4 ms·

But older houses are better (nicer architecture, better materials, more space, more mature trees) than newer houses.

scarface74 4y ago
With asbestos, lead, I couldn’t just pick a piece of land and go to a showroom and get exactly what we wanted. Choose to get cat 6 prewired throughout the house. Some really old ones don’t have central air (even my parents house they had built in 1978 did). I’ve bought five properties over the years. The two I bought to live in I had built and never had the maintenance costs people complain about (2002-2012 and 2016 - present).
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  At least in the UK I don't think most people care about the tech of their house (air conditioning, certainly not network cabling) like this.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    Air conditioning is going to hugely increase in popularity here in the UK. I think people like the tech, including better heating and sound and heat insulation and FTTP, but it's balanced out by the poor reputation of new builds in terms of quality issues.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Expectations have also just shifted with respect to things like air conditioning. I live in a very old house and, while I do put a window unit in my office, my brother could never understand me not having central air in Massachusetts. He did just rebuild a house after a fire and put all the latest gadgetry and controls in. The heat pump seems nice but mostly I find there's a lot of complexity and not a lot that offers significant advantages relative to my house.
    - CalRobert 4y ago
      The increased popularity of heat pumps should mean more aircon, but bafflingly houses in the UK and Ireland are still going with radiators instead of wall split units.
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
Nicer architecture: Only sometimes. Sometimes, old is just old and plain. Not to mention that things change over the years: I'm guessing by 'old house' you refer to something built pre-1940 and not the ranch style house built in the 60's: Those houses from the 60's are over 50 years old, though. Better materials? I'm not convinced. Drafty doors and windows, little insulation, lead paint, outdated plumbing parts, and old wires are a few things that were used. Any serious look at windows used during building booms during the 50's dispels the materials, honestly - at least in the US. More space? Again, only if you get the right house. Plenty of old houses are small. You also have a bit of survivor bias here: Old, large houses that were expensive were more likely to be maintained and preserved later. I'll also point out that a good deal of old houses are now apartments, and also point out that the space you get in an old house costs more to heat. On top of that, this was a space designed for a different time period. That means that space can be a much less efficient space than you get in a new house that is wired for modern times. Maybe using more mature trees really isn't something we should be doing right now? At least some of those mature trees contributed to deforestation and it seems better to get trees not from old growth, but from new growth from a well-managed forest area, where swaths of trees are replanted. Old houses are just full of downfalls, even if you happen to be getting more space and possibly a better looking house.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Maybe using more mature trees really isn't something we should be doing right now? The trees are more mature because they were planted longer ago. Planting trees in suburbia is the opposite of deforestation.
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    I do understand both of these, and I advocate using managed forest areas with newer growth - perhaps you misunderstood? We simply don't have as many old growth forests that our ancestors have had due to deforestation. The trees being planted in suburbia aren't offsetting what we are using to build the houses either, and definitely aren't replacing them where they were harvested (the forest, in general). We also aren't planting the same varieties of trees that we use to build the houses, as trees in housing development are generally chosen for looks, speed of growth, and size.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CalRobert 4y ago
I meant of equivalent quality - and older houses are, somewhat ironically, often nicer because we've made it illegal to build those nice houses with short setbacks in pleasant little walkable neighbourhoods because of things like parking minimums, density maximums, minimum setbacks, etc. Also lead and asbestos are no fun. Or thatched roofs, but I admit that's my own very particular concern having bought a 200+ year old house.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > I meant of equivalent quality But they aren't of equivalent quality. That's the point.
lupire 4y ago
At some point that can't keep being true. And houses generally have gotten far larger over time.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > At some point that can't keep being true. I can't really see us ever going back to solid-stone construction and the kind of intricate architecture we used to have in our culture. > And houses generally have gotten far larger over time. Rooms used to be 3m tall - they've shrunk over time to 2.4m tall. New-builds have zero storage.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    Just did a self build and apparently ceilings have been rising again - 9, or 10 feet (which brings you back to 3m). Lower-volume rooms do mean less volume to heat or cool though.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Just did a self build Well yeah if you build it bespoke you can have ceilings as high as you want. But we're talking about houses that normal people buy from developers.

With asbestos, lead, I couldn’t just pick a piece of land and go to a showroom and get exactly what we wanted. Choose to get cat 6 prewired throughout the house. Some really old ones don’t have central air (even my parents house they had built in 1978 did). I’ve bought five properties over the years. The two I bought to live in I had built and never had the maintenance costs people complain about (2002-2012 and 2016 - present).

chrisseaton 4y ago
At least in the UK I don't think most people care about the tech of their house (air conditioning, certainly not network cabling) like this.
- lozenge 4y ago
  Air conditioning is going to hugely increase in popularity here in the UK. I think people like the tech, including better heating and sound and heat insulation and FTTP, but it's balanced out by the poor reputation of new builds in terms of quality issues.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Expectations have also just shifted with respect to things like air conditioning. I live in a very old house and, while I do put a window unit in my office, my brother could never understand me not having central air in Massachusetts. He did just rebuild a house after a fire and put all the latest gadgetry and controls in. The heat pump seems nice but mostly I find there's a lot of complexity and not a lot that offers significant advantages relative to my house.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    The increased popularity of heat pumps should mean more aircon, but bafflingly houses in the UK and Ireland are still going with radiators instead of wall split units.

Broken_Hippo 4y ago

Nicer architecture: Only sometimes. Sometimes, old is just old and plain. Not to mention that things change over the years: I'm guessing by 'old house' you refer to something built pre-1940 and not the ranch style house built in the 60's: Those houses from the 60's are over 50 years old, though. Better materials? I'm not convinced. Drafty doors and windows, little insulation, lead paint, outdated plumbing parts, and old wires are a few things that were used. Any serious look at windows used during building booms during the 50's dispels the materials, honestly - at least in the US. More space? Again, only if you get the right house. Plenty of old houses are small. You also have a bit of survivor bias here: Old, large houses that were expensive were more likely to be maintained and preserved later. I'll also point out that a good deal of old houses are now apartments, and also point out that the space you get in an old house costs more to heat. On top of that, this was a space designed for a different time period. That means that space can be a much less efficient space than you get in a new house that is wired for modern times. Maybe using more mature trees really isn't something we should be doing right now? At least some of those mature trees contributed to deforestation and it seems better to get trees not from old growth, but from new growth from a well-managed forest area, where swaths of trees are replanted. Old houses are just full of downfalls, even if you happen to be getting more space and possibly a better looking house.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> Maybe using more mature trees really isn't something we should be doing right now? The trees are more mature because they were planted longer ago. Planting trees in suburbia is the opposite of deforestation.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  I do understand both of these, and I advocate using managed forest areas with newer growth - perhaps you misunderstood? We simply don't have as many old growth forests that our ancestors have had due to deforestation. The trees being planted in suburbia aren't offsetting what we are using to build the houses either, and definitely aren't replacing them where they were harvested (the forest, in general). We also aren't planting the same varieties of trees that we use to build the houses, as trees in housing development are generally chosen for looks, speed of growth, and size.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

CalRobert 4y ago

I meant of equivalent quality - and older houses are, somewhat ironically, often nicer because we've made it illegal to build those nice houses with short setbacks in pleasant little walkable neighbourhoods because of things like parking minimums, density maximums, minimum setbacks, etc. Also lead and asbestos are no fun. Or thatched roofs, but I admit that's my own very particular concern having bought a 200+ year old house.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> I meant of equivalent quality But they aren't of equivalent quality. That's the point.

lupire 4y ago

At some point that can't keep being true. And houses generally have gotten far larger over time.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> At some point that can't keep being true. I can't really see us ever going back to solid-stone construction and the kind of intricate architecture we used to have in our culture. > And houses generally have gotten far larger over time. Rooms used to be 3m tall - they've shrunk over time to 2.4m tall. New-builds have zero storage.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Just did a self build and apparently ceilings have been rising again - 9, or 10 feet (which brings you back to 3m). Lower-volume rooms do mean less volume to heat or cool though.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Just did a self build Well yeah if you build it bespoke you can have ceilings as high as you want. But we're talking about houses that normal people buy from developers.