"it can last for decades"
Just my personal opinion, that's the problem with US housing. We build stuff to last 20-30 years(if properly installed) , instead of 100s of years.
Just my personal opinion, that's the problem with US housing. We build stuff to last 20-30 years(if properly installed) , instead of 100s of years.
Well obviously, if we don't build houses to last longer than a few decades. You're describing a symptom not a reason.
My house is typical for a house its age. I have no idea what people will want from a house in 2073, but it will be at least somewhat different from today. Some of that will be style of course, but some will be real functional differences.
My point is that it's possible to build a house with with a lasting structure that can be updated for new technologies as they arise relatively easily, but we don't do that because the home building industry is overrun with corner cutting.
If you visit old houses (pre-war) you can see that the general quality of the construction is just considerably higher than the crackerjack boxes we've been erecting since the '50s. Sure, there is an element of survivorship bias, and some of the legacy stuff is ugly to deal with (lead paint, asbestos, horsehair, and knob and tube, I'm looking at you), but overall they were built to last in a way that new construction today just isn't.
Sure the old houses looked stronger, and and often were in places where strength is not needed. However they often are lacking in critical areas.
Floods generally will not destory a house structure but it will destory the drywall, carpet, and the like so the cleanup is expensive.