Condos are owned by the condominium association, which maintains the common elements and units, with the exception of exclusive use common. The unit boundaries are typically defined as unfinished interior surfaces of perimeter walls, floors, and ceilings, known as a “box of air”. Roof and exterior walls are common elements, while floors or ceilings may include interior surfaces or drywall. The right to use limited common elements is appurtenant to one unit or group of units, meaning that the right to use these elements is tied directly to that unit’s ownership.
The association is responsible for the exterior upkeep of the building and its grounds, while individual owners must take care of the interior of their condo. A condo inspection, often referred to as a studs-in inspection, focuses on the internal systems and structure within the exterior walls, including doors, windows, and attached structures. Condos feature multi-unit layouts, well-designed common areas, varied exterior facades, optimized interior layouts, and flexibility for customization.
The condo association, also known as the homeowners’ association (HOA), plays a vital role in maintaining the structural integrity of the condominium. Their responsibilities typically include regular inspections of the unit’s internal systems and structure, such as doors, windows, and attached structures.
In traditional high-rise buildings, common components of the condominium property include outer walls, roof, cellar, and staircase. The unit owner is responsible for insuring all real property and fixtures from the unit’s exterior framing inward. When buying a condo, the owner only owns the airspace within the walls of their unit, including the exterior walls.
📹 Easiest Way To Design Multi Unit Single Story Apartment Buildings – Architectural Education
Https://www.homebuildingandrepairs.com/design/index.html Visit our website to learn more about home building, remodeling and …
What is a condo wall made of?
Concrete walls are found in both new and old apartment buildings and condos, with two types based on thickness: Standard Concrete Walls, which are around 10 inches thick and provide excellent sound insulation and structural strength, and Thin Concrete Partitions, which are about 3 inches thick and offer some sound insulation but are less effective. Mounting objects on concrete walls requires special concrete anchors, and understanding the type of walls is crucial for interior decoration, object mounting, and appreciating the building’s structural features.
Using appropriate mounting techniques and hardware is essential for stability and safety, and this knowledge can enhance residents’ living experience and help make informed decisions when decorating and renovating their homes.
What is a common wall in a condo?
A common wall is defined as a structure erected on the boundary of two contiguous lots, owned by both parties, and maintained, repaired, and rebuilt at the expense of the respective owners in proportion to their rights in the wall.
What is another name for a condo unit?
The following terms are considered synonyms for the following terms: condominium, penthouse, duplex, efficiency, apartment, floor-through, garden apartment, and walk-up. The corresponding terms are as follows: condominium, penthouse, duplex, efficiency, apartment, floor-through, garden apartment, and walk-up.
Does drywall count as construction?
Drywall construction is a method of building walls using materials such as gypsum board, plywood, fibre-and-pulp boards, and asbestos-cement boards. These sheets are fastened to the building frame using nails, screws, or adhesives or mounted on furring. Specialized tools for hanging drywall include the drywall hammer and joint tool, which smooths plaster-like compound in joints between wallboards. This process helps to avoid delays and achieve specific finishes.
Drywall construction is used to avoid delays and obtain specific finishes. Wallboards come in both finished and unfinished forms, with finished walls facing with vinyl or other permanent colors and textures. The backing materials and panel base composition determine the insulation, fire resistance, and vapor barrier. Wallboards are fire-rated from 1 hour to 4 hours based on the time that a fire would be retarded by the wallboard.
What does condo unit coverage mean?
Condominium unit owners are protected by two separate policies: personal condo policy and condominium corporation insurance policy. The personal condo policy protects the owner’s liability, belongings, and upgrades to the unit. The condominium corporation insurance policy covers the building, common elements, and liability of the condo corporation. It is also responsible for maintaining and communicating the policy coverage to all unit owners. It is essential for the owner to understand the overall condominium corporation insurance policy to ensure coverage for their building and common elements.
What are the different types of walls in building construction?
Walls are classified into distinct categories based on their functional characteristics, including load-bearing, non-load bearing, cavity, shear, partition, panel, veneered, and faced walls. They are indispensable in the construction of a house, as they provide the structural framework and support for the floor and roof. The objective of this article is to present a comprehensive overview of the functions and characteristics of walls.
Can you add a wall in a condo?
Condo owners often ask if they can remove a wall in their condo, but they must first seek approval from the HOA board. This is because condo units share walls and floors with neighbors, and remodeling requires consideration of the building as a whole. The homeowners association wants to ensure that the removal of interior walls doesn’t cause damage to the condo or the building’s integrity.
What is included in the Structure of a building?
The Building Structure refers to the foundations, floor slabs, roofs, exterior walls, glass and mullions, columns, beams, shafts, stairs, stairwells, elevators, building mechanical, electrical, and telephone closets, common areas, and public areas. It excludes leasehold improvements and mechanical systems. For steel building structures, a driven ground rod should be installed at the base of each corner column and intermediate exterior columns at distances not more than 60 feet apart. Noise and existing building structure vibration should be kept to a minimum during demolition and removal, including loading and removing storage containers.
What is a condo in architecture?
A condominium is an ownership regime where a building or group of buildings is divided into multiple units, either individually owned or jointly owned with exclusive rights of occupation by individual owners. These units are surrounded by common areas that are jointly owned and managed by the owners. The term “condominium” is mostly used in the US and Canada, but similar arrangements are used in many other countries under different names. Residential condominiums are often constructed as apartment buildings, rowhouse-style condominiums, detached condominiums, and commercial condominiums.
Unlike apartments, condominium units are owned outright, and the owners of individual units collectively own common areas of the property, such as the exterior of the building, roof, corridors/hallways, walkways, laundry rooms, and common utilities and amenities. In some property regimes, such as those in Hong Kong and Finland, the entire buildings are owned in common with exclusive rights to occupy units assigned to the individual owners. The common areas, amenities, and utilities are managed collectively by the owners through their association, such as a homeowner association or its equivalent.
What is considered the structure of a condo?
A condominium structure refers to the main building or structure built on a lot or building site, including any attached accessory structures. It includes separate ownership in fee or leasehold estate of a residential unit with an indivisible interest in the real estate designated for common ownership strictly by unit owners. A condominium plan is a plan described in Section 4285. Condomium property includes lands, leaseholds, and personal property subjected to condominium ownership, including improvements, easements, and rights intended for use in connection with the condominium.
What are the parts of a condo unit?
Common elements in a condo building include lobbys, elevators, corridors, parks, locker areas, garages, roof, and grounds. These elements include air conditioning and heating systems, pipes, hot water systems, electrical connections, security arrangements, and lighting fixtures. When looking at new condos for sale, it is important to inquire about these components and their maintenance, as the condo corporation typically handles these tasks.
Exclusive-use common elements, such as patios, balconies, terraces, front and backyards, and parking spaces, are not specific to Ontario. Restricted-use common elements, such as concierge desks, offices, electrical rooms, and technical rooms, are occupied by staff and accessible only to them and contractors. Common areas for condo owners may include yards and decks, and the maintenance of these elements must be taken on by the unit owners.
In summary, common elements in a condo building include lobbys, elevators, corridors, parks, locker areas, garages, roof, and grounds, with maintenance, upkeep, and replacement typically being the responsibility of the condo corporation.
📹 Why All New Apartment Buildings Look Identical – Cheddar Explains
Maybe the biggest constraint on the urban U.S. housing market, a $61 billion annual industry, is the amount of available space.
Have you ever encountered a stacked duplex designed for a corner lot where the units face opposite directions? One facing forward, one facing “backwards,” so to speak. Each of the two units has an attached double garage, stacked, again in opposite directions. The garages are level w their respective units. The lower duplex unit is a walk-out, facing the backyard, with its driveway originating from the side street and curving to the tucked under garage. The upper duplex unit faces the front yard w a straight driveway to the street. Neither unit has a staircase (disappointing to you, I’m sure), which is attractive to the elderly or disabled. As w any house w a walkout basement, the grounds are 2 tiered, providing residents of either unit their own level yard. Greg, with your years working with housing, have you seen such a duplex? If so, any opinions?
The urban U.S. housing market’s space constraints have sparked creative development solutions. However, locally, I’ve seen ‘luxury’ apartments built with cheap materials, prioritizing profit over quality. Thin walls and floors make for a noisy living environment, yet developers charge premium prices. This disparity between cost and quality is alarming.
Many of these buildings are popping up where I live. They are advertised as being “luxury” apartments, but because of the cheap building materials, you can literally hear every step your upstairs neighbors take, as well as conversations in adjacent units. These buildings are a nightmare in terms of noise, yet developers charge more for them even though they cost less to build.
It’s so irritating to hear the narrator of this article say, “…these cheap and affordable buildings.” I’m not sure about the rest of the country but here in Phoenix, Arizona. The new 5 over one wood framed buildings built in the past decade in Phoenix are some of the most expensive rental units in the city!
I am generally okay with the design. My only gripe is the sound proofing. The walls in these apartments are paper-thin and sound travels all around. I used to live in one such apartment and could hear neighbors from many doors down. Maybe it was an issue with sound-proofing in my specific building and is not universal.
I’m from europe and i don’t get what’s wrong with this type of housing, they don’t have to be bland and boring, they can be shaped into anything, it all depends on target customer and how deep is your pocket. It’s funny to watch this being something new in USA, meanwhile in Europe it’s basically foundation of housing market in bigger cities. I think only differance in EU is material, i’ve never seen housing like that built with wood as structural material
Here on Long Island, I see a lot of these types of building popping up as downtown areas are being revitalized. Most don’t look so bad but my gripe is that they are not being used for affordable housing which we desperatelty need. Instead they are over-priced, sometimes reaching price points you would see in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
I actually quite like the look of these housing units. FAR better than the completely concrete and brutalist of housing units of the 60s for instance. They look unique and varied from one another, with a lot of materials used for the outside, expansive windows, and terraces/porches for outside use and gardening, it’s actually quite nice.
I’ve seen about a dozen of these buildings pop up near campus in the college town I live in. The biggest controversy surrounding them seems to be not as much the aesthetics of the buildings, but what has to be torn down for them to replace – local and sometimes historic landmarks and iconic shops and restaurants, have had to close down. In addition, while they fill up with residents, often the lower floor (designated for retail) can remain vacant for much longer, and then there some projects that clear the land and sometimes even start construction, but the developer runs out of money leaving an empty lot or half-finished building.
I moved into a 5 over 1 apartment just a couple months ago. While I’ve known for a long time these are the largest woodframe sized buildings which means fire risk, like all my neighbors, I snapped it up at $800 a month for a 1 bedroom since housing is very, uh, I mean, super limited. They’re pretty nice with granite countop, washer and dryer, and seem to have good sound proofing where can’t hear neighbors talking nor all their dogs barking, but it’s not luxury for customer service and maintenance are lacking. Despite having gas central heating and a gas meter, they don’t have gas stoves, but rather the common American GE electric stove that gets too hot or not hot enough and then faucets are the very cheapest lightweight quality so it’s a cheap corporate build, but usually nice since they’re fairly new. I wonder, with 200 apartments in a huge woodframe, if one had a fire, but the building was saved and mostly OK, would everyone have to vacate and be, ‘homeless,’ for a while? Management in these sort of apartments don’t show and tell you much as I was asking 2 weeks after move in where the mail boxes are located to find they’re at the garage entrance. It’s very corporate America in that employees such as office staff and maintenance don’t really care about much so it’s just a global payments system you have to pay rent to or get the boot.
These building might be cheap to build, but that doesn’t mean the apartments will be cheap. My Midwest city is buried under these types of apartments, and prices start at over 1k. I get that folks in some larger cities out there would live to see 1k apartments available, but around here, that was a huge amount of money for a 1 bedroom apartment just a few years ago.
Yeap! I HAD been wondering why these types of buildings were suddenly cropping up everywhere I traveled! Although, they definitely are helping the housing crunch here in Denver! They have / are popping up EVERYWHERE. As for the aesthetic? I don’t mind it. I like the simple but varying textures of the facades.
These types of buildings have been popping up in our region and the prices for renting a modest 1 Bedroom unit is over $2,000 a month. Perhaps this might be cheap to some, but that’s well beyond the reach of many working people. Access to affordable, decent housing remains a major challenge from sea to shining sea (and in HI and AK, too).
In the 1950s, the Winnetka, IL school district built Avoca Elementary School. It became the standard design. I went to a grade school that looked like Avoca. My son’s grade school looked like Avoca. Avoca was the standard design for 15 years. Now, all Wendy’s, McDonald’s, and Burger King locations look alike. The only difference is the the sign in the front.
Thank you for making this. We have an explosion of these kinds of buildings in the Jacksonville, Fl. Area. There is no imagination to any of these structures. I am fortunate to live in a historic neighborhood but we acre flanked by these dense buildings. And what is affordable? $ 1680 a month for a one bedroom 1 bath.
I think that’s a North American problem, we have those buildings in my country too, replacing the old soviet apartments building that were popular in the the 70s, and they are concrete not wood. I think that’s the problem with American housing, it’s wood. Edit : I don’t think they are an eyesore to be honest, they are not as aesthetically pleasing as the Victorian or Haussmanian buildings but they are still better looking than those soviet apartments
i do like several topics that cheddar covers, but their take is usually so questionable, often looking the bright side of questionable choices, like these 5-1 matchboxes. the mid-rise mixed-use format is fine, even excellent for growing better cities; but its mindboggling how impossible is to USA developers to build things in durable materials or also to not cut every corner of it.
I love how this type of housing is framed as being good because its affordable, when every building I see like this commands ridiculous rent and is in a super gentrified area in my city. Also man you gotta love capitalism, flame retardant wood is non combustable, yet we have evidence of them being more prone to fires lol
Am I like the only one who actually happens to like the design of these five-over-one apartment buildings? I don’t understand all the hate behind them. I think they look really cool, modern, and minimalist. They incorporate themes from both urban skyscrapers and suburban housing, and I would be PROUD to live in one. Hating on the design of an apartment building really feels like an entitled first world thing to do so I’m not so sure if the narrarator or anyone here in the comments even knows just how dilapidated and run-down some of the buildings in poorer countries look. You need to just be grateful to be able to live in such a beautiful home as a lot of people can only dream of living and affording such a place.
Living in Seattle in one of these Meh Modern apartments…they’re SUPER cheaply made, you can hear EVERTYTHING your neighbors on either side and above and below you. Things are always breaking, electric done wrong bc it was built so quickly…. Top prices too. I miss living in historic buildings with integrity and charm. These buildings make the city look sooooooo fucking boring and bleak. Seattle went from really interesting to nothing but boring box apartments. All you can do is get food from the restaurants below and hang out in people’s apartments (and for the price of them I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to leave). Ugh.
I feel like I’d be just as likely to see a article on Cheddar that exposes the environmental unsustainably of concrete structures. People have to live somewhere and all things come with a trade off. These structures appear to be acceptable in every way… acceptably safe, acceptably attractive, acceptably affordable, acceptably sustainable. They’re not perfect but show me a low-middle class home that is.
Does anyone else have a problem with every balcony being glass? Even old buildings around here are all retrofitted with glass panels. Why?? How am I supposed to have a beer in my underwear? Why do I want the whole street looking into my apartment? Some tenants get in trouble for storing bikes and things because they’re unsightly. Wtf is the point of a balcony? It’s just one more subtle way of coercing away even the idea that we deserve privacy, and it makes these places much less livable. When you combine that with terrible sound isolation from other units, it’s basically a shitty panopticon.
In Los Angeles where these started, everyone knows they are considered “luxury housing”. Good luck trying to live in one of these cookie cutter apartments for a good deal. And every material they use is as cheap as can be. Flooring, lighting, cabinets. U name it. If it was actually affordable housing, it would be good but for what they charge, it’s insulting.
I wish the US and Canada would get rid of single-family zoning. Let the free market decide where suburbia exists don’t force it onto people and therefore increase the price of housing. All residential zoning should also be commercially zoned too. And the size should be limited to 4 or five stories. We would have cities designed for people, not cars. This would help small businesses and increase the quality of life of the average person and make economic mobility easier without necessitating car ownership to participate in the economy/world. Basically, make the US and Canada more like Europe. And that’s not a bad thing when it comes to zoning laws. They do it so much better than us it’s crazy. Oh, Cheddar should do a article about how suburbia is bankrupting cities. This guy made a good article on it. He makes a lot of good articles about zoning laws and city design. Basically, he was a Canadian architect who didn’t like how bad our cities were and moved to the Netherlands because they have better-designed cities. youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A
I think these buildings look fine. If you want bland and monotonous, come and see the older apartment blocks in South Korea. Those are literally giant beige concrete rectangles. My main concern living in a multi-story wood frame building–in addition to safety–would be noise. I don’t think wood is dense and strong enough to prevent inter-apartment noise such as hearing conversations next door and footfall impacts from upstairs unless the buildings have a significant amount of insulation and decoupled flooring, which I doubt most builders would bother with.
Bet the floors creak too. And you just know, you will get that upstairs neighbor who likes to host aerobics classes right above your home office work space in the middle of an important zoom call. Or the ones who seem to do ritualistic stomp dances around and around and around their bed, right above your bed just as you lie down to go to sleep.
Yes, these apartment complexes are being built all around our university town-literally thousand and thousands of units. Seeing how badly they are constructed makes me worry for the students. We’re in tornado alley. I’m elderly and had thought of selling my surburban home, but this makes me reconsider. I’ll stay in my four bedroom home nestled among seventeen giant oaks. It’s a tract home. I was just pointing out to my grandson today how beautiful the neighborhood is. Between the older homes being added onto and the building of new homes every decade, the circle is both lovely and diverse. That you for sharing the fire hazard potential. Cheddar, you’re one of my favorite sites.
This is an interesting explainer, but it is not without bias. Why does the author assume that this type of construction results in “affordable housing”? It does not. Although wood construction is cheaper to build than steel-and-concrete on a per-unit basis, rents are still exorbitant in these types of buildings. In other words, such construction may be more affordable for developers and their investors, but the end result is not anywhere near affordable for prospective tenants.
ive lived in one of these. In LA they’re pricy as hell and not huge by any means, but I never thought the quality was poor or that it was ugly at all. Lots of amenities, and great landscaping and good soundproofing. u do get ur money’s worth tbh. They have these in texas and they’re wayyyy cheaper there. these are great apartments
They aren’t ugly. When they 1st started popping up, people liked the looks. They were new, had balconies, and located close to major hubs. I think some people started getting annoyed by them because these buildings became too common. Those buildings look damn near the same across the entire U.S. and when you lose individualism, some people tend to go, “meh” now when they see them.
5 over 1s aka; Throw Away Buildings. The city I live in has had an explosion of these types of buildings with new ones announced every week. If you look at any of the completed ones from just the outside you can already see that the exterior panels/siding are cracking, faded and moldy. They’re not even ten years old.
I’ve been an apartment dweller in Texas for the better part of the last two decades. I think this style is starting to pop up, but I’ve only ever lived-in three-story apartments where the apartment entrances are accessed externally. And I’ve never seen a “Texas Doughnut.” If anything, we tend to have reverse doughnuts, where the parking wraps around the apartment building.
They are building these all over Austin. One just went up right by my single family neighborhood. I recall thinking it was strange that they were using wood framing for a large 5 story building. Also I do not think they are “affordable” but I may be getting old and think renting a space for $2000 per month is quite high since my first 1 bdrm in 88 was only 230 a month.
WO..one of the last buildings shown is “the Current” just recently completed in Hackensack NJ…. It’s awkwardly “nestled” between a main noisy street and overlooking a McDonalds and White Manna Burgers restaurants…ahhh…the smell of fast food restaurants wafting all around you…so delightful at all times of day and night. And I have NO IDEA what’s meant by “affordable” when these flimsy structures are touted as LUXURY with far from affordable rents for many.
Does a building have: -Sustainable materials -Affordable pricing (often non-market or rent-tied-to-income) -High energy efficiency, quality designs that won’t fall apart in 40 years -A socially sustainable design (courtyards, balconies, porches, etc) If none of these apply, it does more harm then good. Only “missing middle” housing can solve this problem – concrete boxes in the sky will never be socially or environmentally sustainable. Building more homes is proven to not drive down prices.
People don’t want luxury apartments! They want a decent, nice looking place, with out all the BS. Luxury apartment and a regular apartment, they have the same structure, the same drywall. All it is, is interior design. They aren’t mansions, and they shouldn’t be classified as luxury. Unless you’re living in a 50 story tall high rise, anything less shouldn’t be classified as a luxury apartment.
Yo cheddar, These apartments in Central Houston are 6x more expensive than the duplex and four plex brick apartment buildings from the 30’s that were knocked down to build these 5 over 1 pieces of garbage. The are so expensive that the students, artists and other creative types who made the neighborhoods interesting can no longer afford to live in them. My main point is these developments are NOT affordable. There is still shortage of truly affordable housing in Houston as in most major cities, I suspect.
west coast “dingbats” (1-2 stories of apartments over an open parking podium) are not at all part of this modern trend, they were mostly built between 1950 and 1990, and while the overall construction is similar, they use stucco instead of modern facade systems over the wood, and almost always only have parking and mechanical rooms on the ground floor, instead of more units or commercial space.
The article largely ignored the economic details, just mentioning that this is cheap to build and this is expensive is not enough. What is the most important to know is what are the profit margins on these buildings? If they are huge, then, of course, they can and should construct houses from better materials, sell them at the same price and just make less profit. That would never happen naturally, so that needs to be forced by law/regulations. BUT! If the profit margins are not insane, and building from better materials will require raising costs for apartments even higher, way outside of the reach of consumers it is trying to sell to, then we have to turn to other avenues for reducing the cost of construction, for example automating the building process or making materials cheaper, etc.
the fire risk is kind of overstated, these building pretty much only ever catch fire while in construction, before sprinklers are installed. of the fires mentioned in the article, I believe all but one or two were building which did not yet have sprinklers. and the overall statement is said in a way to single out large buildings- many, many more single homes catch fire and burn to the ground, but because each one isn’t large enough on it’s own to be worth 20 million, it’s not part of the discussion here, despite single family homes being far more risky in terms of fire.
Let’s Talk About Cost. There is some notion in the comments that podium buildings are affordable housing. In some cases this may be true. But this building type is popular with developers because the cost to construct them can be cheaper – that does not necessarily mean affordable to the resident – apple to oranges here. Podium buildings can be designed as stripped down, with the cheapest exterior design, detailing and materials. It can be outfitted with minimal amenities (if any). This combined with many other factors (management, maintenance, utilities, etc) can result in cheaper rent. But this type of building can also be detailed with high end finishes, meticulously crafted details and lavish building amenities. Potentially translating to a Luxury structure with higher rents.
i hate these apartment/condos here in the DC area. they pop up everywhere and the only thing they do is provide less space for individuals with top dollar, and convenience the entitled and rich. not to mention there is no need to leave because all your conveniences are usually downstairs as if covid hasn’t done that already. SMH!!!!!!!!!!
They are building these all over in my area in the city and they are wood stick built fire traps !! Id not live in one They say fire retardant wood but one in new albany that was finished but the sprinkler system booster pumps power was not energized a fire was started by a worker and the whole thing burned to the ground ! the fire station was across the street ! so if you have a power failure you have no sprinklers like the one in Texas last winter one did burn down ! the city water pressure is not enough to operate the sprinkler system so they have to use booster pumps .
You can definitely see that the architectural style is the same, but (and I admit I’m only assuming based on examples in this article) I’d say the buildings look far from identical. After all, this is nothing new, even historical cities in Europe saw large re-development projects that gave an almost unified look to large areas – take a look at Prague, where one of the towns constituting the city was almost completely torn down (aside from churches and other important buildings) and rebuilt in the style of Art Nouveau. Now, Art Nouveau features lots of flourishes and the buildings differ very much in the details, but walking through the streets (which is practical there for the most part, thankfully) you can still get an impression of “sameness”, because it’s the same architectural style. Not a bad thing – and it helped solve a huge increase in demand in the fin de siècle era. Another example is the Žižkov neighbourhood in Prague, which used to be the city’s suburb housing the workers for the growing industry on the outskirts; it is 4-story brick apartment building after 4-story brick apartment building after 4-story brick apartment building with little in terms of flourishes or decorations (especially compared to neighbouring – richer – Vinohrady) that sort of became a part of the image of the town. And later came the prefab concrete blocks of flats (“commie blocks”) in the new town-turned-suburbs – these are ugly for the most part but 1. helped solve a massive housing shortage and are being renovated because of how practical they can be, effectively extending their lifespans beyond what they had been designed for, and 2.
First world problem perspective. I study architecture and we would LOVE to have these buildings in latin America. In latam most buildings are made of brick and mortar and we STILL HAVE FIRES. Other factors like damage from humidity are FAR WORSE when it comes to brick walls and much more expensive to repair. The solution is in methods of construction, the quality of how it’s being built and hiring professionals! Most if not all problems come from government trying to decide what’s right for everyone else.
LOL, I used to manage one of these and had no idea that this is why it was the way that it was. The only thing I was told about was that 7 stories (6+ an underground garage) was the max height for a certain design of elevator, otherwise we’d have needed a much more expensive, complex, and harder to permit elevator system.
Looking at the B1M YouTube website and elsewhere, wood looks to be a big part of the future of construction. It’s environmentally friendly, strong and flexible, and engineered wood products are even better. As for the decor, that’s a matter of choice rather than necessity. And, the other option is to rein in municipal zoning regulations and public input that strangles the development of denser urban developments that go higher than 6 or 7 stories.
How long do these things last? I look at old stone built schools that must be 130-150 years old, totally fine, I’d not be surprised if they are still there in another 150 years. Then I think about cheap built schools built in the 70s that look like low level versions of these things. Already pulled down as they were just not built to last.
The sad reality of these buildings is that even though the living space in sprinklered, in many states the attic space is not. That’s ok you say? There are many ways in which a roof area or attic can catch fire and with these buildings is very easy going to over run the interior sprinkler system and burn the building to the ground. People need to be educated on these building before they agree to occupy the space. There is a potential if these building have a fire, it may very well burn completely to the ground and they will loose everything they own.
I lived in a “Texas Donut” (but I never heard the apartments called that. The convenience of being able to park on the same level as my apartment was awesome… I moved to a chic oceanfront condo here in Florida with the parking all concentrated on the first few levels… It was so annoying to wait and get on the elevator with a ton of other people and ride up to my condo on the top floor (this building also had the pool on the roof – so the elevators were always crowded. After 7 years, I built a traditional house and have never looked back!
In summer 1985 I visited Moscow and Leningrad in the Soviet Union as part of American Council of Teachers of Russian. For 7 weeks we were housed in these tall bland high-rise apartment buildings/hotels. There was a cluster of maybe 5 of them in them. All looked identical. After our morning Russian language lessons, we went out in the afternoon on our own exploring the city. One day I returned to what I believed was my apartment building and room number. I go up to my room number in the building. I found it odd that my key did not open the door. I knock on the door. Some young German male opened the door. I saw through the door some other young German man and woman having sex. Turns out I was in the wrong apartment building. I apologized as best I could for my confusion.
If I win the lottery I want to build a 15ft x x30ft house with a full basement and one bedroom upstairs attic/loft. I’ll likely combine cement, steel and wood highest quality of all materals. The main floor will be a living room, a bathroom, small kitchen and dining area. The basement will have the furnace, washer/dryer, storage and wet room. Upstairs attic/loft will be a single bedroom with a curtain divider that can make it two bedrooms in a pinch. Behind the house I want to build a 24 x 48ft garage.
The answer is easy – cause the people designing it have all lost their creativity. Growing up my mum often bought these magazines showing houses in it in the 90’s. They had balconies, bay windows, little towers, nice windows, generally speaking they looked way more playful. Nowadays the houses all look the same, like shoeboxes, nothing playful, all sober and hardly any variety. Real pity. Maybe it is about wanting to put down as many houses as quickly as possible – for living space, but also profit and it doesn’t matter how they look. On the zoning in the US I found weird, that they hardly ever allow mixed areas for business, shops, schools and housing like it is in other countries, for example here in Europe. So people are often off the beaten track in some only-housing estate and off reach for example to the shop if you need a pint of milk, creating the need of a car and having to drive everywhere or kids cannot walk to school, cause it’s lacking infrastructure for them to have paths tto school and they are often far off aswell. Bit of a pity
“Relies on a Particular LEGAL LOOPHOLE” – What The…? Exactly what “Loophole” is the author talking about. FYI, codes are not laws, so there is no such thing as a “LEGAL loophole” here. Furthermore codes evolve over time and as technology changes and as safety warrants. The IBC (national building code that many US jurisdictions follow) is carefully written with the goal of public safety. The idea that there is some loophole here that people are getting away is absurd and completely FALSE. Does the author think that she knows more than the committees and professionals that meticulously debate each article of code in the IBC? Doubtful, indeed.
THESE DONT EVEN SOLVE THE HOUSING ISSUES!!!! they’re so cheap to build but they rent them at ridiculous prices, i, and many others have been pushed out of cities because of developers making expensive homes instead of reasonable ones…. I’ll just count myself pretty lucky cause I have a roof over my head, many in the area don’t (sorry if that got kinda sad, hope u have a good day)
Like a lot of people, I have no problem with how these buildings look. It’s their cost that annoys me. You say there’s a growing need for affordable housing, and you’re right, but these are NOT it. There was one like this that went up a few years back. Currently ~$1400/mo for a Studio (~540 sq. ft), ~1600-1700/mo for a 1 Bedroom (~700 sq. ft.) and well over $2000/mo for a 2 bedroom. How is that “affordable”?!?? I could be making a mortgage payment for less. They market this as a “Luxury” apartment, when what’s needed is affordable housing that normal, middle-class working people can afford to live in. These developers need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually make apartments and housing that are affordable to normal people.
They have put ‘5 over 1’s all over Orange County, California. And they fill up in no time. In Irvine, I counted 20 construction projects of ‘5 over 1’s on one weekend. People exiting California? Well their filling up ‘5 over 1’s at a rapid pace. Right now, the average starting rate is $2050 per month, which goes up to about $3600 and over. I once saw a $8500 apartment in L.A.
FRT wood allowed in type 3 construction allowed 5 stories and I perceive that to be more of a “game changer” than IBC 509.2/510.2 podium alone. Prior to FRT being allowed in type 3, the highest you could go with wood was 4 stories using type 5 construction. Nowadays, you can go 2 story podium and 5 stories wood. Factor in mezzanine levels in podium and wood and you can have a building 9 stories tall in appearance. But after 75’ to top floor and you have a code defined high rise building and that kicks in a lot of additional requirements that many developers don’t want to pay for. Five-story slab-on-grade wrap (texas donut) is a sweet spot for many these days.
You can sum everything up as “get rich quick”. If I remember what I read, these buildings aren’t designed to last more than 30-40 years (I believe “useful life” is the word they use). Their idea is to build as cheap as possible so that all the costs are recouped ASAP, and then make profit for the remaining x-years. By the time it’s ~20 years old, the design will be outdated and nobody will pay big money to live there anymore, so they could just tear it down and build anew. With cement/steel buildings, yes, they are more expensive, but they literally last forever (look at all those high-rise skyscrapers that were built 100 years ago such as the Chrysler Building and still standing). Having lived in one of these so-called “luxury complex” that was built in 2015, it totally wasn’t worth it. Super shoddy construction – my friend rented a super nice apt and when he walked in the kitchen (he only weights ~140-lb), I could literally feel the kitchen floor bowing downward!
Maybe you should do a article explaining LIHTC, or just housing tax credits in general. I’m sure it would be boring to most, but basically you could explain that the government pays for these garbage buildings, and it’s primarily the reason companies like Walmart and Amazon don’t pay any taxes. Or perhaps you could explain why this is a large contributer to the lack of affordable housing. But that article probably won’t get made, because almost all the people involved in this wealth-robbing scheme are the biggest funding source of the Democrat Party!
“Only a few materials can survive that kind of strain…” – HUH?! Hey Author, What the heck are you talking about? Hardy Board is selected for its cost, PERIOD. It is NOT selected for some inherent ability to stand up to normal building movement in any climate. This statement is the authors fantasy. It is worth noting that these structures accommodate many many types of exterior cladding and they routinely do.
All those cheaply built apartments are at the least, market rate. Which has ballooned out of control over the past two decades. A studio used to be around $400-600 per month, now without any remodeling that same place, worn in, is $1200-$1350 or higher. And was never built to be market rate or luxury housing, but not only those who make three time rent can get a place anyways. It’s like they want us all suffering till we TAKE it from them
Rent on one of these 2BR suburban commuter rail apartments is $2k/month, which is the same as the payment on the $400k mortgage you’d need for a townhouse as close-in if not closer. The rent on that rowhouse would be $3k+/month, so a mortgage is a way better value. Only problem is, rent is increasing way faster than your wages so you’ll never save up the down payment, even though your bank already knows you can afford to pay the mortgage. And the housing crisis is everywhere now, you can’t escape by moving from the DC area to a small town in rural Ohio, because rents have doubled or tripled there. You’ll pay 30-40% less to live in a place where the only store is Dollar General, but you’ll make half as much money if you’re lucky.
Are they an eyesore? Literally anything that’s new or affordable gets labelled as an eyesore by wealthy homeowners. Put an old, wealthy family in an urban townhouse and it’s “a cozy turn-of-the-century brownstone”. Put a young, dual-income family in that same townhouse, and suddenly it’s “gentrification”, “an eyesore”, or “tacky new money”. IDGAF whether people think it’s ugly, I only care that these buildings are putting new housing units on the market. Brand new buildings will never be low-cost housing, but every new housing unit increases renters’ options and weakens the power of landlords.
Why do you hate hardy board so much? lol Also, you failed to mention one key factor in these buildings. Depending on the local laws (though it may be an OSHA thing) you don’t need a crane and certain safety equipment to build up to 5 stories. That’s why so many of these buildings are max 5 stories. Once you go above 5 stories, you might as well go 10, because the additional cost of safety equipment makes it more efficient to build more stories. Why build 6 if you’re going to spend all this money on safety equipment just for 1 extra floor, is that cost justifiable? I’m sure in some cases it is. But this is why you see so many 3, 4, 5 story buildings like this.
I don’t understand. First, in NYC wood frames are still not allowed and we still have building looking the same all over, which are concrete super structure. Second, i thought you’re gonna talk about the envelope design. Why is the facade always the same? That’s what I want to know. The podium makes sense. But still cool articles.
I couldn’t help but laugh when she said affordable housing. It’s more common than not to see 1 bedroom apartments in these “5 over 1 wood framed buildings” go for around $2500-3500 (and of course, sometimes more). The concept of “passing the savings onto the consumer” actually happening, is one of the most obvious lies ever told.
FIRE? NO NO NO! This building type is NOT more susceptible to Fire. This statement is inaccurate and inflammatory. A single story house is more at risk, why? because these structures have to be built with wood rated as noncombustible. Remember? your single family house has no such requirement in most jurisdictions. Auther simply does not know what she is talking about.
It’s funny, because these are built horribly cheap, and yet cost more than double a mortgage most of the time. The idea is to cut costs up front and charge “competitive rents” (read: equally high rents) and then maximize profit in the long term. These types of apartments are a plague on a city because they are of terrible quality long-term and still cost tenants just as much as any other housing. In most cities, landlords would charge anywhere from $900 – $1.5k for a 1 bed/1 bath room in these apartments. It’s ludicrous. It isn’t solving the housing crisis. The problem wasn’t a lack of homes. It was a lack of affordable homes. So building infinite numbers of these architectural monstrosities will do nothing to fix that. It just lets greedy landlords profit even further.
Overreliance on single-family homes creates sprawling, car-dependent, unwalkable, hard-to-maintain cities. Although a real solution would be to fix our zoning laws to allow for the construction of missing middle housing (townhouses, duplexes etc) – density is critical for fixing the housing crisis and 5-1s do provide density.
Funny cuz they don’t feel like cheap homes. To get a decent appt in my city I’m still looking at ~$1500/month. Which if I’m following the rule of thumb that you shouldn’t spend more than 30% of your income on rent, means that realistically I need to earn more than $60k a year to even begin considering most options in my area.
Is it too much to ask that folks making information articles stop using the word ‘cement’ when they mean ‘concrete’? Good luck building a column from just cement. Also, this construction method (faster and cheaper) is driven by the developer, not the architect. This fundamental lack of understanding of who makes decisions on the building (hint: it’s the person paying for it) is just sad.
“and the all Look Exactly the Same…” Except that they Don’t. The first three buildings shown are rendered completely different from each other – they are made with different materials, details, proportions and configurations. And that is part of the reason why this building type is popular. Because the exterior material is non-structural and is simply hanging on the structural frame behind it, the building can be rendered in any styles and with any material. It can be brick, thin brick, cement board, wood shingle, vinyl siding, metal panels, stucco, high pressure compact panel, custom wood panels, GFRC – you name it. The contention that these structures all look the same is ridiculous, as is demonstrated by the variety of styles shown throughout the article. Does the author of this article not know the difference between a building type and a style of architecture? If not, maybe she should think twice about posting on a subject for which she has little knowledge.
Just wait, eventually you will just find yourself renting a space for your a.d.u. . Maybe it will be stacked and packed four stories up in a modern building . Or maybe it will be in your best friends backyard, maybe across the street from your college in a paved parking lot . Who knows ? Just don’t call your new home a shipping container . It’s a modern, practical, affordable HOME you bought at Costco called an ADU .
The problem facing the”1″ is Amazon and the like. There is not enough foot traffic that spends I. The retail space anymore. People would rather save a few pennies then have their neighbor employed. This is putting mom and pop stores out. Where I live, the owners of a hamburger stand were able to sell their on the main drag lot for enough to invest and make more of the interest then they could running a restaurant. 2 single family lots BTW. And this had happened up and down the area. Affordable housing is a matter of perception. Everyone is not entitled to live in the neighborhood they wish. You do have the opportunity to earn your way into the neighborhood though? And when a neighborhood gets revamped, Its not driving out locals, they where already there, they don’t have to sell! They sell because they see $$. You can buy in under appreciated area and fix it up. Have your friends and circle do the same. This has happened all over for years. Detroit, Asbury Park, south Philadelphia, Hell’s Kitchen, Brooklyn, Bronx, The problems are not cost, it’s the lack of productivity among those who complain they can’t afford.
Don’t know if you have noticed but all you need is one tiny accident on a windy day during construction and the whole structure – sometimes even the whole complex – is leveled. The fuel load to too high and they often burn down neighboring buildings just from radiant heat alone. The structures do become considerably safer after the fire retardant dry wall is installed. But until then, they are like an angry child with a box of matches. There have been fires all over the country, Ca, NY, Tx, and NC just to name a few. It should be illegal to build 4 and 5 stories out of wood framing. Forget flying embers. The radiant heat is enough to ignite other wood frame building accross the street. Just look at the complex in Edgewater NJ.
This article is such cope. All the highest comments are from people saying these buildings are attractive looking, and that’s because they are. Talk about trying to make controversy for the sake of controversy, the buildings look good and just because a YouTube article otherwise doesn’t change that fact.
I’m not even mad about the facade of the buildings and the fact that they look alike. What I detest with my whole being is the stupid floor plans that are always the same. Also the fact that bedroom carpeting isn’t optional. There’s no consideration for people with allergies at all for most apartments. Ridiculous! Also, who the heck came up with carpets in corridors/hallways and elevators?! Have you gone mad?! Decor rugs are fine for entryways and space definition, but that’s about it!
Ugly? meh? i respectfully disagree, especially with the examples shown in this article. They use contemporary aesthetics that emphasize relaxing horizontal lines and unique finishes to imply a luxury feel. I love east coast steel and stone too, but these are nice in their own ways. There are plenty of harsh, ugly steel and stone residential buildings all over. Anyone who calls these exampled apartment homes ugly is suffering from NIMBYism, and wouldn’t be happy with any high density housing near them.
The long and the short of it is that these buildings are basically disposable. That might be OK for short term rental properties, but I would never live in one! When I first started seeing these they would put brick fire walls every so many units, then the “fire wall” became an adhesive backed foil! Anyone who’s ever built anything out of wood would know that building something of this size is ridiculous. Then there’s the hardie board cladding which has no structural rigidity, cracks and breaks easily and is generally fire resistant. The “fireproofing” really does nothing of the sort and will degrade over time. So essentially you’re wrapping an extremely large flammable structure in a fireproof skin!!! What could go wrong? I also find it amusing that the residents park their cars in a safer, better built structure (steel or concrete) then the one they actually live in!