Winnipeg Construction X

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

And houses in that stock are still of superior quality to most anything built today, despite all the retro work needed

I’ve been hearing that a lot more that older builds are generally higher quality then newer builds. Is there a reason for that? I’m not in construction either so I am very curious does it have to do with the framing, insulation, foundation, or is it the shitty stucco I see present in most McMansions.

My tin-foil hat theory is that single-family homes are being built with the idea of them having shorter lifespans (25-30 years) so that when it’s time to renovate Winnipeg will finally have relaxed zoning regulations and the neighbourhood will be mature enough where up-zoning is a possibility.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I’ve been hearing that a lot more that older builds are generally higher quality then newer builds. Is there a reason for that? I’m not in construction either so I am very curious does it have to do with the framing, insulation, foundation, or is it the shitty stucco I see present in most McMansions.

My tin-foil hat theory is that single-family homes are being built with the idea of them having shorter lifespans (25-30 years) so that when it’s time to renovate Winnipeg will finally have relaxed zoning regulations and the neighbourhood will be mature enough where up-zoning is a possibility.

Core materials from that early 20th century era such as hardwood lumber and well-built limestone foundations were often much tougher/moisture resistant, breathable, and more structurally resilient in certain century old neighbourhoods. This is not completely typical but often very much the case. I’ve worked in many many houses of this age in Wolseley/West End area and it’s very rare that, if relatively undisturbed and somewhat well drained/maintained throughout their lifetimes, the original structures show hardly any sign of breakdown or significant warping of the structure. Old plumbing/drains, old electrical, plaster and lath finishes, those types of things obviously didn’t stand the time test and need replacement. But the bones are strong and the structures very very sturdy. I own two century-old SFHs in the area and would certainly invest in another some day. As long as they’ve been maintained decently, many have a great value-over-time horizon and continued life expectancy if one is able to do the needed systemic restorative work.

They aren’t all gems though, as some are heavily neglected past the point of no return, so one still has to do their due diligence. Slum landlords who bought up a lot of the stock extremely cheap in these areas in the 80’s and 90’s are largely to blame for this. But even some of those were built well enough in their time to be brought back from the dead with confidence and enough investment/elbow grease.

[bomberjet]

Not every home is the same as has been mentioned.

But generally older homes, ending in the 1970 era, are built with hardwood structures. Today homes are built with SPF type softwood lumber. More susceptible to twisting, bowing etc. Homes now are also built with OSB instead of plywood. Again lesser quality. On buildings where the specifically use plywood, they will tout that as an extra, high quality feature.

Floor joists are the same. When you look at newer homes (and I mean back into the 90's), they have the engineered floor joists with OSB as the web and SPF strips as the flanges. Again lesser quality over long term, but cheaper.

When looking at homes, if all you see is OSB, it was built on the cheap and gives you a sense of the overall quality of the build. If you go in the basement and can see the floor above, what is it made of. Go in the garage if attached and you'll find a sea of OSB.

Then there's electrical, plumbing, etc. Which is just as important. Homes built in the 70's for example have aluminum wiring, which can be a fire hazard. Insurance companies want you to replace it outright. My sister dig the pig tailing, which is supposed to eliminate arcing issues that cause fire. Older homes have knob and tube wiring, again fire hazard.

Then you get into countertops, drywall, fnishings, etc. The mid range to expensive homes today all have quartz or higher stone counters, fancy appliances. The low-mid range homes have particle board, low end basic appliances. It's all what you want to pay for.

Anyways, there's a shit ton to consider. Typically older homes have a better structure. Typically, but not all. Newer homes have better systems and more appealing layouts. It can be very expensive to reno and older home if you want to open rooms up. Adding in steel beams and such. Older homes are typically boxed off into small rooms.

[bomberjet]

For me personally, we're fairly limited in looking for our next home. Bungalow, open concept. My kid can't use his walker in our house because there's no where to go. He takes 3 steps and hits the wall or the furniture.

So pretty much newer home, in the burbs.

There's homes in Bridgewater with no step front access. Just flat from the street straight onto the main floor. But we don't really want to live out there.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

For me personally, we're fairly limited in looking for our next home. Bungalow, open concept. My kid can't use his walker in our house because there's no where to go. He takes 3 steps and hits the wall or the furniture.

So pretty much newer home, in the burbs.

There's homes in Bridgewater with no step front access. Just flat from the street straight onto the main floor. But we don't really want to live out there.

Believe me as a resident of Bridgwater Forest this place is the epitome of suburban hell you have to drive for everything. They are trying to develop Bridgwater Centre to be walkable but I’ll wait until the buildings adjacent to the clock tower are constructed before making judgement. Also, they’re finally building the 2 schools and recreation centre which could provide nice amenities but currently this place is atrocious in the winter. It’s nice in the summer though because of all the recreation paths and apparently the gym is nice but those are the only good things I have to say about this area. I guess proximity to the University is a nice perk as well but with covid I haven’t really benefited from it much lol.

I might be a bit harsh to this area but I wouldn’t recommend this area to anyone unless these new projects drastically improve the neighbourhood.

[bomberjet]

I fear that. The driving.

I live in EK on Munroe near London. I can at least walk to the Giant Tiger, the library, Macs, my dentist. Sobeys's etc is close and I can bike there or walk. And I'm still close to downtown.

Living in the burbs like Sage Creek or Bridgewater seems like a pain.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Not every home is the same as has been mentioned.

But generally older homes, ending in the 1970 era, are built with hardwood structures. Today homes are built with SPF type softwood lumber. More susceptible to twisting, bowing etc. Homes now are also built with OSB instead of plywood. Again lesser quality. On buildings where the specifically use plywood, they will tout that as an extra, high quality feature.

Just to nit pick - homes since around 1900 are all framed using softwood lumber - not hardwoods.

The difference is up until the 1960s and 1970s it changed from Douglas Fir (DFir) to Spruce (SPF)

Both woods are softwoods, and have their own advantages (i.e. DFir is harder, but SPF can span further).

The big advantage older homes (specifically the ones like mine that are over 100 years old) is that the lumber used is old-growth. Straight grained. You cannot build with that stuff anymore.

I had to do some foundation work to my front porch last year, and the rough 1" plank boards that are underneath the exterior cedar shake finish were still weeping out sticky Fir resin - a full 116 years after they were installed. On a new home, that 1" board would built using 7/16" OSB. And would have rotted out 70 years ago.

[bomberjet]

Thanks Drew.

There's some garages around my place with OSB as the exterior finish. Just painted. Terrible haha

[drew]

^ at least they painted it!

[cllew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Thanks Drew.

There's some garages around my place with OSB as the exterior finish. Just painted. Terrible haha

There are some here in EK/Elmwood that are just Buffalo Board and if you are lucky it has either a wood siding or stucco covering.

My garage was built new in 1969 and has a stucco finish over the boards. House 2 doors down had the whitewashed 4 x 8 sheets until the new owner took it down to build a larger garage.

It may have been popular here because there was a plant in the 500 block of Munroe (where the self storage place is now) that made it for years.

[bomberjet]

Probably. The ones in my back lane I assume are inhabited by squirrels and rabbits, not cars. The bottom corners are non-existent.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I’ve been hearing that a lot more that older builds are generally higher quality then newer builds. Is there a reason for that? I’m not in construction either so I am very curious does it have to do with the framing, insulation, foundation, or is it the shitty stucco I see present in most McMansions.

My tin-foil hat theory is that single-family homes are being built with the idea of them having shorter lifespans (25-30 years) so that when it’s time to renovate Winnipeg will finally have relaxed zoning regulations and the neighbourhood will be mature enough where up-zoning is a possibility.

There's also an element of survivorship bias. All century homes seem well built because the ones that weren't aren't around anymore.

[thebasketballgeek]

Btw the 514 Wellington Crescent proposal officially passed through council on a 10-6 vote. I’m glad to see this precedent officially set because this area with infill development has unbelievable potential. Imagine if Crescentwood becomes our version of Westmount or something similar.

[drew]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

There's also an element of survivorship bias. All century homes seem well built because the ones that weren't aren't around anymore.

True, but the generally intact pre war neighbourhoods in Winnipeg kinda go against that argument.

Especially more central areas were these houses remain despite long term owner neglect and poverty.

Houses built today wouldn't withstand that degree of punishment.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by drew

True, but the generally intact pre war neighbourhoods in Winnipeg kinda go against that argument.

Especially more central areas were these houses remain despite long term owner neglect and poverty.

Houses built today wouldn't withstand that degree of punishment.

Totally

[cllew]

And then there are the people that have a nicely built house but have the wood fiber based Orangeburg sewer pipe failures to deal with.

I heard years ago from a City CET that I knew that the St. James area was really bad for that type of sewer problem. I have no idea if there was the same problem in other post war development areas of Winnipeg.

I wonder what we are using now in 2021 to build houses that will be failing really badly in 30 or 40 years?

[thebasketballgeek]

Today is the public hearing for rezoning of 4025 Roblin to RMF-L in order to construct a 10 storey 199 unit building. They also are keeping the existing odd fellow condos and got an arborist report in order to determine the feasibility of preserving the existing canopy which seems the project will be able to do.





There's going to be 54 people presenting in opposition today this is going to be a gong show.

[drew]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Btw the 514 Wellington Crescent proposal officially passed through council on a 10-6 vote. I’m glad to see this precedent officially set because this area with infill development has unbelievable potential. Imagine if Crescentwood becomes our version of Westmount or something similar.

What precedent are we celebrating?

The demolition of a one of a kind house to put up the same rinse and repeat multifamily building that goes up all over the place a few blocks down in Osborne Village?

It's not like this was some underused empty lot festering for years.

[drew]

Originally Posted by drew

True, but the generally intact pre war neighbourhoods in Winnipeg kinda go against that argument.

Especially more central areas were these houses remain despite long term owner neglect and poverty.

Houses built today wouldn't withstand that degree of punishment.

I should add that the longevity of pre-war houses isn't necessary something to do with higher quality workmanship. It's mostly unintentional.

They are built with solid materials, with a complete lack of insulation or vapour barrier to trap moisture in. This allows the structure to remain dry, or at least retain the ability to actually dry out (and not theoretically dry out like today's houses). Mold, rot and similar issues are not possible in these types of houses under normal circumstances.

This also means that houses (like mine) are energy pigs and uncomfortably dry in the dead of winter - no matter how much water you dump into the air via humidifiers.

You can go and insulate and modernize old houses to add in a vapour barrier and make it more energy efficient - but you always run the risk of unintentional consequences down the road, including accelerating decay of structure especially the main floor rim joist and mortar within the rubblestone foundation walls. There is always a trade off.

[esquire]

That Roblin project is interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been quite a while since a taller building has gone up in the Charleswood area.