4 ms·
> The Lustron, for all its failings, certainly proved its durability. Of the ~2.5k built, ~1.8k are still standing, Doesn't sound like much of an achievement.
by kwhitefoot 3y ago
> The Lustron, for all its failings, certainly proved its durability. Of the ~2.5k built, ~1.8k are still standing,
Doesn't sound like much of an achievement.
The town I live in (in Norway) is full of wooden housing built in the same period or earlier. I'm pretty confident that far more than 75% of them are still standing.
The brick built house I owned in the early 80s in Southampton, England, was one of a street of hundreds of houses built in 1890. The whole street is still there together with dozens of others of similar or greater age.
- Daunk 3y agoThe expectations are lower outside of Scandinavia.
- mason55 3y agoI imagine that both of those were quite a bit more expensive to build. The point isn’t that houses from the 40s are still standing. The US also has tons and tons of those. The point is that the cheap, modular, assembly-line houses are still standing. Cheap usually equates to non-durable so it’s notable that these cheap houses are an exception.
- kwhitefoot 3y agoBut were they more expensive in the long term?
- zdragnar 3y agoThe article mentions that the houses were often razed because the land was more valuable than the building. I don't know about the parts that were enamel coated, but I imagine some of the cost might be recouped from recycling the steel. I don't think I've lived in a building newer than this era since I was a child, and I've moved quite a bit in both brick and wood framed houses in the Midwest US.