On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 04:01:24 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
wrote:

>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.

I think that these "homemaker skills" were far from universal.
Neither of my grandmothers (born 1880's) sewed or "put up" food and
my mother prior to marriage and after myself and my brother were
grown, was a 4H Club Agent and one of the things taught farm girls was
how to sew, which sort of implies that their mothers couldn't sew.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 14.01.2024 um 16:47 schrieb AMuzi:
> 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.

My brother-in-law last year replaced several old asbestos-tile roofs on
old sheds by those metal roofs (it's easy to put solar collectors on top
of those) and learned afterwards that they did not comply to the town's
zoning regulations.

Am 15.01.2024 um 01:53 schrieb 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!
>
> Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?

In the past, homes had many small rooms, nowadays few large rooms are
more popular. In the 1970's, the average 'flat space per person' in
Germany was about half that of today. Half-timbered homes from several
centuries ago had few small windos to minimizse heat losss while modern
homes tend to have large windows to get bright interiors (you can easily
keep direct sunlight out by other means).

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:34:10 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 15.01.2024 um 01:53 schrieb 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!
>>
>> Not to argue but how have "the use of homes changed over the years"?
>
>In the past, homes had many small rooms, nowadays few large rooms are
>more popular. In the 1970's, the average 'flat space per person' in
>Germany was about half that of today. Half-timbered homes from several
>centuries ago had few small windos to minimizse heat losss while modern
>homes tend to have large windows to get bright interiors (you can easily
>keep direct sunlight out by other means).

Re room size. Perhaps in your country but certainly not in the N.E.
part of the U.S. where I grew up. Fairly typical family house similar
to where my Grandparents lived.
https://buildingsofnewengland.com/tag/new-england-farmhouse/

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/15/2024 4:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 14.01.2024 um 16:47 schrieb AMuzi:
>> 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.
>
> My brother-in-law last year replaced several old
> asbestos-tile roofs on old sheds by those metal roofs (it's
> easy to put solar collectors on top of those) and learned
> afterwards that they did not comply to the town's zoning
> regulations.

"We're from the government. We're here to help you."
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/15/2024 5:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 14.01.2024 um 16:47 schrieb AMuzi:
>>
>> 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.
>
> My brother-in-law last year replaced several old asbestos-tile roofs on
> old sheds by those metal roofs (it's easy to put solar collectors on top
> of those) and learned afterwards that they did not comply to the town's
> zoning regulations.

Where does your brother-in-law live?

Here in the U.S., "Homeowners' Organizations" are a big pain for many
people. These organizations spring up when a developer builds a housing
complex or condominium complex, especially if the intent is to make it a
bit exclusive. HOs are notorious for banning things like paint colors
outside a very limited palette; or unusual shrubbery; or boats on their
trailers parked on a person's driveway; or even clotheslines.

And for Andrew's benefit: Homeowners' Organizations are not
government-run. They're an example of free enterprise restricting freedom.

Back to the modern metal roofs: They do make a house look conspicuously
different. Some don't like their aesthetics, but they seem to work very
well.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/15/2024 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/15/2024 5:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 14.01.2024 um 16:47 schrieb AMuzi:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> My brother-in-law last year replaced several old
>> asbestos-tile roofs on old sheds by those metal roofs
>> (it's easy to put solar collectors on top of those) and
>> learned afterwards that they did not comply to the town's
>> zoning regulations.
>
> Where does your brother-in-law live?
>
> Here in the U.S., "Homeowners' Organizations" are a big pain
> for many people. These organizations spring up when a
> developer builds a housing complex or condominium complex,
> especially if the intent is to make it a bit exclusive. HOs
> are notorious for banning things like paint colors outside a
> very limited palette; or unusual shrubbery; or boats on
> their trailers parked on a person's driveway; or even
> clotheslines.
>
> And for Andrew's benefit: Homeowners' Organizations are not
> government-run. They're an example of free enterprise
> restricting freedom.
>
> Back to the modern metal roofs: They do make a house look
> conspicuously different. Some don't like their aesthetics,
> but they seem to work very well.
>

Yes we agree.
HOAs are contractual when you buy the property. Anyone who
doesn't read/investigate that contract first has only
himself to blame.

Government harassment of property owners is a different
thing entirely:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/latest-property-rights-fight-comes-before-justices/

A municipal ticket for not clearing ice and snow from the
public way on your property has some 'protection of
citizens' aspect and seems reasonable to me.

Bans on manufactured homes or steel roofs and the like, as
well as on informal rental (rent a room in your house), bans
on grease pits in garages (I had one, which was very handy
but illegal if discovered) and the like just push people to
the edge.

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

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 08:43:27 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/15/2024 4:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 14.01.2024 um 16:47 schrieb AMuzi:
>>> 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.
>>
>> My brother-in-law last year replaced several old
>> asbestos-tile roofs on old sheds by those metal roofs (it's
>> easy to put solar collectors on top of those) and learned
>> afterwards that they did not comply to the town's zoning
>> regulations.
>
>
>"We're from the government. We're here to help you."

When I brought my first wife to "America" we lived in a small town in
California and my wife being a pagan and not knowing much asked me to
build her a "clothesline" to dry the washing on. Which, given that my
mother and grandmother had clotheslines to dry their washing on seemed
quite reasonable.

So I bought some posts and so on and started to build my wife's
clothesline. Not in the front yard but sort of "round the back" where
it would be handy the kitchen door.

I had hardly gotten the first support post in the ground when a
representative of the "Citizen's Neighborhood Council" came around to
inform me that clotheslines, even in the back ward weren't allowed as
they would make the neighborhood "look common".

So, I tell the wife, "No close line as it will make the place look
common" and she reply's that, "If we buy a clothes dryer that costs
money and then we have to buy the electricity to run the clothes
dryer.... and the sun is free".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:27:03 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> one of the things taught farm girls was
> how to sew, which sort of implies that their mothers couldn't sew.

My mother and older sister supervised my 4-H projects.

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

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 20:40:44 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:27:03 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> one of the things taught farm girls was
>> how to sew, which sort of implies that their mothers couldn't sew.
>
>My mother and older sister supervised my 4-H projects.

Didn't you have an Agent that held "classes" (for want of a better
word) from time to time to sort of see how things were getting on?

Neither of my grandmothers sewed, other then the usual buttons and
sock darning and they were both "farm girls". My mother did but I
don't believe her three sisters did and, from memory, my mother's
sewing was more in the nature of winter shirts for her husband and two
boys rather then for herself. She also knitted winter stockings.

--
Cheers,

John B.

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.
>
> 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.
>

This, plus bath rooms ie baths or walk in showers and so on, let alone
garages for cars and so on.

My folks place which is few hundred years old, had a garage and so on built
in the 70’s very few cars would fit now as it’s too narrow!

Roger Merriman

On 1/14/2024 10:47 AM, AMuzi 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.

Modern metal roofs have the added benefit of letting heavy snow slide
off which reduces risk of a collapse by weight, as well as reducing
long-term damage if holding water (causing rot). One drawback - the snow
sliding off can great a hazard for people and cars parked close enough
to get a large column of heavy went snow avalanching off the roof. We
have one business here that puts a barrier keeping people and cars away
from the 'crush' zone.
--
Add xx to reply

On 1/16/2024 10:47 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 10:47 AM, AMuzi 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.
>
> Modern metal roofs have the added benefit of letting heavy
> snow slide off which reduces risk of a collapse by weight,
> as well as reducing long-term damage if holding water
> (causing rot). One drawback - the snow sliding off can great
> a hazard for people and cars parked close enough to get a
> large column of heavy went snow avalanching off the roof. We
> have one business here that puts a barrier keeping people
> and cars away from the 'crush' zone.

Most if not all I see here have snow breakers near the edge
(and sometimes higher as well) so it's not one big heavy
slab sliding off.

2-1/2 minute video with before/after action shots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRXmWCs-EtM
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971