I don't think that's what they were describing. They were describing new homes, not old: I think the "supposed-to-be" pattern is up for 10-30 years after first being built, as the area is still growing and becoming more desirable, then down once the growth no longer outpaces the aging.
> That's the theory. The practice is that much of the "older housing" is by now 50 or 60 years old, twice the design life,
Not sure where this is coming from. 60 years old is 1960s. Across the US, particularly in older cities, plenty of houses are that old and much older (family members living in a 1930's house). As long as owners maintain it over the years, it should easily last longer than 60 years. Even in my relatively younger city, there are plenty of 1960's houses that sell about the same as the 2000's houses.
I shared the article with my partner the other day and they reflected that the house we lived in is over 50 years old, and was curious how durable these buildings are? Time isn't really mentioned except to emphasize how quick these projects can finish.
> I hear the phrase, "Not as well built as before" a lot when it comes to housing, and I just dont' understand why that is always assumed.
I think it's mostly true of 1960s-1970s construction (possibly 1950s-1980s) compared to the period shortly before that. But, also, survivorship bias: an older house must be better constructed to be still standing than a newer one.
Yeah, walking into an average home built 35 years ago and the average one built 5 years ago, the difference is huge. Older ones definitely feel like they'll just pancake during a moderately large earthquake. They also completely lack insulation and many don't even have double pane windows. Nobody wants to buy houses like that in this day and age.
I've lived in houses built in the 40s and 90s. I would take the former any day of the week. I'm not generally a "they don't build them like they used to kind of person", but my experience with houses is that older homes were built to last while newer ones are just built to sell.
Of course, there's probably some survivorship bias there. All the shitty homes from the 40s are gone now.
> Houses aged 100 or more years are no rarity. The US median age of 37 years or so is still relatively young on, e.g., the German market.
Eh, there are plenty of old houses where people have been living for more than a couple of centuries; most of the new houses are people deciding to build new cities and suburbs in new places rather than churn on existing stock (not that there isn't some churn on existing stock).
Also, 100 years old isn't really that impressive. I've got a 100 year old house; it was build in the 1920s. Aside from a stone foundation rather than a cinderblock foundation and a few oddities (like a patch on the chimney where the kitchen stove used to vent), it's a boringly basic, familiarly modern house. It's even got original sheetrock (albeit with instructions printed on the back telling the installers how to use it).
Hell, the Empire State Building is almost 100 years old.
> Houses, formerly built to last a lifetime, are built to sell, and then fall apart
I suspect people think that older homes are better built because the only older homes around today are the best built ones. The rest fell down and were replaced. I.e. survivorship bias.
> Most won't. My home is over 100 years old and I'm 100% positive it will outlast 90% of modern construction put up today 100 years from now. I've seen my house gutted in many places and it's pristine. I've seen many 20 year old homes that are full of mold and rot.
One of the main problems with modern houses is that they go to shit very quickly if they're ever unoccupied for a while. They need heating and cooling (especially the dehumidifying effect of AC) or they'll require extensive repairs and renovation within a year or two. Saw tons of these when looking at houses after the '08 bust—some of the bigger banks let houses sit for a couple years without even trying to sell them, and they inevitably had major visible mold problems, and probably a lot more going on inside the walls.
It's the sealing differences that do it. Modern houses are built to be super-tightly-sealed, but that means they have (at least seasonal) moisture problems without an active HVAC system. Older houses were built to breathe. Modern materials also aren't built or installed with major seasonal temp swings in mind, so you'll get things like badly-cracking drywall seams, buckling trim, buckling floors, fucked-up doorframes, and so on, due to thermal expansion and contraction. Even intricate, tight woodwork in very-old houses was crafted to survive that kind of thing (it had to be).
Not that older houses don't get into trouble without maintenance, but it takes longer and serious problems pretty much require a roof or wall breach. Modern houses will fall apart while the roof and exterior walls are totally fine.
reply