Hacker News Reader

Comment by anm89 | Hacker News Reader

also as someone who is working with architects and builders right now on a house, I can say the houses you are getting at the 250 /sqft range in many cases are terribly built.

They are going to last a fraction of the time that that $45 / sqft house from 100 years ago lasted

View on HN

Many houses built 100 years ago were incredibly shoddily built / assembled. Have you ever looked at the foundations on old houses? Wooden piers that are lucky to last 40 years were very common. You’re seeing survivorship bias at work.

Also 250/sq ft is far from cheap/shoddy quality in much of the US. And with proper maintenance just about any house built to code in most places in the US will easily last longer than the average house built 100 years ago.

I don’t need a house that lasts 100 years. My estate will be selling it in 50 years, if I don’t sell it in the average ownership duration of 10 years.

Lasting a long time does not mean a structure is better in every way. Old housing can be a challenge in terms of safety, cohesive design, lifestyle fit, land use, environmental concerns, etc.

In Japan, for instance, it is popular to frequently tear down housing rebuild it, and it works well for them.

I have lived in and fixed up many old houses with strong bones. They might stand for hundreds of years but everything attached to those bones is a patchwork of afterthoughts.

So you think tearing down a house every 50 years isn't an environmental problem? It absolutely is. Concrete especially causes major Co2 emissions.

+1 for wooden American homes, made from naturally sequestered carbon :)

I haven't done the math, but I'd bet the energy efficiency requirements would more than make up for it. Uninsulated/underinsulated homes are a huge waste of energy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com