5 ms·

Well, I live in a city that has designated many buildings as historic for one reason or another, and seems kinda slow to approve new buildings. There is some i

Well, I live in a city that has designated many buildings as historic for one reason or another, and seems kinda slow to approve new buildings. There is some interest in building affordable housing, and making new developments include affordable housing. That's all great, but I think we really just need more units, and maybe not every building that's 100 years old needs to be preserved for eternity.

rootusrootus 4y ago
As someone who lives in an area with similar problems, I agree. We need to quit designating buildings as historical based on their age. Unless something actually notable happened there, it should not be considered historic. Bulldoze it and build something more efficient. Society moves forward.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  At least where I live it's the historic houses that are worth more than the newer ones, partly because there's a limited supply of them, but partly because the desirability of a house often has little to do with what's "efficent". Further limiting the supply by reducing the number of them is only going drive such house prices up. I'd also note there are plenty of cities with massive housing affordability problems but little in the way of historic buildings (Hong Kong, San Jose & much of SV etc.). Even in my own city (which often rates as one of the least affordable for housing), historic buildings make up a small percentage of total housing.
dexwiz 4y ago
I think we will see a reckoning of this in USA in the next few decades. "Classic" houses like colonial or victorian style houses are venerated and preserved, but live on mostly due to survivorship biases. These were the houses of the elite, and they could afford better building materials or adornments deemed historically valuable. Most houses built since 1920 don't have the same value. But the meme of "old=worth preserving" still lingers on. In San Francisco there are old row homes built as temporary housing after the 1906 Earthquake. They are preserved only due to their age, not any intrinsic value. Houses built in first half and mid century are developing major structural issues. Their foundations may be cracking beyond repair. Their plumbing and electrical are several generations beyond current standard. They may have been built in a more temperate climate and lack central heating/cooling. Their layout may not make sense for a modern lifestyle. These houses should be torn down, and new ones built in their place. But this is really difficult to do in some areas due to preservation committees holding on to every scrap of history. Instead you get completely insane practices like gutting a house except for 4 posts and rebuilding a new house within it. Or building a new houses around an old one. The lot next to my apartment was like that. Instead of razing the structure and building a new one, they had to engineer a way to build a new house around what was a literal rotting shack. The new structure retains almost 0 of the original framing, and definitely retains none of its architectural features. So the project cost probably hundred of thousands more, and took months longer, just to satisfy some petty council's need to never tear down an old building. As the oldest generation dies off, I would hope to see these attitudes change, and the USA open to more rebuilding. But unfortunately these rules will remain on the books. The capital class has no incentive to change it, because it would disrupt their control over the housing supply.
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  Nobody is in a huge hurry to pass legislation that could actually reduce the value of real estate by building like a million more units. So yeah, idk if it's ever going to really change.

rootusrootus 4y ago

As someone who lives in an area with similar problems, I agree. We need to quit designating buildings as historical based on their age. Unless something actually notable happened there, it should not be considered historic. Bulldoze it and build something more efficient. Society moves forward.

wizofaus 4y ago
At least where I live it's the historic houses that are worth more than the newer ones, partly because there's a limited supply of them, but partly because the desirability of a house often has little to do with what's "efficent". Further limiting the supply by reducing the number of them is only going drive such house prices up. I'd also note there are plenty of cities with massive housing affordability problems but little in the way of historic buildings (Hong Kong, San Jose & much of SV etc.). Even in my own city (which often rates as one of the least affordable for housing), historic buildings make up a small percentage of total housing.

dexwiz 4y ago

I think we will see a reckoning of this in USA in the next few decades. "Classic" houses like colonial or victorian style houses are venerated and preserved, but live on mostly due to survivorship biases. These were the houses of the elite, and they could afford better building materials or adornments deemed historically valuable. Most houses built since 1920 don't have the same value. But the meme of "old=worth preserving" still lingers on. In San Francisco there are old row homes built as temporary housing after the 1906 Earthquake. They are preserved only due to their age, not any intrinsic value. Houses built in first half and mid century are developing major structural issues. Their foundations may be cracking beyond repair. Their plumbing and electrical are several generations beyond current standard. They may have been built in a more temperate climate and lack central heating/cooling. Their layout may not make sense for a modern lifestyle. These houses should be torn down, and new ones built in their place. But this is really difficult to do in some areas due to preservation committees holding on to every scrap of history. Instead you get completely insane practices like gutting a house except for 4 posts and rebuilding a new house within it. Or building a new houses around an old one. The lot next to my apartment was like that. Instead of razing the structure and building a new one, they had to engineer a way to build a new house around what was a literal rotting shack. The new structure retains almost 0 of the original framing, and definitely retains none of its architectural features. So the project cost probably hundred of thousands more, and took months longer, just to satisfy some petty council's need to never tear down an old building. As the oldest generation dies off, I would hope to see these attitudes change, and the USA open to more rebuilding. But unfortunately these rules will remain on the books. The capital class has no incentive to change it, because it would disrupt their control over the housing supply.

wollsmoth 4y ago
Nobody is in a huge hurry to pass legislation that could actually reduce the value of real estate by building like a million more units. So yeah, idk if it's ever going to really change.