Krautkanal.com

Veröffentlicht am 2017-12-07 11:42:25 in /int/

/int/ 42907805: Why did medievals build such big buildings? Even today ...

vladarbatov Avatar
vladarbatov:#42907805

Why did medievals build such big buildings? Even today buildings of this scale are only built either by private enterprise or by government; that is, they're built when they're an investment or when there's just too much money around. They're basically the size of a small church, think about it. I know that households back then had far more functions than today, that families were bigger, that staying inside the walls was important and that this had a price, that good location in a good street was valuable, etc, but buildings these big were probably absurdly expensive, and took too long to build, one would think that they would do everything possible to not require such big buildings to be built.

Where's the medievalist french to answer this?

Bernd Avatar
Bernd:#42907835

Why do you assume a single family inhabited one of those houses?
It's dont, they housed several

kuldarkalvik Avatar
kuldarkalvik:#42907848

How come a house woth 2 floors is a huge building?

I guess 3-4 floor-buildings are mostly found in town centers, basically same reason why they build skyscrapers today, people want to live closer to where trade is happening to avoid wasting time and money on travel each day

chrisvanderkooi Avatar
chrisvanderkooi:#42907860

Because back then not everythig was about cost efficiency but human needs.

ggavrilo Avatar
ggavrilo:#42907863

>>42907805
They are not that big, you know. Enough room for a bourgeois family and a handful of domestics under the roof.

keyuri85 Avatar
keyuri85:#42907865

> period-timber-fr[...].jpg
This one looks to be having a number of structural problems

abotap Avatar
abotap:#42907876

>>42907835
I don't, and I assume many of them weren't even residential. My point is that given that there were no companies back then the building of such big buildings came from individual initiative. Some guy had to have enough money to bank that. Think of a tavern, for example, it was probably one of these big buildings, but could an average tavern owner really afford so easily to build such big buildings? Because these buildings are everywhere in medieval downtowns.

buleswapnil Avatar
buleswapnil:#42907899

>buildings these big were probably absurdly expensive, and took too long to build

Why do you think it's "absurdly expensive" tbh? A framework in a Fachwerk house is quite cheap compared to, say, a loghouse. Most of the walls by volume consist of hay, twigs, clay, dung, which are put between beams. Is it expensive? And raising framework structures is also quite easy and fast to do. The old method also didn't involve any metal, beams connect to each other by reusing pressure that builds up inside grooves (dunno how it's called)

I think only the stone foundation was of any value, and you have 1 foundation whether it's a 2 or 4 floor house, so it didn't really matter how many floors you had

yassiryahya Avatar
yassiryahya:#42907900

No usury > wealth

rawdiggie Avatar
rawdiggie:#42907901

They're hardly that big, and would have taken a few months to build at most.

nateschulte Avatar
nateschulte:#42907910

1. People practiced their trade mostly in their homes and needed space for it.
2. They had big families.
3. Craftsmen had their apprentices and assistants living in their house mostly.
4. The rooms are smaller and the space is more cramped than it looks.

rdbannon Avatar
rdbannon:#42907924

>>42907876
>given that there were no companies back then

But there were.

georgedyjr Avatar
georgedyjr:#42907936

>>42907899
pic related

it's a bunch of wodden beams with wattle and clay in between

very cheap actually!

andrewgurylev Avatar
andrewgurylev:#42907966

>>42907936
Cheaper than stone in this region but not that cheap. The cheapest construction had almost no wood or stone, it's only dirt and straw.

trickyolddog Avatar
trickyolddog:#42908000

>>42907899
>>42907936
I just assumed by its size that it was very expensive, and still do, because even today in rich countries with far wealthier people and cheaper construction methods individual families don't build that big.

grafxiq Avatar
grafxiq:#42908029

>>42908000
Its the ground that is exspensive not the building itself.

jqueryalmeida Avatar
jqueryalmeida:#42908048

>>42907876
>could an average tavern owner really afford so easily to build such big buildings?

They had more than enough cheap wood back then.
Human work hour also wasn't expensive. Also the
tavern guy could have rented the building for instance. Or his wife had inherited it, or, or or.

>there were no companies back then

You wot?

garethbjenkins Avatar
garethbjenkins:#42908067

>>42908048
Construction wood was very expensive back in the day...

seanwashington Avatar
seanwashington:#42908072

>>42908000
I think there's a conspiracy to raise estate value for no reason.

Dunno how deforested Germany was in the middle ages but in Russia you just saw off some trees and you're good to go. The only thing that required specialists was stove, you need skills to properly make them so that they were efficient in winters, so there's always a professional "stove-maker" in every village

joshuapekera Avatar
joshuapekera:#42908104

1. Medieval families were larger than today. About half a dozen people per household was normal.

2. Space within city walls was limited and thus expensive. Only solution for more affordable living space is to build up, just like today.

3. heating closely built multiple story houses is more efficient, since the warmth from the oven on the ground floor would rise upwards, heating the upper floors automatically. The sleeping rooms were usually on the first floor right above the kitchen with the oven, so it would be the only room constantly heated also during the night by the residual heat of the oven. Because before the invention of central heating, fuel for heating (wood, coal) was expensive, so one had to make the most efficient and economical use of it.

3. It is perfectly viable medieval tech to build up to 3 story houses with wood, but above that it gets problematic.

4. Most such old buildings surviving in towns and cities today are from the wealthier gentry and merchants, which wanted to display their wealth through their houses. They could afford to build them that big and fancy, so they did.

1markiz Avatar
1markiz:#42908145

Actually, it was all dictated by the function of the medieval cities. They were very densily built-up, because most of the commute happened by foot. People needed to have all of the important things within the reach of a short walk. That's why there were so many narrow streets with high (for medieval standards) buildings - it was the easiest and cheapest way to concetrate businesses and offices on a relatively small area

nasirwd Avatar
nasirwd:#42908151

>>42908104
>4. Most such old buildings surviving in towns and cities today are from the wealthier gentry and merchants, which wanted to display their wealth through their houses. They could afford to build them that big and fancy, so they did.
That makes sense. Very interesting.

mat_stevens Avatar
mat_stevens:#42908180

A typical house in a medieval town would have a business on the first floor and a warehouse on the top floor to store goods for said business. Considering you also need some living space, then three stories was pretty much the minimum. Also, as said before, the expensive part was buying the land, not building the house.

timgthomas Avatar
timgthomas:#42908216

They had workshops in the first floor. Dürer house for example.

joki4 Avatar
joki4:#42908251

>>42908067

Stones, real bricks and mortar constuction methods were definitely more expensive.

carlyson Avatar
carlyson:#42908254

It's not that big.
It's just what needed to house the average city-dwelling family of that time.

lisakey1986 Avatar
lisakey1986:#42908287

>>42907805
It's not that big in person, I was actually surprised how cramped it is

Neuste Fäden in diesem Brett: