2 ms·
"Nobody in the year 2000 would consider building a house to last more than 25 years" seems so odd to my "modern" ears. Is that because housing at that time was
by sailfast 7y ago
"Nobody in the year 2000 would consider building a house to last more than 25 years" seems so odd to my "modern" ears.
Is that because housing at that time was focused on industrialized pre-war / baby-boom production to meet demand and not on dwelling? Mortgages were still 30 years, right?
So interesting to read these things. A true time capsule.
- ghaff 7y agoProbably born of thinking of housing as basically a manufactured somewhat disposable consumer good. Something like Levittown was probably not that far off.
- outworlder 7y agoA house, as in the building itself, may be getting closer to being "disposable" if we start 3d printing them more often.
- ur-whale 7y agoIf you think about it for a while, it's actually not such a bad idea provided it could be made environmentally friendly.
- derekp7 7y agoThe problem is that typically you buy a house attached to a piece of property. So if the house is 20 years into a 25 year life, you have an issue of trying to 1) dispose of the house at the 25 year mark, and 2) finding a place to live for several months while the house is demolished and rebuilt. The only way this would work is with manufactured homes. Even then, I haven't heard of anyone having their existing home hauled away while a new one is wheeled in place the same day (except on the lower end, with park model campers).
- jcelerier 7y ago> seems so odd to my "modern" ears. isn't that pretty much the case in Japan ? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusable-housing-revolution https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl...