4 ms·

> 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 h

> 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

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