4 ms·

This is interesting. About to do a major reno on an old home (early 1900s) and definitely had questions about making upgrades that would last a long time. One

This is interesting. About to do a major reno on an old home (early 1900s) and definitely had questions about making upgrades that would last a long time. One of the greenest things that you can do to a home is not build a new one as I understand it. Another one would be to build it so it lasts ... not like this throwaway society we live in. That said I don't think I can do steel girders to extend the life of the house -- that would be tough ask. Any thoughts anyone? Thanks. Other green benefits -- electrify as much as reasonable, thermal regulate, insulate etc.

lastofthemojito 5y ago
But on the other hand, it's probably greener to build a house to last 50-100 years and then tear it down in 75 years when housing preferences change rather than build a house to last 1000 years and then tear it down in 75 years when housing preferences change. On the one hand I think this is a worthwhile experiment, on the other hand I can see why most houses are not built this way.
johne20 5y ago
Look into Passive House designs, and videos by Joseph Lstiburek if you are interested in energy efficiency and building structures to last with modern materials.
jakeinspace 5y ago
At this moment in history, building a cheaper 50-100 year house now and letting a future developer rebuild it with hopefully carbon-neutral materials might be more sustainable, assuming that building it to last now would cost more in dollars and carbon and immediate environmental impact. If we haven't figured out how to build in a more sustainable way 100 years from now, then there might not even be any developers around anyway, so it's a win-win (sort of).
- timeon 5y ago
  You can build with straw bale and wood today.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> One of the greenest things that you can do to a home is not build a new one as I understand it. I would need evidence for this statement. There have been many great advances in technology over the years, to the point that I can see old insulation/wiring/plumbing to not be worth repairing and replacing. Not to mention if any of the previous stuff used harmful materials such as lead and asbestos. I also think it is unreasonable to assume current lifestyles and needs will be satisfactory for future generations.
- boringg 5y ago
  I would surmise that by not sourcing new materials (that currently aren't that green from a carbon footprint perspective which is probably the largest part of your footprint) you are saving a lot of carbon cost. There are challenges with old homes such as sealing the building envelope and updating wiring/heating etc. Maybe I am telling myself that - I'm not sure. My argument does resonate though. New builds require the destruction of the old material, sourcing of new material, energy and time spent to put that together. And if you don't get a good build is all going to have to be rebuilt in the not too distant future whereas the house I have has lasted over 100 years and is still in great shape - I figure I can get another 100 with the proper maintenance/updating etc.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I have yet to come across an old house that I did not want to gut. To update wiring, plumbing, gas lines, central air, siding, roof. By the time you are done, you are only saving on replacing the frame, but tearing down a frame of spaced 2x4s and plywood sheets are not that much waste in my experience.
    - darkwater 5y ago
      There is a big chunk of the world that doesn't live in wooden houses, so rebuilding the frame indeed is a big deal compared to "just" redo all the wirings and plumbings.
    - boringg 5y ago

lastofthemojito 5y ago

But on the other hand, it's probably greener to build a house to last 50-100 years and then tear it down in 75 years when housing preferences change rather than build a house to last 1000 years and then tear it down in 75 years when housing preferences change. On the one hand I think this is a worthwhile experiment, on the other hand I can see why most houses are not built this way.

johne20 5y ago

Look into Passive House designs, and videos by Joseph Lstiburek if you are interested in energy efficiency and building structures to last with modern materials.

jakeinspace 5y ago

At this moment in history, building a cheaper 50-100 year house now and letting a future developer rebuild it with hopefully carbon-neutral materials might be more sustainable, assuming that building it to last now would cost more in dollars and carbon and immediate environmental impact. If we haven't figured out how to build in a more sustainable way 100 years from now, then there might not even be any developers around anyway, so it's a win-win (sort of).

timeon 5y ago
You can build with straw bale and wood today.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> One of the greenest things that you can do to a home is not build a new one as I understand it. I would need evidence for this statement. There have been many great advances in technology over the years, to the point that I can see old insulation/wiring/plumbing to not be worth repairing and replacing. Not to mention if any of the previous stuff used harmful materials such as lead and asbestos. I also think it is unreasonable to assume current lifestyles and needs will be satisfactory for future generations.

boringg 5y ago
I would surmise that by not sourcing new materials (that currently aren't that green from a carbon footprint perspective which is probably the largest part of your footprint) you are saving a lot of carbon cost. There are challenges with old homes such as sealing the building envelope and updating wiring/heating etc. Maybe I am telling myself that - I'm not sure. My argument does resonate though. New builds require the destruction of the old material, sourcing of new material, energy and time spent to put that together. And if you don't get a good build is all going to have to be rebuilt in the not too distant future whereas the house I have has lasted over 100 years and is still in great shape - I figure I can get another 100 with the proper maintenance/updating etc.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I have yet to come across an old house that I did not want to gut. To update wiring, plumbing, gas lines, central air, siding, roof. By the time you are done, you are only saving on replacing the frame, but tearing down a frame of spaced 2x4s and plywood sheets are not that much waste in my experience.
  - darkwater 5y ago
    There is a big chunk of the world that doesn't live in wooden houses, so rebuilding the frame indeed is a big deal compared to "just" redo all the wirings and plumbings.
  - boringg 5y ago