For those who hate teardowns, do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind tear downs when they actually should be torn down. I really don’t like it when builders tear down perfectly decent mid sized homes to build huge homes that cost way more than the original house. There are so many people who would have happily lived in the original home. Why not let one of those families live there?

Counties need to stop approving this wastefulness.

Because they like the neighborhood and life is short?

Why do towns and counties approve them? Additional tax revenue and permit fees, obviously. Money. And look who donates to local campaigns: Lots of developers and real estate head honchos who lean on politicians to keep the local industry hot.

[Anonymous]

I have a classic 1920’s California Spanish. Thick plaster walls which keep the house cool and well insulated, knot-less wood throughout the walls, and I wouldn’t give it up for any new build!

[Anonymous]

I think most cities have designated protected, historic areas for homes that actually should be saved. When they don't, it's the city and country agreeing that these homes are nothing noteworthy to save.

The only thing I like to see before demolition is any old original artifacts carefully removed so they can be put into other homes of that period. In another city, this means woodwork such as built-in buffets in dining rooms, old light fixtures, etc.

[Anonymous]

houses built 100 years ago were built to last. houses built today are garbage regardless of price bc the materials are cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:houses built 100 years ago were built to last. houses built today are garbage regardless of price bc the materials are cheap.

This is a generality that is completely untrue. Most remaining houses built 100 years ago remain because those particular houses were well built, but there was a lot of garbage built then too. I tore one down in Arlington 15 years ago - the "foundation" was a couple of brick piles, it had a leanto bathroom next to the stove, the walls were so thin you could see them bend when you pushed them.

Modern codes make even cheap houses a lot more efficient and safe than older houses, but there are plenty of newer houses that aren't built cheaply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind tear downs when they actually should be torn down. I really don’t like it when builders tear down perfectly decent mid sized homes to build huge homes that cost way more than the original house. There are so many people who would have happily lived in the original home. Why not let one of those families live there?

Counties need to stop approving this wastefulness.

Who are you to decide when a building "should" be torn down? Why should the actual owner of a lot have to live with your preference? Who compensates the lot owner if you "let" some other family live there?