4 ms·

> You don't build to have your home last for more than 30-40 years, which can save some materials. I'm very skeptical it would save any non-trivial amount in m

by jjav 5y ago

> You don't build to have your home last for more than 30-40 years, which can save some materials. I'm very skeptical it would save any non-trivial amount in materials. What would you leave out? Housing in the USA is already very cheaply built, 2x4s and drywall and the cheapest hardware they builder can get. Such houses easily last over a 100 years barring some disaster. To build a house that crumbles to unlivable in 30 years, you'd have to intentionally design it to do that. Which sounds terrible from an environmental waste perspective.

bombcar 5y ago
They “last” 100 years with pretty Constance maintenance - and the average house isn’t that old so the jury is still out on some of it. In many places tear down and rebuild is cheaper than remodeling, especially when energy costs are taken into account.
- jjav 5y ago
  > They “last” 100 years with pretty Constance maintenance It's no surprise to anyone that a house needs some maintenance, that's a given. If someone lives in it and keeps up with basic maintenance, it'll last many generations. > the average house isn’t that old so the jury is still out on some of it I suspect the average house will never be that old, simply because a lot more houses are getting built all the time bringing down the average. But plenty of 100+ year old houses, even here in California where most construction is more recent. > In many places tear down and rebuild is cheaper than remodeling Remodeling is a whole different topic. Yes, remodeling a house to be much larger or much nicer (or both) can be very expensive. But on the topic of simply living in the same house in the same configuration as it was originally built, for 100+ years (multiple generations surely), there's no need to remodel. Only maintenance.

4 ms·

> You don't build to have your home last for more than 30-40 years, which can save some materials. I'm very skeptical it would save any non-trivial amount in m

by jjav 5y ago

bombcar 5y ago
They “last” 100 years with pretty Constance maintenance - and the average house isn’t that old so the jury is still out on some of it. In many places tear down and rebuild is cheaper than remodeling, especially when energy costs are taken into account.
- jjav 5y ago
  > They “last” 100 years with pretty Constance maintenance It's no surprise to anyone that a house needs some maintenance, that's a given. If someone lives in it and keeps up with basic maintenance, it'll last many generations. > the average house isn’t that old so the jury is still out on some of it I suspect the average house will never be that old, simply because a lot more houses are getting built all the time bringing down the average. But plenty of 100+ year old houses, even here in California where most construction is more recent. > In many places tear down and rebuild is cheaper than remodeling Remodeling is a whole different topic. Yes, remodeling a house to be much larger or much nicer (or both) can be very expensive. But on the topic of simply living in the same house in the same configuration as it was originally built, for 100+ years (multiple generations surely), there's no need to remodel. Only maintenance.