3 ms·
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 y
by 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 agoI 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 agoThere 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 agoI would also posit that your own preferences aren't the same as everyone else. Such that there are many people who prefer not living in many of the newer homes.