Reclaiming the Abandoned Values of Typical Construction

RECLAIMING THE ABANDONED VALUES OF TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION
Student’s Name
Class
Date
While in most parts of the world houses are built on masonry comprising of solid poured concrete, most parts of America use wood North America being a typical example. Most houses are constructed in the Balloon Frame which are hollow and very light. When compared to the ancient buildings, there is a huge contrast in terms of durability and sustenance of natural disasters such as earthquakes. In the recent decades, the housing construction has claimed to move towards industrialization so as to reduce costs in construction. While that is a positive move, on the contrary side quality of housing is impaired with the reduction in cost. Industrialization and the so called technology have focused on cheaper building materials which are in essence of low quality and of a short life span. The architectures of today do not take time in designing the houses as compared to the ancient architectures who could take their time to come up with good houses. Architectures today are motivated by the payment. The architectures were guided by the typical architectural principles. The Definition of Typical in the Architectural Field meant, among other things, Durable, reliable and Long Standing. These attributes have been abandoned in today's typical single family home construction. These virtues must be restored into the current construction vernacular for the long term survival of the natural and built environment.
Architectural durability
Durability in building and construction is defined as the ability of a house to provide functionality for a longer time. Durability is an aspect used in architecture to as a parameter to determine the value of a building, depreciation value and is also used in calculation of insurance rates. Durability is a complex issue as far as construction is concerned and can be divided into three categories; technical durability, functional durability and aesthetical longevity. Durability ought to be an important issue for consideration by building designers as it is required by architectural ethics. However, today the interest of durability in buildings seems to be insufficient as it was a few centuries ago. In particular, technical durability is missing in the architecture of today as compared to yesterdays. Architectures have ignored the aspect of technical longevity in their constructions. Absence of technical longevity is attributed to the insufficiency in knowledge among the architects on the effective ways that should be employed in achieving the durable technical solutions in construction. It is also attributed to the hesitant behavior of the investors as far as the technical durability of the houses is concerned. The architectural design has evolved recently and various modifications came to play with claim of sustainability. Sustainability has not been properly interpreted and has been take to make the architectures to see buildings as works subject to steady demolition with time.[Upton, Dell. 2011. Architecture in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 15] [Ibid., 58] [Ibid., 63] [Mallgrave, Harry Francis. 2010. Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68]
Technical durability has for long been a disputable issue due to its ambiguity. Buildings are considered to be supposedly durable structures. However, longevity is considered to be dependent on the use of the house. The designers do not bother with considering that when designing the house and they deem themselves unaccountable to the investors. This attitude towards construction of the buildings adds to already existing ambiguity. The house owners have been seen as taking actions that leads to jeopardy of the durability of the house. For example in the purchase of the building materials where they go for cheaper materials thinking that they would refurbish the house whenever wear outs are detected. What they do not consider here is that maintenance can be costly than initial building cost. Generally, the investors have been driven by on generation investment in construction where they focus on income they will earn while still alive. They are less bothered on the incoming generations.[Friedman, Alice T. 2010. American Glamour and the Evolution of Modern Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 74] [Ibid., 18] [Lawton, Arthur. 2013. The Plan-net as a Geometry for Analysis of Pre-modern Architectural Design and Layout. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest, 98]
The longevity of buildings in United States is gradually declining. This is attributed to the need to replace the buildings constructed in between 18th and 19th century so that they can meet the current legislative requirements and the functionalities. The resulting buildings do not go anywhere near in comparison of the durability as compared to those being demolished for new ones. According to National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) (2007), a house can live up to 100 years old depending on the materials used. However looking at the materials life expectancy, this figure is highly doubted. For example, NAHB estimates that roofing materials such as aluminum roof coating has a life span of three to seven years only. This is contrary to the buildings of the 18th and 19th century which have withstood the changes since then until today. A typical example is the Drayton Hall in South Carolina.
Drayton is a remarkable building set up by the colonial rulers around 1779. This is a building that was constructed using the Palladian architecture. The architecture was influenced by the ideas put forward by Andrea Palladio. Literature indicates that Drayton took time to design the building in paper which can be seen in his books today. Unlike today’s designers, Drayton took technical durability as the key consideration in designing the house. This was coupled with the quality building materials and a focus on building a house that would last for generations.[Upton, Dell. 2011. Architecture in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51] [Upton, Dell. 2011. Architecture in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47]
Architecture Reliability
Architecture reliability refers to the designing of buildings for a system instead of incorporating it after completion to ensure all the incorporated resources are used effectively and optimally. In other word, a reliable structure if it is able to serve its original purpose for at least a design lifetime without a significant increase in the repair and maintenance costs. In the past, architecture had placed reliability at the forefront of their constructions to minimize inadequacy maintenance and operational failures in aspects such as electricity, roofing, plumbing and HVAC. To begin with, the ancient buildings were effective as they hardly experience major failures in structural component such as the foundations. Most of the ancient homes were built with more strong foundations that the modern homes to reinforce the thicker load bearing walls. Since there were no more computerized technology, many ancient buildings had low heights with thick walls, and this made them safer to live in. On the contrary, modern building tend to use steal infrastructure where the exterior columns carry lesser loading than the interior, hence prompting less strong foundations. A study indicates that the modern buildings are highly vulnerable to natural calamities such earthquakes, hurricanes and tornado due to weaker foundations, compared to the old structures. In addition, the study ascertain that in case of such disaster old houses remained steadfast prompting no repairing costs.[Robert M, Cranwell, and Regina L. Hunter. 2013. “Architectural Design For Reliability.” Sandia National Laboratories 1-6.] [Robert M, Cranwell, and Regina L. Hunter. 2013. “Architectural Design For Reliability.” Sandia National Laboratories 1-6.] [Robert M, Cranwell, and Regina L. Hunter. 2013. “Architectural Design For Reliability.” Sandia National Laboratories 1-6.]
Also, another attribute is that the ancient structures had no frequent maintenance schedules on major non-structural components such as the plumbing connections, roofing materials or facades compared to the modern structures. According to a a peer-reviewed study done by Cranwell and Hunter (2013), maintenance schedules for ancient structures are determine by component lifetimes while the modern structure are affected by secondary effects of other structural failures. This assertion suggest the ancient buildings could stay longer without needing regular maintenance and repairs that could cost the family additional costs. However, the modern structures are perceived unreliable in terms of maintenance and repair costs whereby, households are required hire plumbers and civil engineer experts for constant repairs on floors, roofing and facades. Also, unlike the modern structures, ancient buildings were more...