Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.
The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.
Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.
The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.
Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?
If you're more than about 5'8" tall those old houses are a royal pain.
Which brings up a good point: old houses don't tend to get torn down because they've worn out, they get torn down because they're functionally obsolete. They no longer serve the function they're needed for, and the cost of modifying them is greater than the cost of tearing them down and starting over. Low ceilings, small rooms, steep stairs, no insulation -- these are things that are hard to fix in an existing house without major renovation. And renovating is more expensive than new construction because you're building a house with a house in the way.
And I'm sorry, it's a myth that houses were built better in the past. Houses are built at all quality levels at all times. Sure, the better-built ones survive. But the best-built houses today are superior to anything that has ever been built, because there are materials and techniques available today that just didn't exist in the past. Read about what's happening with building science, air barriers, vapor barriers, water management, ventilation -- none of that even existed 30 years ago.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.
The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.
Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?
If you're more than about 5'8" tall those old houses are a royal pain.
The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?
Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?
For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)
I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.
The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.
Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?
Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.
The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.
Anonymous wrote:In Europe some houses are centuries old. So they do last forever. Or should be built to do so.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.
If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.
+1
+2
+3. The only thing I dislike is that a teardown turns into a gigantic home that becomes unaffordable for average people.

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.
If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.
+1
+2