|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 6, 2006 10:36:08 GMT -5
not to mention that todays cars are almost maintenence free. No more plug wires, plugs last 50k miles and ball jonts, tie rod ends wearing out every 20k miles are a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by thelastresort on Sept 6, 2006 10:39:32 GMT -5
not to mention that todays cars are almost maintenence free. No more plug wires, plugs last 50k miles and ball jonts, tie rod ends wearing out every 20k miles are a thing of the past. right, when was the last time you had to have a "tune up"? In the old days, I saw my dad's mechanic more than I saw some of my relatives. I guess the only problem now is when something does go, it costs an arm and a leg for the parts.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyscorpio on Sept 6, 2006 12:39:53 GMT -5
and do you know why?? Nance please stop cause your showing your ignorance.. What basis are you basing this perception of quality on?? Are you an engineer or and architect? What background do you have to base this on? Or do you just *think* that fiberboard and plastic is lesser 'quality?" Professional or not, Nance has a right to her opinion about materials, which I probably share. As does anyone who complains about vinyl siding, I presume . I don't care how durable plastic is, I find it repulsive. Ditto Formica, particle board, etc., etc. This is what complicates any discussion about build quality--it's not just about durability. It's also about aesthetics (as well as compatibility with health concerns but that's a whole 'nother, long, probably heated and fruitless discussion ;D). Yes, they do. But they sure don't look as good, if y'ask me...
|
|
|
Post by thelastresort on Sept 6, 2006 12:41:35 GMT -5
Personally, I think some of the new condos look G-R-E-A-T. they are just not worth the money.
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 6, 2006 16:00:48 GMT -5
I agree.... scorpo- we are not debating on HOW things look but we are debating on HOW they are built.. Personally, I think some of the new condos look G-R-E-A-T. they are just not worth the money.
|
|
|
Post by Doowopper on Sept 6, 2006 19:50:01 GMT -5
Im going to express my opinion in a strange way, but I think it's a good way to do it. Hopefully I don't confuse anyone haha! The new cars are built with newer technology. Different materials replace older ones. They have extra little features not found in the old cars, fancy radios, car "listens" to you, navigation systems etc. The engines require less work. Everything is diagnosed by computers. Bodies are stronger against rust. However, the old cars have somthing new cars don't. Individuality. Most Americans have trouble discerning between Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, Chevy's etc. They all are built with the same basic styling principlas. When a 1960 Thunderbird goes down the road, it turns heads "there is a car with style" "wow, that's a sexy car" "look at those fins and all that chrome" The old cars have a certain magic to them. While I was not around to see them while still being produced, when I see a classic car going down the road I see somthing unique from a time gone by. A time when things were good, and the blue-collar worker was proud. Also, cars were more distinguisable, like older motels and many older houses. I swear every new house (and there have been hundreds and hundreds) in my town has the same exact generic look. I see Wildwoods older motels this way. Maybe they don't have the newest modern materials. Maybe their methods of construction are dated. However, they have one thing that most condos don't have. Individuality. Like the 1960 Thunderbird they symbolize a bygone era of prosperity and happiness. And just as old cars are put out of their misery, and replaced with new ones, I believe Wildwoods worthy motels should be preserved for future generations to enjoy, and like a rusty old car, some need to be replaced with somthing new. I'm sure most of the new condos are built well, but I don't see the love (of design) being put into most of them that was put into the motels. I still think many are put together to quick. Crippled's noticings of sagging soffits, bubbling siding etc. agree with what Iv'e seen there, and with new 900 grand homes being built by me. Bubbling siding, trim blowing off in a weak wind (happened to my house, cheapo short nails) etc. It just seems like many builders today just don't put the pride into their buildings, especially houses, that it appears they once did. Remember I'm not generalizing all builders, just ones Iv'e seen. The Old Vs. the New.
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 6, 2006 20:08:30 GMT -5
well said:) but lets change it around and pick say a.... 62 Valiant and an 07 Challanger.. Which is more pretty??? see the point Im making? Blanket statements like new is better then old OR old is better then new have exceptions....
|
|
|
Post by hulk007 on Sept 6, 2006 22:01:01 GMT -5
A '07 Challenger looks alot like a 1970 challenger. As I said earlier the more things change the more they stay the same.
|
|
|
Post by Crippled_Visions on Sept 6, 2006 22:10:04 GMT -5
Let me share a story from my high school days. I drove a 75 chevy nova and I got into an accident with a "new" 91 Honda Civic. The Civic hit my left front fender at a speed of approximately 35 mph. The Civic was totaled in the accident....the front smashed far into the engine compartment. My nova had a destroyed fender, flat front tire and bent frame. I ended up buying a new fender at a junk yard and pulling out the frame with a chain strapped to a tree. I continued to drive the Nova throughout my college years and still managed to sell it for 500 dollars in the late 90s. Sure the car had some rust and needed an occasional tune up...but it was a solid car. New cars are just not built with the same strength as the old ones....unless you buy an SUV. And I know the new cars are designed to fold like accordions for safety reasons...but I still feel safer in a tank rather than a plastic toy.
|
|
|
Post by MMM on Sept 7, 2006 0:40:49 GMT -5
Did you get hurt in the accident?
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyscorpio on Sept 7, 2006 2:16:00 GMT -5
What do you think? Would you guess that the average doo-wop motel is still in pretty good shape structurally and functionally? That would be hard to accurately answer. It gonna depend on who built it and HOW they built it and how it was maintained over the years. The salt has a funny way of attacking structures in odd ways. The rebar may rust from within and pop out concrete, etc. I would venture a guess that if they were built correctly and maintained correctly they they would have many of years left by now.. So theoretically at least, there should be some doo-wop motels that still have a lot of capacity left on the odometer (as long as we're gonna keep on mixing up cars and buildings here ). That's my feeling. I agree with Robert's complaints about all the random destruction of buildings that are only 50 years old. It's a gross waste. Maybe the general real estate slowdown will help to put the brakes on it, but like the market with which I'm most familiar--NYC--the shore markets are specialized and may not follow general trends. From a preservation point of view, I think it's too soon to exhale
|
|
|
Post by nance on Sept 7, 2006 2:21:49 GMT -5
Gee, sorry for causing such controversy here. : ( All I was saying is I've lived in older homes and I've lived in newer homes and in MY opinion, I would prefer an older home. That's just MY opinion. So sorry for that. And I'm not a car specialist but I do know the difference between a plastic bumper and a steel bumper. I got in an accident 4 years ago driving a 2001 Chevy Cavalier. My car was totaled but looked like nothing compared to the van. The van looked like someone took a can opener and opened up the whole left side. My cavalier was pretty messed up, too, but I will stand by that kind of car 100%. Now that was a good built car. If I would have been driving my old Ford Taurus with the plastic bumper, I think things would have turned out differently. So maybe it depends on who builds them?
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyscorpio on Sept 7, 2006 2:45:20 GMT -5
I see Wildwoods older motels this way. Maybe they don't have the newest modern materials. Maybe their methods of construction are dated. However, they have one thing that most condos don't have. Individuality. ... I'm sure most of the new condos are built well, but I don't see the love (of design) being put into most of them that was put into the motels. Thoughtful post, Doowopper, and the above points are central. If I am a "condo basher," you've just articulated the major reason for it. I wasn't being entirely honest wherever it was that I said I didn't have anything against condos as such. Condos are exclusionary by nature--they are all about privacy and affluence--and the uninviting facades of typical bland condo construction symbolize that. Every time a festive midcentury motel is replaced by one of these blank-faced fortresses with no real roadside presence, another hunk of the Wildwoods' once-distinct character, or "personality" if you will, has been chipped away. This is not an attractive trend, and it's the reason people are "whining" to the Wildwood Leader and, one can only hope, every other media outlet that will listen about how they're not so sure they really want to continue vacationing on the island. We should never forget that "change" is NOT synonymous with "progress."
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 7, 2006 5:35:34 GMT -5
absolutely! There is plenty of mileage left on most of the hotels. For instance, the Lue ray(sp) was so well maintained that is was, Im sure, in near new condition. What do you think? Would you guess that the average doo-wop motel is still in pretty good shape structurally and functionally? That would be hard to accurately answer. It gonna depend on who built it and HOW they built it and how it was maintained over the years. The salt has a funny way of attacking structures in odd ways. The rebar may rust from within and pop out concrete, etc. I would venture a guess that if they were built correctly and maintained correctly they they would have many of years left by now.. So theoretically at least, there should be some doo-wop motels that still have a lot of capacity left on the odometer (as long as we're gonna keep on mixing up cars and buildings here ). That's my feeling. I agree with Robert's complaints about all the random destruction of buildings that are only 50 years old. It's a gross waste. Maybe the general real estate slowdown will help to put the brakes on it, but like the market with which I'm most familiar--NYC--the shore markets are specialized and may not follow general trends. From a preservation point of view, I think it's too soon to exhale
|
|
|
Post by Rob Ascough on Sept 7, 2006 14:26:08 GMT -5
Excellent point. It seems that things created decades ago have a lot more character than things built today.
I love cars and I love modern cars but there is something about the older ones. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the way they're built. Very few cars on the road are completely unique- most have major components that are used in other cars. Since Ford owns Volvo, the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego use a lot of Volvo S60 and S80 parts. Not a big deal because all are sedans, but it is weird to think that "American" cars are closely related to Swedish cars. Look at what Honda does- the Accord is used as the basis for the Odyysee minivan, which is used as the basis for the Pilot and Acura MDX SUV's, which is used as the basis for the Ridgeline pickup truck. I'm sure you get the idea.
I think building construction is very much like car design. It makes a lot of financial sense to use common designs when building condos instead of designing something completely unique and different. I'm willing to bet a lot of condo buildings are virtually identical, save for the front and sides which can be custom designed to make the entire building look custom designed. I don't think this is the case with old buildings- I doubt the Satellite, Bel Air and Kona Kai were similar behind their unique facades. Their uniqueness was probably a lot more than skin deep.
|
|