3 ms·

The old way of heating homes in the UK was to provide little insulation but lots of thermal mass. A strong fire would heat up the mass in the chimney and around

The old way of heating homes in the UK was to provide little insulation but lots of thermal mass. A strong fire would heat up the mass in the chimney and around the home. The fire could be damped down over night and relight it the morning. There is also a mentality of homes being forever. My house was built originally in 1870 and that's not particularly old. In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt.

dpark 8y ago
> In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt. I don't really understand where this belief arises from. Most homes in the US are built on undeveloped land. It's not typical to tear down an existing house to build a new one. To the extent that it happens, it's generally because an area is essentially undergoing redevelopment. i.e. a rural area is being consumed by an urban city. In cases like that, the purpose is to increase density. It's pretty rare to tear down a single family home just to construct an equivalent but newer one on the property.
- BenjiWiebe 8y ago
  In rural marion county Kansas, it's fairly common for a family to tear down their 80-100+ house and build a new one. I'm living in a 6yr old house that replaced our 100+ yr old house.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I'm just arguing anecdote against anecdote at this point, but I question the frequency of this, mostly because it's so absurdly expensive to tear down a house to rebuild (because you have to buy the house before you tear it down). In my experience, I see houses torn down to rebuild only to increase density (two homes replace one) or to replace with a fundamentally different type of house (3500 sq ft house replaces a 1200sq ft house, modern energy-efficient house replaces unmaintained home on the verge of falling down). The value gap between the new home(s) and old home has to be very large to justify a teardown. To the extent that teardowns are more common in the US than the UK, I imagine it's driven mostly by the ability to massively upgrade in the process. If you live in a 150-year-old stone house in the UK that's been updated over the years so that it's got modern electrical and plumbing and already maxes out your square footage (meterage?), what would you gain by tearing down except a lot more debt and some better insulation? With that said, I think this math generally doesn't work out for Americans, either, who generally trade up homes rather than rebuild.
- denimnerd42 8y ago
  only in high property value areas does it usually happen. say the house was built in 1930-1950 and is 2000sqft yet the 1/4 acre property is worth $650,000
robocat 8y ago
Raze, rebuild, repeat: why Japan knocks down its houses after 30 years https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusable-housing-revolution https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/cities/2017...

dpark 8y ago

> In the US old homes (except perhaps in a few stylish old areas) are something which need torn down and rebuilt. I don't really understand where this belief arises from. Most homes in the US are built on undeveloped land. It's not typical to tear down an existing house to build a new one. To the extent that it happens, it's generally because an area is essentially undergoing redevelopment. i.e. a rural area is being consumed by an urban city. In cases like that, the purpose is to increase density. It's pretty rare to tear down a single family home just to construct an equivalent but newer one on the property.

BenjiWiebe 8y ago
In rural marion county Kansas, it's fairly common for a family to tear down their 80-100+ house and build a new one. I'm living in a 6yr old house that replaced our 100+ yr old house.
- dpark 8y ago
  I'm just arguing anecdote against anecdote at this point, but I question the frequency of this, mostly because it's so absurdly expensive to tear down a house to rebuild (because you have to buy the house before you tear it down). In my experience, I see houses torn down to rebuild only to increase density (two homes replace one) or to replace with a fundamentally different type of house (3500 sq ft house replaces a 1200sq ft house, modern energy-efficient house replaces unmaintained home on the verge of falling down). The value gap between the new home(s) and old home has to be very large to justify a teardown. To the extent that teardowns are more common in the US than the UK, I imagine it's driven mostly by the ability to massively upgrade in the process. If you live in a 150-year-old stone house in the UK that's been updated over the years so that it's got modern electrical and plumbing and already maxes out your square footage (meterage?), what would you gain by tearing down except a lot more debt and some better insulation? With that said, I think this math generally doesn't work out for Americans, either, who generally trade up homes rather than rebuild.
denimnerd42 8y ago
only in high property value areas does it usually happen. say the house was built in 1930-1950 and is 2000sqft yet the 1/4 acre property is worth $650,000

robocat 8y ago

Raze, rebuild, repeat: why Japan knocks down its houses after 30 years https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusable-housing-revolution https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/cities/2017...