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

[destroycreate]

Maybe this is more specific to California apartment buildings and houses, especially in Southern California, but I've noticed that the vast majority of buildings from the 1950s-1970s are made of horrible quality and aren't standing the test of time at all, whereas buildings from earlier than that are far better/sturdier.

These buildings so often have paper thin walls, shit finishes around the windows where the metal lining looks like it's popping off, cheap popcorn ceilings, and you can hear everything from your neighbors because there's so little insulation. It's interesting because you always hear older people say that things were of better quality back then.

Does anybody else notice this in there city? Was there just a massive housing boom back then?

Literally the worst building I ever lived in (the one with the faux-brick facade):
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7793...8192?entry=ttu

[benp]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Maybe this is more specific to California apartment buildings and houses, especially in Southern California, but I've noticed that the vast majority of buildings from the 1950s-1970s are made of horrible quality and aren't standing the test of time at all, whereas buildings from earlier than that are far better/sturdier.

These buildings so often have paper thin walls, shit finishes around the windows where the metal lining looks like it's popping off, cheap popcorn ceilings, and you can hear everything from your neighbors because there's so little insulation. It's interesting because you always hear older people say that things were of better quality back then.

Does anybody else notice this in there city? Was there just a massive housing boom back then?

Literally the worst building I ever lived in (the one with the faux-brick facade):
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7793...8192?entry=ttu

It only seems that way because the crap buildings from earlier decades have mainly already been torn down so all you are familiar with are the few best ones that have remained.

[badrunner]

Generally speaking, the quality of building stock in America falls off the cliff in the postwar period. This is especially pronounced in LA which saw tremendous growth in those decades. For single-family you go from Craftsman bungalows and Spanish Colonials to cheap cookie cutter tract housing. For multi-family you go from French Norman chateaus and palatial apartment buildings to dingbats and garden apartments.

[mhays]

In my region, school upgrades tend to refurbish what was built in the 1920s and demo/replace what was built in the 50s-70s. This is about both style and quality.

[pdxtex]

I think its just upkeep more than anything. Ive lived in new apartments where you can still hear everything. My last apartment was awesome and it was from the 60s. It was a cool triplex with huge wrap around fireplace and shared basement. It had some quirky stuff tho. Old single pane windows, giant boilers in the basement for hot water, zero ventilation besides the bedroom windows.

[AviationGuy]

<delete>

[AviationGuy]

I lived in apartments and condos built in the 60s and 70s, and they were great. Good workmanship, good soundproofing. But I just moved into a new apartment complex built for 55+, and the workmanship is shoddy. Security doors are failing, elevators don't work, and the floors are so poorly built that you hear every sound from the unit above. When I moved in, I wrote up at least five pages of cosmetic defects so that I won't be charged for them when I move out. I documented everything with photos.

I think, though, that it depends on the builder, training, supervision, and review of the finished products for the case that there are permits. Same for homes. Some are well built, and others just the opposite.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Generally speaking, the quality of building stock in America falls off the cliff in the postwar period. This is especially pronounced in LA which saw tremendous growth in those decades. For single-family you go from Craftsman bungalows and Spanish Colonials to cheap cookie cutter tract housing. For multi-family you go from French Norman chateaus and palatial apartment buildings to dingbats and garden apartments.

Excellent description.

[Xelebes]

From my experience in Canada, a lot of the buildings that were built before World War II are simply gone. I'm talking about the tar-paper shacks, sodhouses and other improvised means of housing where a substantial number of people were housed. There was a big movement to improve the housing stock in Canada during and following World War II. Houses that qualified were built to stand 40 years minimum and now those buildings are getting to be 70 years old. The homes that were well built and well maintained are lasting a lot longer while we are getting a whole swath of houses that are approaching their last legs coming into stark focus.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I lived in apartments and condos built in the 60s and 70s, and they were great. Good workmanship, good soundproofing. But I just moved into a new apartment complex built for 55+, and the workmanship is shoddy. Security doors are failing, elevators don't work, and the floors are so poorly built that you hear every sound from the unit above. When I moved in, I wrote up at least five pages of cosmetic defects so that I won't be charged for them when I move out. I documented everything with photos.

I think, though, that it depends on the builder, training, supervision, and review of the finished products for the case that there are permits. Same for homes. Some are well built, and others just the opposite.

Agreed. Anything thrown up to accommodate a rapidly growing population will be questionable no matter the era it was built. The sunbelt boomed post war so there are a lot more examples of shoddy construction from this era compared to before because developers could not keep up with the pace of growth otherwise.

[Quixote]

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

Even with improved aesthetics and higher-quality finishes, you still have visible window-washing davits and boxy additions at rooftop level. They really cheapen the look.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Generally speaking, the quality of building stock in America falls off the cliff in the postwar period. This is especially pronounced in LA which saw tremendous growth in those decades. For single-family you go from Craftsman bungalows and Spanish Colonials to cheap cookie cutter tract housing. For multi-family you go from French Norman chateaus and palatial apartment buildings to dingbats and garden apartments.

Originally Posted by Xelebes

From my experience in Canada, a lot of the buildings that were built before World War II are simply gone. I'm talking about the tar-paper shacks, sodhouses and other improvised means of housing where a substantial number of people were housed. There was a big movement to improve the housing stock in Canada during and following World War II. Houses that qualified were built to stand 40 years minimum and now those buildings are getting to be 70 years old. The homes that were well built and well maintained are lasting a lot longer while we are getting a whole swath of houses that are approaching their last legs coming into stark focus.

I think these two comments pretty much hit the nail on the head. There was a change in building materials and types after WW2 which many would consider to be less ornate and made of lower quality materials that lowered the cost of housing for the booming population.
However, there is definitely a bit of survivor bias in the way that we think of older housing. Tons and tons of old buildings are simply gone and didn't last. Meaning the ones that we do still see were the most sturdy and best built distorting our perception of the overall quality.

[eschaton]

One aspect that cannot be forgotten is with mass unionization, the living standards of construction workers improved dramatically from the 1930s to the 1970s. This was a good thing, but as cheap construction labor vanished, the industry moved towards practices which were more automated and less focused on craft.

[pj3000]

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

[WhipperSnapper]

There's a ton of pre world war 2 homes in Canada. There's one thing in common whether wood framed or masonry. Drafty; inefficient windows, little attic insulation and non existent wall insulation ( 100 year plus old wood framed). The dimensional lumber from old growth sources is amazing. I can't see the OSB trusses used today lasting 100 years. It's like plaster vs drywall.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

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

Yeah, I think the stuff immediately following WW2 was generally pretty high quality.

As others mentioned, unionization, lack of immigration and automation craze are likely factors. By say 1960, the craftsmen from the immigration years were mostly retired or dead, since immigration restrictions began in the 1920's.

Also, SoCal might overall have somewhat flimsier standards from that era bc of the mild weather coupled with extreme growth? I could punch a hole through my aunt's house walls. The whole house, a Japanese-inspired house from the 60's, is so flimsy.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

There's a ton of pre world war 2 homes in Canada. There's one thing in common whether wood framed or masonry. Drafty; inefficient windows, little attic insulation and non existent wall insulation ( 100 year plus old wood framed). The dimensional lumber from old growth sources is amazing. I can't see the OSB trusses used today lasting 100 years. It's like plaster vs drywall.

The 125 year old home we own in Eastern Ontario has a massive single basement support beam running the entire length of the house which I assume is from old growth. The transverse beams are actually hewn logs with regular joists in between. Pretty cool to look at particularly with the fieldstone basement walls. It's extremely solid, though sagging because it didn't have enough support posts originally. There's enough elasticity in the wood it could be jacked up with no problem, but that's not a short-term project on our list at the moment (as the engineer looking at it said - "it's not going anywhere anytime soon"). While solid the house is extremely drafty and I actually spent last weekend sealing a bunch of small gaps up while we were there for the weekend.


As to the original question I think most 1950s era construction is actually pretty solid here, both for small apartment buildings and early tract homes. The stuff built immediately after WWII here is much more questionable as it was often owner-built in the midst of a housing crisis likely worse than todays. That was part of the shift into tract style construction in Toronto at least. Moving into the 1970s the classic Ontario slab apartments are also strongly built with (IMO) better layouts than new condos - certainly much larger at least. Extremely energy inefficient though unless they've been updated, plus many aren't great inside. But structurally they're sound, and the ones I've been in don't have many issues with noise.

[3rd&Brown]

My parents live in a home that was built in the mid-70s in suburban Philadelphia. It has stood the test of time quite well. It was built in an era where finishing was still quite high (real hardwoods throughout), hand laid exterior bricks etc, but codes related to electrical and HVAC were already modern. Thus, it was built with modern electrical wiring and boxes (no knob and tube, which was a huge problem in houses prior to that era) and central HVAC. Thus, nothing to retrofit.

I don't know how this compares regionally, but to me it feels at least in the Northeast things really only went downhill in terms of quality in the 90s. Subtle things changed over time, like quality of exterior finishes (from 4 side masonry, to 3 sides, to 1 side), flooring, window quality etc. All that dryvit construction that we've since learned just promotes mold growth came about in the 90s. It was non-existent prior as homes were real masonry exterior construction.

[The North One]

Uh, I don't think this is true at all. Must be a California thing.

[Velvet_Highground]

There was a reason to the shift in quality the stock market crash and the living conditions in the 30’s for some were downright poverty. Not all developments from this time were poor quality or ugly but I catch the drift of this thread. The use of new cheaper materials was a choice it was seen as frugal after the ornate pre and inter war years.

I suppose when and where the development was built had a lot to do with the quality. Affordable middle class housing especially multi-family from that time has not held up well. Renters usually get the short end of the stick.

50’s - 60’s era duplexes and cheap apartments NW Detroit
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ydND9rpeSCXTJ5J87?g_st=ic


Late 70’s era development thin walls and crazy neighbors.
A affordable apartment complex in Warren, MI thin walls and not a good place to raise a family.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Xj5udvmgYfXvu2sC7?g_st=ic

Northwestern Warren especially has become a spill over area from the Woodward Corridor adjacent communities to the west that have become popular amongst young families with wealth. While the housing stock of Metro Detroit from the interwar to the 70’s
50’s-70’s development in Warren, Mi north of 12 mile.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DnFquFQFn9MzFZo18?g_st=ic


Post war subdivision edition to Detroit’s Eastside.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B2YZcjeFdBvFgmCD9?g_st=ic

Post war subdivision on Northwest side.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B4G4ADnKmwKyGo8u9?g_st=ic

Post war upper middle class apartments NW Detroit.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/smeEHRAVqWnUj8rn9?g_st=ic

Similar area 7 Mile and Telegraph but a cheaper build though centered around a pool.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3cFMBqVopCfUYMNz8?g_st=ic

A basic unit in NW Detroit post war
https://maps.app.goo.gl/i2CJiXPzPejtedr3A?g_st=ic

Upgraded basic post war housing unit
https://maps.app.goo.gl/odDLYVTTVyVkbozs8?g_st=ic

Well off middle class units
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xxyAKdmZ149Kueb6A?g_st=ic

Above basic but indicative of mass built GI Bill homes.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qCnnRn1gRxvTTbJNA?g_st=ic

A former infamous hot spot for drugs in between the apartments & well kept neighborhoods. Note the type of home and quality that survived blight to become a well kept neighborhood again.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nABPdnfpBEz1Aiga6?g_st=ic


The up hill part of the subdivision I grew up in I always admired the central common area and the stands of trees in front of the homes on this side. All the homes are the same but there’s enough customization that you don’t get lost. Circa early 60’s - early 70’s the part where my parents live.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vU66DeuQUUgk91Ag7?g_st=ic


There was certainly a break in quality pre and post Arab Oil Embargo across the U.S. as the economy constricted. Pre-embargo homes while relatively plain on the outside had touches of quality along with the cheap crap. Real wooden floors & unique touches built in such as wooden bookshelves next to a fireplace trimmed with wood albeit nothing fancy. The house I grew up in was completed in 1971 for example we spent 20 years remodeling the poor quality & outdated materials. Modernizing on & off and but we found solid bones in the second smallest home in the neighborhood trashed when handed over in the 90’s. The 3/4 of an acre the second largest property along with a heated sun room and patio have pushed the price up from 120k in the 90’s to 420k estimates now.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mvq9MgPzNEBDmqeP6?g_st=ic

The era of malaise, mergers & massive offshoring was right around the corner. As the US building boom even in the sun belt as disasters like the 2011 & 2013 outbreaks showed while new construction looks nice much of it cuts corners in after action reports. Moore, Ok hit by the infamous Bridge Creek F-5 saw neighborhoods hit again. There weren’t not bolted to the foundation and framing anchors not always being there. Lessons learned in the Jerrell, Tx F-5 & Hurricane Andrew.

I’m not singling any one state or city out building codes were relaxed except in certain states & areas especially prone to certain types of destructive forces. The west coast has good seismic standards for the most part pre-war and immediate post war construction not retrofitted not withstanding. Florida had good hurricane codes & areas of the plains have retrofitting to homes that only worst case scenario could make unsurvivable.

The boom in suburban growth from the 70’s to the 00’s was one of the engines that kept the American economy growing in certain areas & nationwide. It made a ton of money in finance but I don’t think other than higher end residences there has been a dramatic change most areas in. Just innovative techniques to improve sound proofing but in 30-50 years will the property hold up as well as the rust belt post 80’s. If the economy is well they can be gutted for the average American that kind of investment is difficult especially after buying the property. We may see homes from the suburban boom torn down and rebuild in a more sustainable way.

Things are designed to have an expectation date to encourage spending. You don’t buy a car you lease it you don’t buy and iPhone you get a contract with an upgrade available. Can we build things to last yes but there’s less money if the owner can learn to take care of their product & good forbid fix it.