What war is your house?

You're not going to want to hear this, but during a major war, it is unlikely that very many houses are built. If it truly is a major war, resources go elsewhere, and although there may be more marriages, the guy is going off somewhere, and the gal is probably going to live with one or the other set of parents. Most houses still occupied in the United States (which were not built after 1960) were either "Depression era" houses (which covers more ground than just the Depression, and is usually applied to houses built between 1919 and 1941), or post-war houses built from 1945 to about 1960, when there was a terrible shortage of housing. There had been 15,000,000 Americans in the armed forces in WWII, most of them men, and most of those men were either already married, or got married during the war. The great suburban sprawl dates to the post-war era, when Levittown and all the other tract housing with "cookie-cutter" houses were thrown up to deal with the boom. It was a real boom, because many stay-at-home owners of properties (many of whom were WWI vets, and deeply resented for their actions) tried to hold down the housing market to drive up their personal profits. But not everyone was a greedy creep, and Levitt and Sons built a "planned community" on Long Island, using mass production methods which meant that houses were built without a known buyer, to one of a few patterns, and then sold very profitably. All the components of the house, right down to the appliances, were planned in advance, and most of the construction materials were made to order--even frames would be put together by lumber companies, and delivered ready-to-assemble. Such a "planned community" could be put up very quickly, and even though the developers were making money hand over fist, they could still undercut the greedy SOBs who tried to cash in by suppressing the housing market just after the war. Levittown itself, on Long Island, went up between about 1946 and 1950 (?).

Since about 1960, most housing developments have followed a similar pattern, except that they have usually been done with more patterns (to give the illusion of variety on one's street), more expensive, but also roomier houses, and have followed the building booms which lag just behind economic upturns.

Your war theory is nice, but a little unrealistic. Even a "limited" war such as Vietnam will eventually depress the economy, as more and more government spending goes to the war. Since the government has been in the deficit spending business for almost a century, when they need more money, they just borrow it, which reduces available capital to lend to business, who pull in their horns and slow down, and usually stop expanding. The stock market tends to get "bearish," too, adopting a "wait and see" attitude. Building booms in time of war either started before the war, and take a while to slow down (that's the current situation), or are unaffected, because the war is either small or quick (such as the Gulf War of 1990-91).

By the way, the Revolution began in 1775, and ended in 1783. The First World War did begin in 1914, but the United States did not enter the war until 1917. Although major hostilities ended in 1918, we had troops in Europe until 1920 (America provided most of the occupation troops in Germany, while the French sent troops all over eastern Europe, where the war hadn't exactly ended, and also to fight the invasion of Poland by the Red Army). The Second World War is usually dated to September 1, 1939 (although the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, and Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935), and the United States did not enter that war until December, 1941, more than two years after war broke out in Europe. It would matter to your thesis, because our economy boomed in the period 1914-1917, and 1939-1941, when we could sell things to the poor saps who were fighting, but didn't yet have the expense of actually fighting a war ourselves.

Thank you. I apologize for my decrepit time line. I should have been more exact.

I suppose I should have chosen another category for my post as it was intended in a more general sense. History seemed like a good bet. Perhaps I was wrong.

This is not really a "theory" but intstead a way I can quickly gauge the maturity of a neighborhood and visualize what style of construction might have been used and what materials might have been employed, what size the trees and shrubs might be, how wide the streets are.... all number of things I have sucessfully predicted in the past based on knowing the general time in which a house was built.

Once again, thank you for your insight. I apologize for my stupidity.

That's okay, boom. I'll play.

You know my neighborhood, it's between WWI and WWII. There are many different architectural styles, and a lot of "Revivals." (Tudor Revival, Italian Renaissance Revival, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, etc.) And a lot of cottages with European influences (Spanish, French, German, etc.) The common explanation is that American servicemen stationed in Europe during WWI returned to the US with a fondness for European building styles.

Detached garages were only large enough for a single car unless you lived in a very expensive neighborhood. Most families owned only one car.

What strikes me about new houses is the lack of windows. Often I see houses built with only one window...or none...along an entire side of the house. I guess cross-ventilation isn't so important anymore. But what about...light?!

Eva!! I was so hoping that you would play because I do know your neighborhood so well.

Mr. B has become fixated on a certain neighborhood here because it reminds him so much of that lovely neighborhood (but much hillier). Today a friend and I drove over for a little walking tour and it is very much like your area.

Lots of windows and high ceilings -- definately a mark of the pre-air conditioned days. Big trees. Houses set a bit off the street. "Revival" style houses. Small, shady back yards -- there to keep out the sun, here to keep out the rain. Small garages. (Here most of them are fir lined. Obviously someplace you would put a treasure.)

I had not heard that idea about soldiers returning from the war with memories of European style. That makes a lot of sense.

The lack of windows in newer construction bothers me too. You'll see one tiny little window on the back side of a house. Those two story type "great rooms" are really popular here in new houses. When I see those I can't help but wonder how anyone ever dusts.

You are not stupid, and i've never thought so, and there is nothing for which you need apologize. What i've quoted above is perfectly reasonable, and makes a lot of sense. So, the house i was raised in more or less qualifies as a "Depression era" house. My grandfather bought a house in 1919, dug under the floor and laid courses of brick to form a foundation and create a basement. He then added enclosed porches on the front (east side) and at the side of the kitchen (south side). He put a second story on the house with two bedrooms. It was built and remodeled with hardwood floors, stair case and banister, and had plaster and lath walls. He put in electrical wiring, and hooked it up to the town water and sewer system. He put in central heating with a coal-fired furnace, which he later converted to gas--it was the first house in town with central heating. I saw it once, many years after he died and after my grandmother had sold it. It looked impossibly small, and because those who owned it then had not kept it up, it was sadly shabby. When my grandparents lived there, my grandmother worked hard, and worked us all, so that it could have graced the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. It made me very sad to have seen it fallen on hard times.

It is so hard to see a place you love fall into disrepair. It hurts in a way that is really inexplicable.

My family has always been city-dwellers. We moved into neighborhoods when everyone else was busy fleeing. When I visit them now they have mostly undergone gentrification. It is comforting to know that people have "discovered" your loved place and kept it intact. I can't imagine the inverse.

One of the houses for sale in the neighborhood we're looking at was built in 1918. At a grand total of 760 square feet I'm sure people marvled at the wealth and determination it took to build it. It has been lovingly maintained. I wish every place could be so appreciated.

I love the stories you tell about your grandparents Setanta. I know they must have been truly extraordinary people.

When you look at the houses here in Europe - and especially in Germany - you'll notice that only a few (if any) where built during a war: wars happened here, where the houses are.

So, either destroyed houses were rebuilt (that mainly happened during they 30-years war) or only minor repairs were done (during WWII, if at all).


Damages at mother's house in my native town (house built in 1904, on the ground of a 16th century house, using some timber from the predecessor) from grenates and bombs weren't repaired until 1950 - 1952, in installments (I've still the bills).

My father's house (different town, built in 1924), was nearly totally destroyed in 1944, sold by my aunt in 1946 ... and rebuilt in the 50's (with modern ofices added later).

My condo was built in the 1970s, but I live in a small New England town, having many houses built during the time of the American Revolution.

The more modern houses are not as sturdy as the really old timers.

Spanish-American. The war, that is, not the architectural style, which is loosely Victorian and kinda Georgian (columns in the front). It's very sturdy (and the cross-ventilation is great, but we'll still need air conditioners next week when it hits 90 and above), but the plumbing is awful and needs a lot of work. Even though it's more modern than the origination date (1897), it's not much better than about 1967. We do what we can but a big plumbing renovation just isn't in the cards.

It's also a lot of small rooms. I thought, last night, of the fantasy of having a party, but the truth is not everyone would fit into one room. You'd have conversational pockets of five or six people in each room, except for the dining room which would have maybe 12 or so in it. The second bathroom is upstairs. If a third one was put in, it would probably be in the third floor, which is poorly finished and not heated. I've been inside a few of the houses in the area (most of the area is within about 50 years before or after our house) and most of them are two-family conversions. Maintenance is iffy, it depends on the people and also on how long anyone lived in the house before you. We were lucky the place we live in was owned by a family that held it for over 40 years. Other places have been a lot more transient, and it shows.

Mine's Korean War era, built in 1950. The neighborhood was built in what was once a farm on the north edge of town, so some of the houses are quite old and large, but not many. Most were built about the same time as mine. Those houses tend to be small one-stories or bungalows, like mine.

Interesting! Thank you all for your replies.

I'm not at all familiar with neighborhoods built before WW1, having never really spent time in one. How do you think the times influenced the style?

I love a lot of the Korean era houses - the rambling ranches are my favorites.

Walter, that is very interesting. I'm curious -- when the neighborhoods were rebuilt what changed and what stayed the same? Did people just build up in the footprint of what had been there? Were the streets made wider?

Apparently, we have a peace time house.

Well, when those houses were rebuilt about 1950 (and a bit later), it was either only loosely repaired or rebuilt as it was (more or less).

Streets usually stayed as they were .... reason: those properties are registered (partly) since earliest medieval times.

Another example is the small house of my wife's family: it was small before it was bombed .... and due to lack of money it became even smaller after it was rebuilt (and got even mre people to live within).
The place/ground for the house couldn't be changed at all although there were hundreds of square feet which they owned as well. But that was a garden, and the house was situated within a cooperative society, where the ground was only given to have a garden.


Grandfather's (father's side) house, was a town villa: most was repaired by the new owner, the totally destroyed part was rebuilt in the 70'/80' as modern offices.

The house I lived in, wasn't really badly damaged and just repaired.

In bigger cities, I remember having noticed "bomb estates" until the early 60's. But most (totally) bombed house were rebuilt, many in the 50's "architecture".

People still had horses then, so the detached garages could be old barns or where the barns were. My neighborhood was a meat-packing district and so the lots aren't too large as those folks weren't too terribly wealthy. But they must've had some sort of servants as that drives a lot of the 2-family conversions, because many of these houses have separate entrances or apartments and a lot of those appear to be original to the construction.

Our house was probably built for a middle-class family as there are some touches of things that went with servants but not too many high-class trappings. There's a nice servants-style pantry with a swinging door into the dining room and a call button (now disconnected) on the floor in the dining room. There's also a box over a heating vent in the upstairs bathroom and there are holes in the bottom of the box and a small hanging rod in there. It was most likely used for a hot towel; you'd drape your wet towel or wash cloth over the hanging rod, close the top of the box and the forced air heat from below would heat the towel.

The third floor is not heated but there was at least one fireplace that chimneyed up and so it most likely heated the larger room up there but not the smaller finished one and definitely not the small unfinished one. The unfinished one has a skylight; it may have been some sort of a greenhouse but it's tough to tell now as it's been made over a few times. But there are no really elegant touches such as a ballroom or really fancy-shmancy details, so I can tell it wasn't a high-class home.

In 1897, probably the neighbors on both sides existed or they certainly did within 10 or so years so the lot sizes were already set. There's a large apartment building on the next corner and it may have been a hotel at one time. That seems to be a similar era. Other homes look old but I suspect they are closer to the '20s or so, before the stock market crash.

The times influenced the style because of a few things, I figure:

• the existence of servants, and probably live-in ones to boot. They needed places to stay and ways to work that were unobtrusive.
  
• the distance of the place from what at the time were the city limits. In 1897, it was a horse and buggy (possibly trolley or even regular train or boat) commute to the inner city. Hence the area hotel. It wasn't really the country but I get the feeling that it was far enough away from where things were happening that it probably was a place where fathers only lived on the weekends.
  
• there was electric lighting but no air conditiong. It was cooler then, in general, so the lack of air conditioning wasn't an issue. The place is pretty cool if there is any sort of a breeze but on those days with 100% humidity and no breeze, it's awful.
  
• horses. I'm not sure about the other lots. Perhaps horses were boarded at paddocks? If you really had a serious carriage, the detached garages around here are a bit on the small side. Plus there's really no field where they'd get exercise or hay. That to me speaks of an area where horses were kept elsewhere but I don't have anything to back this up.

Livery stables have always boarded some horses:

http://www.answers.com/topic/livery-stable

For a middle-class family renting a horse and carriage when needed would have been much more economical.

In one section of Columbus, Ohio, in which i lived for a couple of years, the houses were all large victorian houses, and had carriage houses, and even stables behind them. These had been converted for storage or garages, and in the case of those which were stables, had even been converted for apartments. Often, in the days of the "horse and buggy," a family wealthy enough to keep horses and a carriage on the property had rooms on a second floor above the stable for the groom and the postilion. I've seen these turned into "studios."

Our house, built 1904 by a granduncle (disregard the hamster Penny on the left :wink: ), had the garage for the coaches/car on the right (yellow on plan), behind were the stables (for the two horses and the pigs), behind that sheds for coal and wood.



The shed for the chicken, ducks, geese was in the back of the garden, carrier pigeons were hold on the (second) attic - a smokeroom was below as well as guestrooms and rooms for the maids and the first attic (for drying the washing).

I am with Walter that for many European cities the credo isn't during what war a house was built, but rather what war(s) it survived.

When I studied in Groningen in the Netherlands, my favourite cafe was Café 1672, which still had cannonballs embedded in its wall from the 1672 siege by the bishop of Munster. Another nice hang out was the café known as The Three Sisters (they served really nice apple pie), which was one of only three old houses on the main market square that survived the liberation of the town by the Canadians in 1945.

Here in Tornio they recently tore down an old prewar shop building that had bullets embedded in its walls from the battle between Finns and Germans during the Lapland War. Those old buildings had walls made of solid pine logs, the walls of modern day wooden houses would not stop a bullet.