5 ms·

> It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and Japan's tendency to favor new construction You make it sound like these are opposing views but doesn't

> It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and Japan's tendency to favor new construction You make it sound like these are opposing views but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction? In the US and Japan I understand that a new build is seen as attractive and the best option for people with money to do it? If you want a real contrast, in the UK new build is seen as the worst option, for people without any money. People with money in the UK buy old houses. The older the better. I would literally never buy a new-build in the UK unless I had no other option whatsoever. I'm saving up to upgrade to an older house here.

dimitrios1 5y ago
> but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction? I don't know if my view reflects the majority, but around where I am from, older and even historic homes are the crown jewels because they were built before the race to the bottom occured in construction -- namely cheaper, thinner walls, smaller usable space, etc. Older homes are built with old growth lumber, and often come with thicker plaster walls and better layouts.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > I don't know if my view reflects the majority It doesn't. For example this article expressing surprise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previously-owned-u-s-homes-are-now-more-expensive-than-new-ones https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previousl... Even the term 'previously owned' for a house is baffling to UK ears. Of course a house is previously owned. Why would you be building your own?
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. In the US, homes are by default assumed "previously owned" unless specifically advertised as new. And only the very well off tend to demo and build fresh. Most people will remodel and add in to existing structures.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. Ok but Bloomberg have.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
        Yeah, but I concur with the gp: I've never seen the phrase "previously owned" applied to housing; it sounds made up. Listings either specify "new construction" or it's assumed that the house is currently occupied.
- redtexture 5y ago
  And older structures have much less insulation, compared to the present building code, as put forth in the so called International (actually US) Residential Building Code, adopted by most states. Energy use for heating and cooling is typically much higher in older buildings, over a lifetime of decades.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I don't know about building codes, but I know a 1900 house built from foot-thick stone is better insulating that anything we build today.
    - Pxtl 5y ago
      I have never seen a building from that era with foot-thick stone, you have to go back further for that here in Canada. The century homes here in southern Ontario are double-wall brick with beefy 2x4 framing within the interior wall, then lath and plaster, and no insulation.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        My 1930s UK house is foot-thick stone and brick on all walls, even internal. It doesn't have insulation except in the attic because it's one absolutely massive heat-sink mass - by the time it's warmed up from the summer it's already autumn and then it starts emitting the heat usefully instead. That's the way to build, in my opinion.
        earleybird 5y ago
        Thermal mass as a tool is so very under utilized. When it's considered, it's often only on a 24hr cycle. As you point out, the 365 day cycle may be even more important. For a modern take (with for realz engineers and measurements even) have a look at Drake Landing community in southern Alberta. https://www.dlsc.ca/ https://www.dlsc.ca/ edit: They've discontinued the 'Current Conditions' part of their website but I followed it with some regularity in the early years
mixmastamyk 5y ago
No. Nimbys have been in control for decades and only starting to lose their grip. In our city most folks are trapped in shitbox two story apartments from the sixties, that are now being renovated into luxury-light because supply is so highly constrained. Older mostly exists on the east coast with a few exceptions.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > shitbox two story apartments from the sixties Literally not sure if you consider these old or new-builds for the purpose of this conversation? I'd call anything post 1950 'new-build'.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    New means now or recently. Populations grow, so expecting everyone to live in homes from a century ago simply won't work.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > or recently Right but 'recently' is relative. To me 1960s is recently. That's when people started building 'modernly'. But I guess not for you?
      - prawn 5y ago
        In Australia, before 1940s or so might be "character", 1960s might be "conventional" (said generally with distaste) and recent/new might be 2005+. Character houses are usually improved (with a matching or contemporary extension) and conventional houses are often demolished. Character example with contemporary reno but garish fitout (antlers!): https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-highgate-136506030 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-highgate-136... Conventional - you can see from the second photo being a top-down, they expect people to buy and demolish: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-clapham-136463514 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-clapham-1364... New build on half a block - common here to buy, sub-divide the block, and build two semi-detached or two-storey homes: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-myrtle+bank-136612942 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-myrtle+bank-...
HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
It's not that we particularly favor new construction; it's more that we have a lot of empty land. Most new houses are going up on land that was either unused or farmland previously as opposed to having to demolish an existing house and rebuild on the plot.
0xffff2 5y ago
In Japan, my understanding is that it's common to tear down a perfectly good home and build a new one on the site. That pretty much never happens in the US.

dimitrios1 5y ago

> but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction? I don't know if my view reflects the majority, but around where I am from, older and even historic homes are the crown jewels because they were built before the race to the bottom occured in construction -- namely cheaper, thinner walls, smaller usable space, etc. Older homes are built with old growth lumber, and often come with thicker plaster walls and better layouts.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> I don't know if my view reflects the majority It doesn't. For example this article expressing surprise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previously-owned-u-s-homes-are-now-more-expensive-than-new-ones https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previousl... Even the term 'previously owned' for a house is baffling to UK ears. Of course a house is previously owned. Why would you be building your own?
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. In the US, homes are by default assumed "previously owned" unless specifically advertised as new. And only the very well off tend to demo and build fresh. Most people will remodel and add in to existing structures.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. Ok but Bloomberg have.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
      Yeah, but I concur with the gp: I've never seen the phrase "previously owned" applied to housing; it sounds made up. Listings either specify "new construction" or it's assumed that the house is currently occupied.
redtexture 5y ago
And older structures have much less insulation, compared to the present building code, as put forth in the so called International (actually US) Residential Building Code, adopted by most states. Energy use for heating and cooling is typically much higher in older buildings, over a lifetime of decades.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I don't know about building codes, but I know a 1900 house built from foot-thick stone is better insulating that anything we build today.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    I have never seen a building from that era with foot-thick stone, you have to go back further for that here in Canada. The century homes here in southern Ontario are double-wall brick with beefy 2x4 framing within the interior wall, then lath and plaster, and no insulation.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      My 1930s UK house is foot-thick stone and brick on all walls, even internal. It doesn't have insulation except in the attic because it's one absolutely massive heat-sink mass - by the time it's warmed up from the summer it's already autumn and then it starts emitting the heat usefully instead. That's the way to build, in my opinion.
      - earleybird 5y ago
        Thermal mass as a tool is so very under utilized. When it's considered, it's often only on a 24hr cycle. As you point out, the 365 day cycle may be even more important. For a modern take (with for realz engineers and measurements even) have a look at Drake Landing community in southern Alberta. https://www.dlsc.ca/ https://www.dlsc.ca/ edit: They've discontinued the 'Current Conditions' part of their website but I followed it with some regularity in the early years

mixmastamyk 5y ago

No. Nimbys have been in control for decades and only starting to lose their grip. In our city most folks are trapped in shitbox two story apartments from the sixties, that are now being renovated into luxury-light because supply is so highly constrained. Older mostly exists on the east coast with a few exceptions.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> shitbox two story apartments from the sixties Literally not sure if you consider these old or new-builds for the purpose of this conversation? I'd call anything post 1950 'new-build'.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  New means now or recently. Populations grow, so expecting everyone to live in homes from a century ago simply won't work.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > or recently Right but 'recently' is relative. To me 1960s is recently. That's when people started building 'modernly'. But I guess not for you?
    - prawn 5y ago
      In Australia, before 1940s or so might be "character", 1960s might be "conventional" (said generally with distaste) and recent/new might be 2005+. Character houses are usually improved (with a matching or contemporary extension) and conventional houses are often demolished. Character example with contemporary reno but garish fitout (antlers!): https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-highgate-136506030 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-highgate-136... Conventional - you can see from the second photo being a top-down, they expect people to buy and demolish: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-clapham-136463514 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-clapham-1364... New build on half a block - common here to buy, sub-divide the block, and build two semi-detached or two-storey homes: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-myrtle+bank-136612942 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-myrtle+bank-...

HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago

It's not that we particularly favor new construction; it's more that we have a lot of empty land. Most new houses are going up on land that was either unused or farmland previously as opposed to having to demolish an existing house and rebuild on the plot.

0xffff2 5y ago

In Japan, my understanding is that it's common to tear down a perfectly good home and build a new one on the site. That pretty much never happens in the US.