,
the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's design is nothing like
that of a 1923 Model T Ford.

>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>
>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>> but still standing today.
>>
> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few
to many
> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
> building and so on.

The suburban village I live in has some love for its history. There are
several historic mansions, many other more modest houses have historic
plaques, several newer buildings were designed to blend with historic
architecture, etc.

And there are two historic school buildings still in use. This past
year, for the second time, the school board proposed a tax levy to raise
money to tear down those buildings and build new schools, probably
outside the village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
levy was defeated.

Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance costs would be
lower in a new building. But another part was that it will be too hard
to equip the existing buildings for the latest internet technology -
probably meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!)
to every classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying, in
the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette tapes in every room!"

Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly prefer the
look of good older architecture. I see no value in applying "trendy"
looks to something that's intended to last for many decades, let alone
hundreds of years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
> <roger@sarlet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
> it with some method
> >>> of construction...
>
> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
> It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
> much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
> expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
> design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>
> >>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
> >>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
> >>
> >> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
> 17-something, admittedly
> >> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
> over the years
> >> but still standing today.
> >>
> > Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
> in the few to many
> > hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
> tend not to
> > structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
> have a newer
> > building and so on.
>
> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
> buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
> etc.
>
> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
> This past year, for the second time, the school board
> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
> levy was defeated.
>
> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
> that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
> the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
> fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
> classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
> in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
> tapes in every room!"
>
> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
> prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
> in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
> last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
> becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>

I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
construction format:

https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/

is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
critics.

* Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/13/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>  > John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>  >> wrote:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix it with
>> some method
>>  >>> of construction...
>>
>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home construction is
>> that it seems there ought to be a better way. A house is the biggest
>> expense most families take on. It's weird that the way it's
>> manufactured hasn't changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the
>> second biggest expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a
>> car's design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>
>>  >>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>  >>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>  >>
>>  >> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>>  >> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>>  >> but still standing today.
>>  >>
>>  > Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few
>> to many
>>  > hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
>>  > structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
>>  > building and so on.
>>
>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its history. There
>> are several historic mansions, many other more modest houses have
>> historic plaques, several newer buildings were designed to blend with
>> historic architecture, etc.
>>
>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use. This past
>> year, for the second time, the school board proposed a tax levy to
>> raise money to tear down those buildings and build new schools,
>> probably outside the village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK)
>> the school levy was defeated.
>>
>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance costs would
>> be lower in a new building. But another part was that it will be too
>> hard to equip the existing buildings for the latest internet
>> technology - probably meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light
>> lines," chuckle!) to every classroom. But to me that makes no more
>> sense than saying, in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play
>> cassette tapes in every room!"
>>
>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly prefer
>> the look of good older architecture. I see no value in applying
>> "trendy" looks to something that's intended to last for many decades,
>> let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very
>> quickly.
>>
>
> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are ongoing; PVC
> plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic insulation etc) but the
> uniquely US typical housing construction format:
>
> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>
> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home ownership.
> To economists anyway if not to architectural critics.

Yes, modern framing is better than post and beam, which hasn't been used
much for homes in the past 100 years. And yes, the details are improved.
But the fundamentals are still at a 1920s level: Bring a bunch of sticks
to the job site and hammer them together until you've got a wall. Seems
like there should be better ways.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/13/2024 11:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>  > John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
>>> <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>  >> wrote:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t
>>> fix it with some method
>>>  >>> of construction...
>>>
>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
>>> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
>>> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take
>>> on. It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't
>>> changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second
>>> biggest expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and
>>> a car's design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>
>>>  >>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure
>>> haven’t
>>>  >>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>  >>
>>>  >> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
>>> 17-something, admittedly
>>>  >> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
>>> over the years
>>>  >> but still standing today.
>>>  >>
>>>  > Well indeed various buildings still standing local to
>>> me in the few to many
>>>  > hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the
>>> buildings tend not to
>>>  > structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable
>>> to have a newer
>>>  > building and so on.
>>>
>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
>>> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
>>> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
>>> buildings were designed to blend with historic
>>> architecture, etc.
>>>
>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
>>> This past year, for the second time, the school board
>>> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
>>> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
>>> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>> levy was defeated.
>>>
>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
>>> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part
>>> was that it will be too hard to equip the existing
>>> buildings for the latest internet technology - probably
>>> meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light lines,"
>>> chuckle!) to every classroom. But to me that makes no
>>> more sense than saying, in the 1990s, "We have to remodel
>>> so we can play cassette tapes in every room!"
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do
>>> greatly prefer the look of good older architecture. I see
>>> no value in applying "trendy" looks to something that's
>>> intended to last for many decades, let alone hundreds of
>>> years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
>> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
>> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
>> construction format:
>>
>> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>>
>> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of
>> home ownership. To economists anyway if not to
>> architectural critics.
>
> Yes, modern framing is better than post and beam, which
> hasn't been used much for homes in the past 100 years. And
> yes, the details are improved. But the fundamentals are
> still at a 1920s level: Bring a bunch of sticks to the job
> site and hammer them together until you've got a wall. Seems
> like there should be better ways.
>
There are indeed better ways.

Factory built modular homes offer better quality control,
lower overall cost and faster on-site erection (which
matters for construction loan terms). Too bad the excessive
regulation prohibits them in many areas.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:17:38 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > > John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
> > <ro...@sarlet.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
> > it with some method
> > >>> of construction...
> >
> > I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
> > construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
> > way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
> > It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
> > much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
> > expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
> > design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
> >
> > >>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
> > >>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
> > >>
> > >> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
> > 17-something, admittedly
> > >> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
> > over the years
> > >> but still standing today.
> > >>
> > > Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
> > in the few to many
> > > hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
> > tend not to
> > > structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
> > have a newer
> > > building and so on.
> >
> > The suburban village I live in has some love for its
> > history. There are several historic mansions, many other
> > more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
> > buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
> > etc.
> >
> > And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
> > This past year, for the second time, the school board
> > proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
> > buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
> > village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
> > levy was defeated.
> >
> > Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
> > costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
> > that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
> > the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
> > fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
> > classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
> > in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
> > tapes in every room!"
> >
> > Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
> > prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
> > in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
> > last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
> > becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
> >
> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
> construction format:
>
> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>
> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
> ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
> critics.
>
> * Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
> prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
> and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Around here they always use the excuse that buildings are not earthquake safe. So why do all of the replacements end up with walls of plain glass?

On 1/13/2024 12:36 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:17:38 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
>>> <ro...@sarlet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
>>> it with some method
>>>>>> of construction...
>>>
>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
>>> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
>>> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
>>> It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
>>> much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
>>> expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
>>> design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>
>>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>>
>>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
>>> 17-something, admittedly
>>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
>>> over the years
>>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>>
>>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
>>> in the few to many
>>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
>>> tend not to
>>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
>>> have a newer
>>>> building and so on.
>>>
>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
>>> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
>>> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
>>> buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
>>> This past year, for the second time, the school board
>>> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
>>> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
>>> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>> levy was defeated.
>>>
>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
>>> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
>>> that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
>>> the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
>>> fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
>>> classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
>>> in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
>>> tapes in every room!"
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
>>> prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
>>> in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
>>> last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
>>> becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>
>> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
>> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
>> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
>> construction format:
>>
>> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>>
>> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
>> ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
>> critics.
>>
>> * Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
>> prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
>> and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Around here they always use the excuse that buildings are not earthquake safe. So why do all of the replacements end up with walls of plain glass?

A glass building without a steel frame? Really?
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 11:42:38 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 12:36 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:17:38 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
> >>> <ro...@sarlet.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
> >>> it with some method
> >>>>>> of construction...
> >>>
> >>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
> >>> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
> >>> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
> >>> It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
> >>> much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
> >>> expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
> >>> design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
> >>>
> >>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
> >>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
> >>> 17-something, admittedly
> >>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
> >>> over the years
> >>>>> but still standing today.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
> >>> in the few to many
> >>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
> >>> tend not to
> >>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
> >>> have a newer
> >>>> building and so on.
> >>>
> >>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
> >>> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
> >>> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
> >>> buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
> >>> This past year, for the second time, the school board
> >>> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
> >>> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
> >>> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
> >>> levy was defeated.
> >>>
> >>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
> >>> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
> >>> that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
> >>> the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
> >>> fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
> >>> classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
> >>> in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
> >>> tapes in every room!"
> >>>
> >>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
> >>> prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
> >>> in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
> >>> last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
> >>> becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
> >>>
> >> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
> >> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
> >> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
> >> construction format:
> >>
> >> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
> >>
> >> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
> >> ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
> >> critics.
> >>
> >> * Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
> >> prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
> >> and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> a...@yellowjersey.org
> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > Around here they always use the excuse that buildings are not earthquake safe. So why do all of the replacements end up with walls of plain glass?
> A glass building without a steel frame? Really?
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Of course it has a steel frame. But half of the walls are plain window glass and the rest is flexible panels. After spending millions on iy, they quietly turned it into a part time adult education school after it was deemed unsafe as a high school. Kind of reminds you of military $600 toilet seats.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 13:42:34 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/13/2024 12:36 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:17:38?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
>>>> <ro...@sarlet.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
>>>> it with some method
>>>>>>> of construction...
>>>>
>>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
>>>> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
>>>> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
>>>> It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
>>>> much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
>>>> expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
>>>> design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>>
>>>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
>>>> 17-something, admittedly
>>>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
>>>> over the years
>>>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
>>>> in the few to many
>>>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
>>>> tend not to
>>>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
>>>> have a newer
>>>>> building and so on.
>>>>
>>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
>>>> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
>>>> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
>>>> buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
>>>> This past year, for the second time, the school board
>>>> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
>>>> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
>>>> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>>> levy was defeated.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
>>>> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
>>>> that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
>>>> the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
>>>> fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
>>>> classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
>>>> in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
>>>> tapes in every room!"
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
>>>> prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
>>>> in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
>>>> last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
>>>> becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>>
>>> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
>>> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
>>> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
>>> construction format:
>>>
>>> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>>>
>>> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
>>> ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
>>> critics.
>>>
>>> * Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
>>> prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
>>> and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> a...@yellowjersey.org

Steel roofs? Do you mean galvanized roofing? It's been around for
years and years :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix it with some
> method
>>>> of construction...
>
> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home construction is that
> it seems there ought to be a better way. A house is the biggest expense
> most families take on. It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't
> changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest expense,
> the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's design is nothing like
> that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>
>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>
>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>>> but still standing today.
>>>
>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few
> to many
>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
>> building and so on.
>
> The suburban village I live in has some love for its history. There are
> several historic mansions, many other more modest houses have historic
> plaques, several newer buildings were designed to blend with historic
> architecture, etc.
>
> And there are two historic school buildings still in use. This past
> year, for the second time, the school board proposed a tax levy to raise
> money to tear down those buildings and build new schools, probably
> outside the village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
> levy was defeated.
>
> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance costs would be
> lower in a new building. But another part was that it will be too hard
> to equip the existing buildings for the latest internet technology -
> probably meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!)
> to every classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying, in
> the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette tapes in every room!"
>
> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly prefer the
> look of good older architecture. I see no value in applying "trendy"
> looks to something that's intended to last for many decades, let alone
> hundreds of years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>
I’m not a retrogrouch but brave new world with both materials/design and
set up don’t seem to have worked generally or lasted, ie the concrete tower
blocks/with handy mugging traps and so on, or simply get so run down.

Built huge flat roofed towers in the Welsh valleys not a area tight on
space, or with a growing population, the reverse in fact (coal/iron towns)
they only lasted a few decades combination of being unloved and wet cold
weather.

How we use our homes have changed over the years, but some ideas just don’t
work and in general folks like homes that are fairly conservative in nature
ie don’t fix what isn’t broke!

Roger Merriman

On 1/13/2024 4:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 13:42:34 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2024 12:36 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:17:38?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
>>>>> <ro...@sarlet.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
>>>>> it with some method
>>>>>>>> of construction...
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
>>>>> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
>>>>> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
>>>>> It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
>>>>> much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
>>>>> expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
>>>>> design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>>>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
>>>>> 17-something, admittedly
>>>>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
>>>>> over the years
>>>>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
>>>>> in the few to many
>>>>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
>>>>> tend not to
>>>>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
>>>>> have a newer
>>>>>> building and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
>>>>> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
>>>>> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
>>>>> buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
>>>>> This past year, for the second time, the school board
>>>>> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
>>>>> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
>>>>> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>>>> levy was defeated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
>>>>> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
>>>>> that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
>>>>> the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
>>>>> fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
>>>>> classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
>>>>> in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
>>>>> tapes in every room!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
>>>>> prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
>>>>> in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
>>>>> last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
>>>>> becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
>>>> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
>>>> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
>>>> construction format:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>>>>
>>>> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
>>>> ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
>>>> critics.
>>>>
>>>> * Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
>>>> prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
>>>> and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>
> Steel roofs? Do you mean galvanized roofing? It's been around for
> years and years :-)

Not like the quonset hut material. These are more
substantial and well coated:

http://www.utahmetalroofs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/cl1.jpg

Shed snow well, less degradation from winter/summer
temperature changes, much lighter than asphalt.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 09:47:44 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/13/2024 4:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 13:42:34 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/13/2024 12:36 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:17:38?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/13/2024 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman
>>>>>> <ro...@sarlet.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn’t broke don’t fix
>>>>>> it with some method
>>>>>>>>> of construction...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home
>>>>>> construction is that it seems there ought to be a better
>>>>>> way. A house is the biggest expense most families take on.
>>>>>> It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't changed
>>>>>> much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest
>>>>>> expense, the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's
>>>>>> design is nothing like that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven’t
>>>>>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in
>>>>>> 17-something, admittedly
>>>>>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on
>>>>>> over the years
>>>>>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me
>>>>>> in the few to many
>>>>>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings
>>>>>> tend not to
>>>>>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to
>>>>>> have a newer
>>>>>>> building and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its
>>>>>> history. There are several historic mansions, many other
>>>>>> more modest houses have historic plaques, several newer
>>>>>> buildings were designed to blend with historic architecture,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use.
>>>>>> This past year, for the second time, the school board
>>>>>> proposed a tax levy to raise money to tear down those
>>>>>> buildings and build new schools, probably outside the
>>>>>> village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>>>>> levy was defeated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance
>>>>>> costs would be lower in a new building. But another part was
>>>>>> that it will be too hard to equip the existing buildings for
>>>>>> the latest internet technology - probably meaning running
>>>>>> fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!) to every
>>>>>> classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying,
>>>>>> in the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette
>>>>>> tapes in every room!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly
>>>>>> prefer the look of good older architecture. I see no value
>>>>>> in applying "trendy" looks to something that's intended to
>>>>>> last for many decades, let alone hundreds of years. "Trendy"
>>>>>> becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure improvements may and will be made* (and are
>>>>> ongoing; PVC plumbing, multiple layer glass, synthetic
>>>>> insulation etc) but the uniquely US typical housing
>>>>> construction format:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cotswold-homes.com/the-balloon-frame-a-new-way-of-home-construction-in-america/
>>>>>
>>>>> is historically significant to our exceptional rates of home
>>>>> ownership. To economists anyway if not to architectural
>>>>> critics.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Fifty years ago, residential steel roofs were
>>>>> prohibitively expensive and extremely rare. That's changed
>>>>> and I can't praise them enough. At least in snow country.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>
>> Steel roofs? Do you mean galvanized roofing? It's been around for
>> years and years :-)
>
>Not like the quonset hut material. These are more
>substantial and well coated:
>
>http://www.utahmetalroofs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/cl1.jpg
>
>Shed snow well, less degradation from winter/summer
>temperature changes, much lighter than asphalt.

Interesting, I had never seen them, at least on houses. As for snow on
the roof? Yes, I can remember my father upon a ladder with a long rake
sort of thing raking snow off the roof. Unusual as normally the snow
would slide off by itself and I suspect that there had been a snow
then a bit of a warm weather so the snow sort of softened and then a
cold spot when it hardened.

Here new houses are normally concrete with tile roofs.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:36:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn?t broke don?t fix it with some
>> method
>>>>> of construction...
>>
>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home construction is that
>> it seems there ought to be a better way. A house is the biggest expense
>> most families take on. It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't
>> changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest expense,
>> the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's design is nothing like
>> that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>
>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven?t
>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>
>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>
>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few
>> to many
>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
>>> building and so on.
>>
>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its history. There are
>> several historic mansions, many other more modest houses have historic
>> plaques, several newer buildings were designed to blend with historic
>> architecture, etc.
>>
>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use. This past
>> year, for the second time, the school board proposed a tax levy to raise
>> money to tear down those buildings and build new schools, probably
>> outside the village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>> levy was defeated.
>>
>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance costs would be
>> lower in a new building. But another part was that it will be too hard
>> to equip the existing buildings for the latest internet technology -
>> probably meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!)
>> to every classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying, in
>> the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette tapes in every room!"
>>
>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly prefer the
>> look of good older architecture. I see no value in applying "trendy"
>> looks to something that's intended to last for many decades, let alone
>> hundreds of years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>
>I’m not a retrogrouch but brave new world with both materials/design and
>set up don’t seem to have worked generally or lasted, ie the concrete tower
>blocks/with handy mugging traps and so on, or simply get so run down.
>
>Built huge flat roofed towers in the Welsh valleys not a area tight on
>space, or with a growing population, the reverse in fact (coal/iron towns)
>they only lasted a few decades combination of being unloved and wet cold
>weather.
>
>How we use our homes have changed over the years, but some ideas just don’t
>work and in general folks like homes that are fairly conservative in nature
>ie don’t fix what isn’t broke!
>
>Roger Merriman

Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/14/2024 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:36:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn?t broke don?t fix it with some
>>> method
>>>>>> of construction...
>>>
>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home construction is that
>>> it seems there ought to be a better way. A house is the biggest expense
>>> most families take on. It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't
>>> changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest expense,
>>> the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's design is nothing like
>>> that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>
>>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven?t
>>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>>
>>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>>
>>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few
>>> to many
>>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
>>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
>>>> building and so on.
>>>
>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its history. There are
>>> several historic mansions, many other more modest houses have historic
>>> plaques, several newer buildings were designed to blend with historic
>>> architecture, etc.
>>>
>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use. This past
>>> year, for the second time, the school board proposed a tax levy to raise
>>> money to tear down those buildings and build new schools, probably
>>> outside the village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>> levy was defeated.
>>>
>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance costs would be
>>> lower in a new building. But another part was that it will be too hard
>>> to equip the existing buildings for the latest internet technology -
>>> probably meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!)
>>> to every classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying, in
>>> the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette tapes in every room!"
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly prefer the
>>> look of good older architecture. I see no value in applying "trendy"
>>> looks to something that's intended to last for many decades, let alone
>>> hundreds of years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>
>> I’m not a retrogrouch but brave new world with both materials/design and
>> set up don’t seem to have worked generally or lasted, ie the concrete tower
>> blocks/with handy mugging traps and so on, or simply get so run down.
>>
>> Built huge flat roofed towers in the Welsh valleys not a area tight on
>> space, or with a growing population, the reverse in fact (coal/iron towns)
>> they only lasted a few decades combination of being unloved and wet cold
>> weather.
>>
>> How we use our homes have changed over the years, but some ideas just don’t
>> work and in general folks like homes that are fairly conservative in nature
>> ie don’t fix what isn’t broke!
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?
>

Girlfriend's farmhouse, built around a mid 1830s cabin, got
electricity in the 1930s and one of the happiest days of her
life was in 1959 when her father set up indoor plumbing.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 07:53:52 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?

The average kitchen is no longer a major food-preservation facility.

The average housewife no longer expects to prepare a hearty meal for a
large group several times a year.

Home manufacture of clothing is now a hobby.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:24:18 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/14/2024 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 10:36:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2024 4:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:22 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly something to the if it isn?t broke don?t fix it with some
>>>> method
>>>>>>> of construction...
>>>>
>>>> I think the issue especially with typical U.S. home construction is that
>>>> it seems there ought to be a better way. A house is the biggest expense
>>>> most families take on. It's weird that the way it's manufactured hasn't
>>>> changed much in 100+ years. Contrast that to the second biggest expense,
>>>> the automobile. A modern car factory and a car's design is nothing like
>>>> that of a 1923 Model T Ford.
>>>>
>>>>>>> ... certainly some structures and infrastructure haven?t
>>>>>>> lasted as long as perhaps expected?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My maternal grandfather's house was built in 17-something, admittedly
>>>>>> up dated with inside plumbing, electricity and so on over the years
>>>>>> but still standing today.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well indeed various buildings still standing local to me in the few
>>>> to many
>>>>> hundreds of years old. Seems generally that the buildings tend not to
>>>>> structurally fail but it’s often cheaper/fashionable to have a newer
>>>>> building and so on.
>>>>
>>>> The suburban village I live in has some love for its history. There are
>>>> several historic mansions, many other more modest houses have historic
>>>> plaques, several newer buildings were designed to blend with historic
>>>> architecture, etc.
>>>>
>>>> And there are two historic school buildings still in use. This past
>>>> year, for the second time, the school board proposed a tax levy to raise
>>>> money to tear down those buildings and build new schools, probably
>>>> outside the village. For only the second time ever (AFAIK) the school
>>>> levy was defeated.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the school board's rationale was that maintenance costs would be
>>>> lower in a new building. But another part was that it will be too hard
>>>> to equip the existing buildings for the latest internet technology -
>>>> probably meaning running fiber optic cables (or "light lines," chuckle!)
>>>> to every classroom. But to me that makes no more sense than saying, in
>>>> the 1990s, "We have to remodel so we can play cassette tapes in every room!"
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm an acknowledged retrogrouch. But I do greatly prefer the
>>>> look of good older architecture. I see no value in applying "trendy"
>>>> looks to something that's intended to last for many decades, let alone
>>>> hundreds of years. "Trendy" becomes unfashionably ugly very quickly.
>>>>
>>> I’m not a retrogrouch but brave new world with both materials/design and
>>> set up don’t seem to have worked generally or lasted, ie the concrete tower
>>> blocks/with handy mugging traps and so on, or simply get so run down.
>>>
>>> Built huge flat roofed towers in the Welsh valleys not a area tight on
>>> space, or with a growing population, the reverse in fact (coal/iron towns)
>>> they only lasted a few decades combination of being unloved and wet cold
>>> weather.
>>>
>>> How we use our homes have changed over the years, but some ideas just don’t
>>> work and in general folks like homes that are fairly conservative in nature
>>> ie don’t fix what isn’t broke!
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?
>>
>
>Girlfriend's farmhouse, built around a mid 1830s cabin, got
>electricity in the 1930s and one of the happiest days of her
>life was in 1959 when her father set up indoor plumbing.

Sure, but is that "use" of house changed?

And yes, the wood burning cook stove probably got change to kerosene
although my maternal Grandmother cooked with wood until she died and
argued vehemently that was the proper way to cook... she had the
kerosene "summer stove" on kitchen rear stoop for the summer months
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2024-01-15, Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 07:53:52 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?
>
> The average kitchen is no longer a major food-preservation facility.
I also read in old tomes that there were also community canning kitchens
where women would gather and can en masse or one could go use if one's home
facilities were inadequate, eg: apartment dwellers.

Canning was a normal yearly event in my home growing up.
>
> The average housewife no longer expects to prepare a hearty meal for a
> large group several times a year.

Easter, Christmas and New Years were the biggies at home.

>
> Home manufacture of clothing is now a hobby.
>
This has surprised me but is certainly true. We did send our daughters to
sewing class at their request but I think it's limited to buttons and the
like these days.

pH in Aptos

Sewing skills can be used to fix "sew ups" (tubular tires)...there! Bicycle
content.