Hello forum community,
I hope it’s okay that I’m asking a question here as a tenant, because I expect a lot of expertise on the topic...
A few months ago, we moved into a rented apartment on the first floor of an old building (late 19th century, three-story brick building). The apartments were renovated 5 years ago, and the walls were plastered with clay plaster.
Now, the tenant in the apartment below us told us that recently, severe cracks have appeared in the ceiling plaster of her apartment. She also finds our children quite loud. That may be true, as they are quite lively and sometimes run around inside the apartment. However, we make sure they don’t constantly jump off chairs or similar. Additionally, all the apartments have laminate flooring (according to the landlord, with impact sound insulation), and we can clearly hear the tenants above us when they walk around, even though they tend to be quiet.
She spoke to the landlord about this, and after they inspected the damage, it seems that the entire plaster in her ceiling will need to be replaced. Of course, this is the landlord’s responsibility, but the time required is significant, especially for a single mother with two children, as she has to empty all the rooms.
The tenant below connects this to us moving into the apartment above, saying the cracks only appeared since we moved in. Apparently, the previous tenants were quieter. I really can’t imagine that two children weighing a maximum of 20 kg (44 lbs) running around could cause the plaster below to crumble? Based on my basic understanding of construction, there are always cavities in ceilings, so vibrations shouldn’t be transmitted so directly, right? Sure, if I had two overweight 15-year-olds regularly practicing martial arts indoors, I could imagine that, but with slender kindergarten children? What kind of building is it if it can’t handle that…?
The noise issue is separate, and I understand that. We are considering putting carpets in the main rooms.
Is it conceivable that running children could have such an impact? Or how else could cracks in the clay plaster below appear within just a few months? By the way, we also have cracks, but they seem normal and don’t look like the plaster is about to come down.
Thanks in advance if anyone took the time to read this!
I hope it’s okay that I’m asking a question here as a tenant, because I expect a lot of expertise on the topic...
A few months ago, we moved into a rented apartment on the first floor of an old building (late 19th century, three-story brick building). The apartments were renovated 5 years ago, and the walls were plastered with clay plaster.
Now, the tenant in the apartment below us told us that recently, severe cracks have appeared in the ceiling plaster of her apartment. She also finds our children quite loud. That may be true, as they are quite lively and sometimes run around inside the apartment. However, we make sure they don’t constantly jump off chairs or similar. Additionally, all the apartments have laminate flooring (according to the landlord, with impact sound insulation), and we can clearly hear the tenants above us when they walk around, even though they tend to be quiet.
She spoke to the landlord about this, and after they inspected the damage, it seems that the entire plaster in her ceiling will need to be replaced. Of course, this is the landlord’s responsibility, but the time required is significant, especially for a single mother with two children, as she has to empty all the rooms.
The tenant below connects this to us moving into the apartment above, saying the cracks only appeared since we moved in. Apparently, the previous tenants were quieter. I really can’t imagine that two children weighing a maximum of 20 kg (44 lbs) running around could cause the plaster below to crumble? Based on my basic understanding of construction, there are always cavities in ceilings, so vibrations shouldn’t be transmitted so directly, right? Sure, if I had two overweight 15-year-olds regularly practicing martial arts indoors, I could imagine that, but with slender kindergarten children? What kind of building is it if it can’t handle that…?
The noise issue is separate, and I understand that. We are considering putting carpets in the main rooms.
Is it conceivable that running children could have such an impact? Or how else could cracks in the clay plaster below appear within just a few months? By the way, we also have cracks, but they seem normal and don’t look like the plaster is about to come down.
Thanks in advance if anyone took the time to read this!
bierkuh83 schrieb:
That is a rather simplistic conclusion, since the cause is more related to lifestyle than to the absolute number of individuals. But by all means, continue with your misanthropic approach. Have fun. So please, no swear words.
So you think people can still be saved? Or do you mean they can be educated? Or maybe progress will help us move forward? So what is it? What is stopping them from destroying the planet?
I don’t see any solution other than drastic reduction.
The drastic reduction is indeed caused by humanity. The Earth itself will recover. We are only a blink of an eye. It is unfortunate that we will eventually wipe ourselves out, but given the mindset (including my own), that is unlikely to change.
Therefore, I’m not too worried and will continue to have children. Because I wouldn’t want to miss out on them.
Therefore, I’m not too worried and will continue to have children. Because I wouldn’t want to miss out on them.
kaho674 schrieb:
Because if we stop exploiting Africa and polluting the air, they down there will just start doing it then. [...]
I actually support the one-child policy worldwide. At least for about 20 years to start.The Chinese implemented your crazy idea more than 20 years ago already. Just look at how happy they are with the results :-(
Your assumptions and conclusions are prime Eva Herman-style logic. Only if we change our behavior - and our children adopt this faster and more radically than the older generations - will we provide different role models to emerging developing countries. China’s only children are now reaching the age where they become the new consumers of Dieselgate Volkswagen cars. And in general, only children typically are not exactly leaders in social skills. There may be fewer children, but those children often learn less about sharing (both with others and with nature).
kaho674 schrieb:
That must be something local. Try translating it into Saxon dialect or standard German.“Heu-wä-gel-chen” (literally “little hay wagon”) symbolically means that hot-headedness needs time to dissipate like smoke. It gets that time when you take a deep breath as long as it takes to slowly pronounce a multi-syllabic word. The wagon used to carry hay was often pulled by slow, older animals.
Hay is bulky but light, and the little hay wagons jolt along at a leisurely pace. Doesn’t Saxon livestock eat hay, or are you a city kid?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
The Chinese implemented your crazy idea more than 20 years ago; just look at how happy they are with the results :-(
Your assumptions and conclusions are prime examples of flawed logic. Only if we change our behavior—and younger generations adopt these changes faster and more radically than older ones—will we give emerging economies different role models. The only children in China are just now reaching the age where they represent the new consumer potential for Dieselgate VW cars. And generally, only children are typically not "leaders" in social matters. There may be fewer children, but those children tend to have a harder time learning to share—with others and with nature.
“Hay wagon” is a symbolic term meaning that hot-headedness needs time to burn off. And it gets that time when you take a deep breath as long as it takes to slowly pronounce a multisyllabic word. The cart used to transport hay was often pulled by slow, older animals.
Hay is bulky but light; hay wagons move steadily. Don’t Saxon animals eat hay, or are you a city kid? Well, I don’t know Eva personally. Is she important?
As for happiness and the Chinese, I’m not sure. Measuring happiness is already difficult enough. I can’t really say what specific preferences the Chinese have. But apparently, they were unhappy enough to introduce the one-child policy. To base the outcome on whether only children are worse at sharing… seriously?
I don’t believe people will learn to behave differently before the planet is ruined. Just look at the results of these climate conferences. It’s a joke.
Yeah, funny. I’m a city kid. We never had hay wagons.
kaho674 schrieb:
I’m not familiar with Eva. Is she important? She was a news anchor who, if she had remained silent, could have continued as a philosopher. Instead, she chose to publish her worldview.
kaho674 schrieb:
I can’t say what specific preferences the Chinese have. But they were apparently so unhappy that they introduced the one-child policy. Really? You base the outcome on whether only children share less well? The Chinese had the simple but brilliant idea long before you, so long that it can now be considered evaluated — with disappointing results. That’s all. I also pointed out that logically, a one-child policy means you end up with only children, who then only get to practice dealing with the fact that they’re not the only ones in the world when they start kindergarten. That actually makes worse exactly what you want to fix.
This is classic Eva Herman logic.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
That was a news anchor who, if she had kept quiet, could have remained a philosopher. Instead, she chose to put her worldview on paper.
The Chinese had the brilliant idea long before you did, so it can now be considered evaluated—with disappointing results. That’s all. Besides, I pointed out that from a one-child policy it logically follows that all children born would be only children. They then only get to practice in kindergarten dealing with the fact that they are not alone in the world. That makes exactly what you want to fix even worse.
That’s Eva Herman logic. Yes, I’m not claiming it’s my idea. Why is the result disappointing? Did the Chinese say that?
That’s interesting. So you mean only children are so selfish and inconsiderate that they make things even worse than if there were at least two siblings. Bold theory. Thinking of the many only children I know, they would be quite upset by this theory.
But let’s ask differently: How do you solve overpopulation?