4 ms·
US is becoming more like that over time too, if you look at a lot of the new builds in subdivisions it's hard to imagine them lasting that long. I wonder if at
by ska 8y ago
US is becoming more like that over time too, if you look at a lot of the new builds in subdivisions it's hard to imagine them lasting that long.
I wonder if at some point the cultural attitude to "old houses" will become more like Japan's.
[edit]: I find the downvotes curious - I know plenty of people living in ~120 year old houses, and plenty living in 5-15 year old new builds in subdivisions. None of us can really see the new ones being in service in another 110 years. So what I am curious about is - will this (apparent) fact change attitudes towards houses over time? It may just be selection bias. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things about newer builds that are improvements; longevity doesn't seem to be one of them. Of course the older houses have their own set of problems.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dgzl 8y agoGod I hope not. We don't have respect for cleaning and recycling like the Japanese do.
- yayana 8y agoThe US might have been heading that way before the 1980s.. I think it would take a few decades of invariant quality for pre-1950 to not be a frequent requirement. (I would have supposed undamaged pre-war inventory established different tastes in the US, but that wouldn't explain Europe having the same demographic of new building skeptics as the US.)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- driverdan 8y agoYou're right, a lot of new construction is trash. To maximize margins they use the lowest quality / cheapest materials allowed under code. Houses are turning into Ikea furniture.
- gwbas1c 8y agoIt just depends on what kind of home you buy / build. Most people don't understand that "custom home" often implies that the builder puts in higher quality materials.
- MrTonyD 8y agoI consider downvotes on HN to be a badge of honor. It means you are thinking of things that the small-thinkers don't like, and probably will never take the time to seriously consider. Don't let it stop you - there are still people here who want to hear different and innovative perspectives - and we won't downvote you for sharing a perspective that we may not agree with.
- refurb 8y agoI live in a 120 year old house. I would agree they are well built if you’re only measure is “they are still standing”. If it comes down to materials or build quality, no i would not say that 100+ year old homes are better built than newer homes.
- ska 8y ago“they are still standing”. Will you be able to say that of a lot of the new builds in 100 years?
- refurb 8y agoHonestly I don’t know, but I assume so? Especially in SF where the weather is good, it’s pretty much termites that are the biggest threat!!
- toyg 8y agoThat might also be because “120 year old” is now basically the XX century - when people stopped building stuff that lasts, preferring stuff that makes a profit.