3 ms·
> not as durable Your clearly don’t live in an earthquake prone area. I do. But given how cheapskate New Zealand is, I’m 100% sure that we would build in ston
by lostlogin 1y ago
> not as durable
Your clearly don’t live in an earthquake prone area.
I do. But given how cheapskate New Zealand is, I’m 100% sure that we would build in stone and brick if it was cheaper.
- toast0 1y agoI do live on the west coast of the US. Unreinforced masonry doesn't do well in earthquakes, but reinforced masonry or concrete is probably more durable. I've got 25 year old wood siding, and it might make it to 30, but there's no way it'll be in reasonable shape at 40. It probably won't be too expensive to replace though.
- godelski 1y agoProbably another great example of chasing pennies with pounds. {re,green,pink}bar is really cheap. Yes, it's more expensive but only 10-20% more. It's an upfront cost that that saves you tons of damage, which costs money too! Even more when you put off repair. It's incredible how people do not understand boot theory... which seems to be something most people know but don't employ in practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
- applied_heat 1y agoMy wood siding is original cedar that has been painted several times since 1970s when house was built … I haven’t considered it not lasting indefinitely