Re: How long should houses last?

On Jan 4, 10:39=A0am, jdnic...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <q62sn35vucrnm70ca5iufa9umdnt6uj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,Wildepad
=A0<norep=
lies> wrote:
> >After an involuntary overdose of HGTV and the statistics on how square
> >footage of single family homes has increased over the past few
> >decades, I'm wondering if the time has come to start building
> >disposable homes -- built to last x years and then are easy to
> >demolish/recycle.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 A lot of the systems in a house don't require changing,
th=
ough,
> and it would be a waste of money to keep recreating them.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What I think modern housebuilders should consider when
the=
y
> design and construct houses is updatability. I don't know what new
> ideas about living we will come up with in the future but I do know
> I want it to be easier to install than replacing the wiring in my
> place was. Not sure how to go about this, though.

The house I live in now was built in 1845. When I was at boarding
school, for a while I lived in an Elizabethan building  (late 1500s).

Both had been modified extensively over the years, but were
quite liveable. The newer house seems to have undergone
major makeovers every 50 years or so (we're partway through
the latest one).

It's worth noting that both are built of durable materials - brick
and stone respectively. Modern American houses outside cities
tend be be balloon framed in wood and are quite ephemeral and
easy to change compared to the older building styles.

I'm not convinced that the cost of demolition is significant with
balloon frames - I've seen them taken down very quickly. I'd say
we've already reached your goal, for the most part.

Peter Trei