Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

londons_explore

There is a good argument that buildings shouldn't last so long.

Buildings a mere 50 years ago probably have very poor insulation (and hence high heating/cooling environmental + monetary costs), have electrics that aren't considered safe today, have plumbing probably containing lots of lead, and are lacking amenities considered standard today (electrical outlet next to the bed for phone charging, mixer taps, etc). Those buildings probably won't resist fire for long, and probably won't be suitable for heat pump heating. Sound insulation probably won't be good, so you probably get woken by your neighbour having sex.

All those things are fixable for a cost, or livable with a hit to quality of life, the environment, the house owners health, etc.

If we assume that the requirements for a home continue to evolve, then we can see that something built today would be unlikely well suited for use in 50 years. Considering that, perhaps it's best to build something easy to disassemble and rebuild 50 years from now.

Sound insulation in older homes is much better than in new. Thicker and heavier materials are much better at absorbing or reflecting sound, especially low frequency. Fire resistance seems to be a wash. I've seen the aftermath of new and old construction. We don't seem to have made improvements in this regard, but we have made the likelihood of them starting lower in all kinds of construction.

The opposing argument for much of their down-sides is the up-front cost of building a new home has it's own environmental and financial costs. Much of the down-sides to older homes can be retrofitted for substantially less cost and impact than a new home.

We could get the best of both worlds by designing homes for upgrades with large conduits for wirings, easier access to walls and attics, etc.

>> by designing homes for upgrades with large conduits for wirings

Why isn’t this more common? I’ve watched a few spray foam installations on youtube where they just spray directly over romex / wiring / cables .

I think this is kinda needed for air tightness, but shouldn't stop anyone from running empty conduits for future use...

Because that allows contractors to sell empty conduits at a large margin. Every conduit and potential outlet is charged for through the nose.

The best apartment building I ever lived in in NYC was built in the 1920s and was built "naturally fireproof", where there were thick masonry walls between each unit to prevent the spread of fire. I literally never heard a single neighbor, anywhere, ever. Not my same-floor neighbors, nor the people above or below me.

Compare that with newer buildings I lived in, where I would be woken up at 3AM by my upstairs neighbor's cat running around.

It's surely cheaper to rewire and refit, than to knock the whole thing down to the foundations and start again.

Doing all those things at once, it's usually cheaper to knock down and start from scratch.

The problem lies in a homeowner who doesn't have much spare cash - so they rewire one year... and then a few years later they replumb... and then a few years later they replace the roof... etc.

Overall, they spent more, but in small increments so it didn't feel like more.

Typically regulations allow things to be 'grandfathered' - so renovating a house allows you to avoid getting permission to rebuild, which may be denied.

The idea that periodic replumbing and rewiring and replacing roofing felt costs less overall than a complete rebuild is questionable enough in terms of financial cost, even more so in terms of carbon output cost.

Sure, the [carbon] accounting looks a little different if you're having to pull out most of the load-bearing walls to accommodate a change of use and underpin to build on top or considering replacing old masonry with something built to maximise energy efficiency. But rebuilding entire houses to keep up with the latest fads in mobile charge ports and mixer taps is about as good for the environment as "fast fashion"!

Beyond finances, there's simply the nightmare of -- where the hell do I live while my house is being rebuilt? We've put off kitchen & main floor renovations for a half decade simply because we don't want to deal with the hassle, a rebuild is another thing entirely.

Many houses are naturally unused for months at a time - for example between tenants if let. Between owners when sold, or after the inhabitant passes away.

If the house is big enough you just do a room (or two) at a time.

> Doing all those things at once, it's usually cheaper to knock down and start from scratch.

This has never been my experience. I've done a lot of this kind of work, in several different cities (all US though).

A full rip & replace of plumbing, electrical, and roofing should cost about 20%, and require about 10% of the time, compared to building new.

Plumbing should last 50 years (rough plumbing -- fixtures are decorative and usually change with taste before failure). Electrical should last longer, but systems older than 1970s probably need updating. Roof should last 25-30 years depending on style/material.

> Doing all those things at once, it's usually cheaper to knock down and start from scratch.

This must be regional. In the PNW we'd never knock something down for that. Stripping the drywall out and redoing the plumbing/electrical/insulation is quite a lot less expensive than putting up a whole new structure.

My house was built in 1885, timber framed. There's no rot, it's been maintained, re-plumbed and re-wired a few times, and new owners only need to keep with basic maintenance. It's been insulated as well, utility bills are in the $90-150 range depending on how extreme the seasons get. The structure has another century left in it, easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com