2 ms·

> Why can't a 50 year house be good enough, if it means you can provide very cheap housing to a destitute family for two generations, breaking the cycle of pove

> Why can't a 50 year house be good enough, if it means you can provide very cheap housing to a destitute family for two generations, breaking the cycle of poverty and allowing the grandchildren to replace the structure with something more durable and up to date when they will be able to? Ruining a homes resale value, and forcing a family to buy a new home every generation, would absolutely exacerbate poverty rather than alleviate it. It's the classic "it's expensive to be poor" situation - a poor person has to buy cheap boots twice a year. A rich person can buy expensive boots that last a lifetime, and saves money overall. I guess it depends on how cheap you think a styrofoam house would be, but I am skeptical. Even if you get significant savings on material costs, you still need to pay for labor. Labor is typically ~40% of the cost to build a home.

ericmay 5y ago
I'd also add for society it's a cost-benefit analysis. New houses require the usage of resources, they require workers to build the house, etc. Idk if 50 years is long enough, 1,000 years is probably too long, but it's definitely something worth further investigation. It also depends on the climate and potential for disaster. 1,000 year homes in Florida with hurricanes? Probably not. Ohio? Yea that might make sense. -edit- To add I also enjoy and wish we took more advantages of past techniques to build homes in harmony with the environment. Easier to think of examples are things like painting a home white in the Mediterranean, or a-frame homes for snow to slide off, etc. versus how we just copy/paste generica American suburban homes that rely on materials moreso than smart design. It's like cities and towns. We already figured out how to do this in the best way hundreds of years ago (small towns in Europe) but we just keep not doing it in favor of bad design.

ericmay 5y ago

I'd also add for society it's a cost-benefit analysis. New houses require the usage of resources, they require workers to build the house, etc. Idk if 50 years is long enough, 1,000 years is probably too long, but it's definitely something worth further investigation. It also depends on the climate and potential for disaster. 1,000 year homes in Florida with hurricanes? Probably not. Ohio? Yea that might make sense. -edit- To add I also enjoy and wish we took more advantages of past techniques to build homes in harmony with the environment. Easier to think of examples are things like painting a home white in the Mediterranean, or a-frame homes for snow to slide off, etc. versus how we just copy/paste generica American suburban homes that rely on materials moreso than smart design. It's like cities and towns. We already figured out how to do this in the best way hundreds of years ago (small towns in Europe) but we just keep not doing it in favor of bad design.