4 ms·

The brand new apartment I moved into near the center of Tokyo in 2006 is now something like 30% cheaper than it was then. Whereas refinished 1930s era apartment

by staunch 13y ago

The brand new apartment I moved into near the center of Tokyo in 2006 is now something like 30% cheaper than it was then. Whereas refinished 1930s era apartments in LA are like 50% more expensive. I absolutely love the constant push to modernize everyone's home. Why shouldn't home technology evolve like any other. Of course it's expensive and wasteful, but so is buying an iPhone 5s.

rayiner 13y ago
> Why shouldn't home technology evolve like any other. Because it doesn't. Home technology evolves so slowly, that the analogous situation in the tech world would be if you could simply upgrade the memory and hard drive on your 286 to be able to use the latest and greatest software.
- blacksmith_tb 13y ago
  Yes and no - the idea of insulating existed 100 years ago, but the materials weren't the greatest (attics full of horsehair, etc.). And the cheapness of fossil fuels made it seem mostly unnecessary. Moving from a drafty 1921 home to a passive house that was built this year, the difference for me was striking. Some of the improvements can be retrofitted onto older homes (PV, blown-in insulation, attic insulation), others, not so much (windows and doors are more painful to replace, e.g.).
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Sure, windows and doors are more difficult to replace, but it's all quite doable, which is striking considering the century that passed in the meantime. It's a testament to how slowly housing technology evolves.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > the idea of insulating existed 100 years ago, but the materials weren't the greatest (attics full of horsehair, etc.). Mineral wool commercial production started in 1871 in Germany, and asbestos started being used as insulation material in the 1860s in North America.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Old homes may have assumed cheap heating, but new homes seem to assume AC (cheap electricity). I have comfortably lived in 100-150 year old row homes without AC, and have sweltered in a 25 year old row home with broken AC in the same city during comparable summers. Those drafts are a godsend in the summer, homes without drafts or AC turn into solar ovens. (Other properties of old homes, like high ceilings, also contribute to livability in the summer (at the expense of being more expensive to heat during the winter)) So basically you have a seemingly balanced tradeoff; do you want to waste energy in the summer, or in the winter? Of course the tradeoff is not really balanced, you can put on more clothing in the winter so long as you keep your home above 0C (for the pipes), but you can only take off so much clothing in the summer.
    - WildUtah 13y ago
      One weird trick I use to get the effect of those drafts in the summer is to open a window.
      - Crito 13y ago
        Opened windows along with box fans (or better yet, a house fan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-house_fan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-house_fan) will help, but you will still be in a worse situation than if you had a house designed to stay cool and the same fans. Houses designed to stay cool without AC, among other things, tend to have more intelligent window placement, and windows that open much wider than is perhaps normal (you won't find those rubbish casement windows that only crank open to an acute angle in homes designed to stay cool without AC: http://www.choicesil.com/images/House1-16-08%20017.jpg http://www.choicesil.com/images/House1-16-08%20017.jpg). Given the option of staying in a house that never had AC, or a house with broken AC, I would chose the former every time. Fans and open windows will help in either case, but they will be more effective in the home that prioritized that usecase.
- DrewAllyn 13y ago
  It shouldn't because it doesn't? That seems like a circular argument. Home technology would evolve much faster if we invested more into it, and it we rebuilt homes every 30 years, we would be investing a lot more into building...
svachalek 13y ago
An iPhone depreciates about $200 a year. It sounds like these houses depreciate... $10,000/yr? I think the modernization is cool and all but, just wow.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by staunch 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> Why shouldn't home technology evolve like any other. Because it doesn't. Home technology evolves so slowly, that the analogous situation in the tech world would be if you could simply upgrade the memory and hard drive on your 286 to be able to use the latest and greatest software.

blacksmith_tb 13y ago
Yes and no - the idea of insulating existed 100 years ago, but the materials weren't the greatest (attics full of horsehair, etc.). And the cheapness of fossil fuels made it seem mostly unnecessary. Moving from a drafty 1921 home to a passive house that was built this year, the difference for me was striking. Some of the improvements can be retrofitted onto older homes (PV, blown-in insulation, attic insulation), others, not so much (windows and doors are more painful to replace, e.g.).
- rayiner 13y ago
  Sure, windows and doors are more difficult to replace, but it's all quite doable, which is striking considering the century that passed in the meantime. It's a testament to how slowly housing technology evolves.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > the idea of insulating existed 100 years ago, but the materials weren't the greatest (attics full of horsehair, etc.). Mineral wool commercial production started in 1871 in Germany, and asbestos started being used as insulation material in the 1860s in North America.
- Crito 13y ago
  Old homes may have assumed cheap heating, but new homes seem to assume AC (cheap electricity). I have comfortably lived in 100-150 year old row homes without AC, and have sweltered in a 25 year old row home with broken AC in the same city during comparable summers. Those drafts are a godsend in the summer, homes without drafts or AC turn into solar ovens. (Other properties of old homes, like high ceilings, also contribute to livability in the summer (at the expense of being more expensive to heat during the winter)) So basically you have a seemingly balanced tradeoff; do you want to waste energy in the summer, or in the winter? Of course the tradeoff is not really balanced, you can put on more clothing in the winter so long as you keep your home above 0C (for the pipes), but you can only take off so much clothing in the summer.
  - WildUtah 13y ago
    One weird trick I use to get the effect of those drafts in the summer is to open a window.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Opened windows along with box fans (or better yet, a house fan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-house_fan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-house_fan) will help, but you will still be in a worse situation than if you had a house designed to stay cool and the same fans. Houses designed to stay cool without AC, among other things, tend to have more intelligent window placement, and windows that open much wider than is perhaps normal (you won't find those rubbish casement windows that only crank open to an acute angle in homes designed to stay cool without AC: http://www.choicesil.com/images/House1-16-08%20017.jpg http://www.choicesil.com/images/House1-16-08%20017.jpg). Given the option of staying in a house that never had AC, or a house with broken AC, I would chose the former every time. Fans and open windows will help in either case, but they will be more effective in the home that prioritized that usecase.
DrewAllyn 13y ago
It shouldn't because it doesn't? That seems like a circular argument. Home technology would evolve much faster if we invested more into it, and it we rebuilt homes every 30 years, we would be investing a lot more into building...

svachalek 13y ago

An iPhone depreciates about $200 a year. It sounds like these houses depreciate... $10,000/yr? I think the modernization is cool and all but, just wow.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]