4 ms·

My current residence was built in 1890 and I would not consider it 'hopelessly outdated' or in need of rebuilding.

• ljf 11y ago
  Similarly, my home is from the early 1800s and my parents house was first built in the 1600s, but most of the current part was built in the early 1700s. Both of these houses are perfectly functional and warm, and barely use that much more energy than most modern houses (we've insulated them well and use efficient lighting etc). And yes they do have inside toilets ;) I guess housing stock in the UK is just much older.
  • beat 11y ago
    In America, 100 years is a long time. In Europe, 100 miles is a long distance.
  • jandrese 11y ago
    Some of that is survivorship bias however. Crappy homes from the 1600s aren't around anymore. The longer an area has been built up the larger percentage of the houses are well built due to the poorly built houses constantly dying out by the well built houses sticking around.
    • ljf 11y ago
      True, I won't disagree with that, but in the small town I live in most of the houses in the middle of town are 100 to 150 years old - and there aren't many 'missing houses' that have been replaced with new ones since they weren't good enough to last (as far as I can see). Even in London, the terraced house we own is about 150 years old, as are all the houses in the street and pretty much the area - very few of these needed replacing unless they were bombed in the second world war, or some other catastrophic event.
• toomanybeersies 11y ago
  The house I was renting last year had no insulation, no double glazing, no vapor barrier. No fireplace, and a single heatpump. Borer all through the walls, and a hopeless design (rotated the wrong way so the kitchen got no sun) didn't help either. Maybe it's survivors bias, those houses that are 125 years old now tend to be looked after and kept up to date.