4 ms·

> The quality of framing wood you choose does not factor into home longevity at all. This is just absolutely false. Older growth wood is more stable and more

> The quality of framing wood you choose does not factor into home longevity at all. This is just absolutely false. Older growth wood is more stable and more likely to resist moisture. We have zero examples of homes built with fast growth SPF (etc) lasting 100 years or more. Hell even 75. On the contrary, we have a plethora of examples of old growth pine lasting centuries. Just look at the cold, wet, and snowy northeast. Plenty of moisture there, yet the historic homes still stand. No contractor I've spoken to thinks the homes being built today will last half a century or longer. edit: I will stand by my comment. Lets see how many 70's and 80s era houses last until 2040.

conjecTech 3y ago
I've worked on plenty of hastily built houses from the 70s that are still standing half a century later and in relatively good condition. They may run up slightly higher maintenance bills, but I'd be surprised if they don't last to see 100 years. Houses today are undoubtedly better constructed. The quality of materials in the old days compensated well for the stress from poor environmental and thermal design, but you can probably get the same longevity by designing the house to not have that stress in the first place.
eropple 3y ago
> No contractor I've spoken to thinks the homes being built today will last half a century or longer. Contractors adhere to code largely as far as they can be forced to and work on a "we've always done it that way" basis. On the other hand, architects and engineers are pretty sanguine about modern softwood, and for good reason. You start seeing "modern" SPF in broad use starting in the mid-seventies and construction from that era is by-and-large fine. Remember that the houses that sucked--and there were a lot of them in the 1900s and earlier--simply no longer exist. Survivorship bias is real.
JamisonM 3y ago
You can't assert this is absolutely false, you have not even in your comment established the criteria to say so. If "older growth wood is more stable and more likely to resist moisture" it still stands that any wood can perform well in the absence of excess moisture. I certainly agree that my 120+ year old house made of fir would last much longer with a leaky roof than a house from the 1960's or 1990's with a leaky roof.. but all of those houses would be unfit for occupancy while they deteriorate. 75 years ago is 1957 by my reckoning, you have some example of 75 year old houses deteriorating because of the quality of wood in the absence of moisture penetration? There is no point in having a structure that is uninhabitable due to moisture penetration that still stands except for the purposes of salvaging it.. which I guess has some value.. My personal opinion is that building built to code today will stand for 100+ years no problem, buildings built in the 70's, 80's and 90's to code in many places will also do so if moisture (Rh) mitigations are reasonably executed (lots of mould & vapour barrier issues in that era). Older houses don't face the moisture issues because they are not as well sealed and as with all structures - keep a good roof on them and they are fine. Framing wood quality doesn't matter, how fast that wood rots is a question of every other material used in the construction of the envelope.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  Honest question: modern builds seem to have a lot of plastic, rubber and foam materials used for insulation, ventilation, etc. Won’t all of that deteriorate much quicker than 50 years? Things like spray foam and polystyrene seem to be in areas pretty hard to replace (or even notice they are degrading).
  - eternityforest 3y ago
    A lot of things like that don't degrade for hundreds of years except maybe by shedding some microplastic when you wash your plastic clothes. Does spray foam have a failure mode just sitting in a wall? If it does, I wonder if they'll have some special robot to replace it one day.
  - JamisonM 3y ago
    Well.. I don't really know. I know that the copper drain plumbing in my house was failing and needed replacing and it was a lot younger than many abs installations in the world that are just fine? It certainly could be the case that something like spray foam degrades over very long periods of time.. but you'd have to figure the savings from the enhanced insulation value over that period would more that pay for its replacement.
JamisonM 3y ago
> edit: I will stand by my comment. Lets see how many 70's and 80s era houses last until 2040. 2040 is only 17 years away! Houses from the 1970's and 1980's are selling for top dollar today in suburbs all over North America, if the expected life spans of those structures were only 17 years they'd be worthless. Where I am from the late 60's and early 70's homes are the worst quality ones on the markets, really a terrible time for home building. The issues are all foundations, plumbing, and wiring.
- briHass 3y ago
  Yep. Late 70s is when the major shift happened: no more lead paint, no asbestos, electrical with a ground, Romex wire instead of that dangerous cloth crap, and ductwork for basic HVAC (furnaces at least.) The only major advancements beyond the late 70s-80s are energy efficiency-related.
  - JamisonM 3y ago
    Don't get me started with aluminum wiring!! ;)

conjecTech 3y ago

I've worked on plenty of hastily built houses from the 70s that are still standing half a century later and in relatively good condition. They may run up slightly higher maintenance bills, but I'd be surprised if they don't last to see 100 years. Houses today are undoubtedly better constructed. The quality of materials in the old days compensated well for the stress from poor environmental and thermal design, but you can probably get the same longevity by designing the house to not have that stress in the first place.

eropple 3y ago

> No contractor I've spoken to thinks the homes being built today will last half a century or longer. Contractors adhere to code largely as far as they can be forced to and work on a "we've always done it that way" basis. On the other hand, architects and engineers are pretty sanguine about modern softwood, and for good reason. You start seeing "modern" SPF in broad use starting in the mid-seventies and construction from that era is by-and-large fine. Remember that the houses that sucked--and there were a lot of them in the 1900s and earlier--simply no longer exist. Survivorship bias is real.

JamisonM 3y ago

You can't assert this is absolutely false, you have not even in your comment established the criteria to say so. If "older growth wood is more stable and more likely to resist moisture" it still stands that any wood can perform well in the absence of excess moisture. I certainly agree that my 120+ year old house made of fir would last much longer with a leaky roof than a house from the 1960's or 1990's with a leaky roof.. but all of those houses would be unfit for occupancy while they deteriorate. 75 years ago is 1957 by my reckoning, you have some example of 75 year old houses deteriorating because of the quality of wood in the absence of moisture penetration? There is no point in having a structure that is uninhabitable due to moisture penetration that still stands except for the purposes of salvaging it.. which I guess has some value.. My personal opinion is that building built to code today will stand for 100+ years no problem, buildings built in the 70's, 80's and 90's to code in many places will also do so if moisture (Rh) mitigations are reasonably executed (lots of mould & vapour barrier issues in that era). Older houses don't face the moisture issues because they are not as well sealed and as with all structures - keep a good roof on them and they are fine. Framing wood quality doesn't matter, how fast that wood rots is a question of every other material used in the construction of the envelope.

ricardobeat 3y ago
Honest question: modern builds seem to have a lot of plastic, rubber and foam materials used for insulation, ventilation, etc. Won’t all of that deteriorate much quicker than 50 years? Things like spray foam and polystyrene seem to be in areas pretty hard to replace (or even notice they are degrading).
- eternityforest 3y ago
  A lot of things like that don't degrade for hundreds of years except maybe by shedding some microplastic when you wash your plastic clothes. Does spray foam have a failure mode just sitting in a wall? If it does, I wonder if they'll have some special robot to replace it one day.
- JamisonM 3y ago
  Well.. I don't really know. I know that the copper drain plumbing in my house was failing and needed replacing and it was a lot younger than many abs installations in the world that are just fine? It certainly could be the case that something like spray foam degrades over very long periods of time.. but you'd have to figure the savings from the enhanced insulation value over that period would more that pay for its replacement.

JamisonM 3y ago

> edit: I will stand by my comment. Lets see how many 70's and 80s era houses last until 2040. 2040 is only 17 years away! Houses from the 1970's and 1980's are selling for top dollar today in suburbs all over North America, if the expected life spans of those structures were only 17 years they'd be worthless. Where I am from the late 60's and early 70's homes are the worst quality ones on the markets, really a terrible time for home building. The issues are all foundations, plumbing, and wiring.

briHass 3y ago
Yep. Late 70s is when the major shift happened: no more lead paint, no asbestos, electrical with a ground, Romex wire instead of that dangerous cloth crap, and ductwork for basic HVAC (furnaces at least.) The only major advancements beyond the late 70s-80s are energy efficiency-related.
- JamisonM 3y ago
  Don't get me started with aluminum wiring!! ;)