4 ms·

> Source? Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276. You can find those numbers (

> Source? Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276. You can find those numbers (with some variation) on pretty much every web page dealing with economics of building, for example here: https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-gebaeude/ https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-ge... You can also approximately extrapolate that number from the source I have given you. (Which is based on a survey by the federal government of Germany) If approximately 50-60% of houses are older than 50 years, then assuming a approximately linear to progressive attrition curve you will get a number around 100 for the average lifetime. Of course a long tail exists, but 1. I was talking about economic costs, people might just like their houses and renovate even though it is financially not worth it, and 2. after 100 years the historical protection (Denkmalschutz) gets more and more relevant and is a whole different set of regulations.

valenterry 4y ago
I think you misunderstand what "economic lifetime" means here. It is mostly relevant for tax purposes. In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in it then for tax purposes it is assumed that (on average) after a 100 years you must have been spending $X for maintenance so that you can sell the building for $X. If you have spent more money, then you can't deduct that from tax (exceptions exist). Or in yet other words: if you don't spend anything for maintenance then after 100 years (on average) the building will be worth nothing, meaning that it will cost the same to rebuild it compared to fix it. But since most people maintan their buildings, i.e. fix the roof when it starts leaking, fix the doors and windows when they break or are not airtight anymore etc., buildings are much older than 100 years. 100 years is the _minimum_ time before it's even worth to rebuild on average.
- yayachiken 4y ago
  These maintenance tasks are exactly what this discussion is about. You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks. And when the house is old enough, the monument protection agency will even force you to do it by that time.
  - valenterry 4y ago
    Let me quote you: > The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense. This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years. And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it. > You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free". Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.
    - yayachiken 4y ago
      Please don't forget that my claim is in the context of somebody else claiming that insulating all housing in Europe would at least take 100 years. Now you are literally redefining the terms I use and then quoting them back to me to argue your new semantics, are you serious? On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. Call it economic lifetime or whatever else you want. I still stand by that claim, as it is common knowledge. I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim (though no proof of causation, as there are plenty of reasons why we have a lot of new stock, for example in general rising number of buildings.) And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed. None of this matters to show that the above mentioned claim how long renovation of the current housing stock will take is completely out of the world. Note that I am by no means a civil engineer or architect, but following the discussion and researching the topics associated with the Energiewende in the different sectors for over a decade now. I may still well be wrong in this instance. But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics and just asserting that I were intellectually unable to understand your arguments. So please also state some relevant facts and sources to support your claims if you want to try further to convince me, otherwise continuing this discussion is probably a waste of time for me as we both will probably not learn anything new. Thanks.
dahfizz 4y ago
> Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276. Sure, but that wasn't the standard 100 years ago. There are plenty of existing houses that are 100+ years old that will continue to stand for at least another 100 years.

valenterry 4y ago

I think you misunderstand what "economic lifetime" means here. It is mostly relevant for tax purposes. In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in it then for tax purposes it is assumed that (on average) after a 100 years you must have been spending $X for maintenance so that you can sell the building for $X. If you have spent more money, then you can't deduct that from tax (exceptions exist). Or in yet other words: if you don't spend anything for maintenance then after 100 years (on average) the building will be worth nothing, meaning that it will cost the same to rebuild it compared to fix it. But since most people maintan their buildings, i.e. fix the roof when it starts leaking, fix the doors and windows when they break or are not airtight anymore etc., buildings are much older than 100 years. 100 years is the _minimum_ time before it's even worth to rebuild on average.

yayachiken 4y ago
These maintenance tasks are exactly what this discussion is about. You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks. And when the house is old enough, the monument protection agency will even force you to do it by that time.
- valenterry 4y ago
  Let me quote you: > The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense. This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years. And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it. > You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free". Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.
  - yayachiken 4y ago
    Please don't forget that my claim is in the context of somebody else claiming that insulating all housing in Europe would at least take 100 years. Now you are literally redefining the terms I use and then quoting them back to me to argue your new semantics, are you serious? On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. Call it economic lifetime or whatever else you want. I still stand by that claim, as it is common knowledge. I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim (though no proof of causation, as there are plenty of reasons why we have a lot of new stock, for example in general rising number of buildings.) And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed. None of this matters to show that the above mentioned claim how long renovation of the current housing stock will take is completely out of the world. Note that I am by no means a civil engineer or architect, but following the discussion and researching the topics associated with the Energiewende in the different sectors for over a decade now. I may still well be wrong in this instance. But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics and just asserting that I were intellectually unable to understand your arguments. So please also state some relevant facts and sources to support your claims if you want to try further to convince me, otherwise continuing this discussion is probably a waste of time for me as we both will probably not learn anything new. Thanks.

dahfizz 4y ago

> Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276. Sure, but that wasn't the standard 100 years ago. There are plenty of existing houses that are 100+ years old that will continue to stand for at least another 100 years.