Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

What suburban cookie-cutter, brick front vinyl siding, cul de sac hell hole do you live in?

Anonymous wrote:
+ 1 million living in older houses. I think it’s sad that people have no sense of history or neighborhood. If you feel this way at least go live out somewhere full of new boxes and McMansions and don’t come in and ruin our older neighborhoods with your dumb box. It is such a specific trend and I have to imagine the value won’t last forever. Notice that older neighborhoods with older houses do retain that value. That’s for a reason!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best is when gorgeous old architecture is tastefully updated

+1 I grew up in a neighborhood established in the early 1900s. Everybody tastefully updated their home, and it’s lovely. Huge homes; huge bedrooms; lots of character.

Anonymous wrote:The best is when gorgeous old architecture is tastefully updated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Have you never been to the northeast? New York? Europe? California? 200 year old housing is gorgeous

PP who questioned the appeal of living or working in a building that is 200 years old. Yes, I have been to a lot of places and seen so many beautiful historic buildings and homes. I personally do not want to live or work in one of those buildings, but I like visiting them.

The solution (at least to me) seems to be that we can build charming and appealing new structures, that are meant to last perhaps 50-60 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Have you never been to the northeast? New York? Europe? California? 200 year old housing is gorgeous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats not a justification. The reason is it's cheaper often to tear down and rebuild vs. do a full replacement of electrical, plumbing, etc.

Plus, many people (those who can afford a new home, not I!) prefer the tall ceilings that a new home provides. It then becomes more economical to build new.

A lot of old houses have tall ceilings. It seems like some of you think all old houses are 1940s-1950s tiny cape cods or colonials. But my 1930s house is 3k Sq ft and has 9 ft ceilings downstairs plus a 10ft step down living room.

I am not upset when an unremarkable older house is replaced with a newer one. There's a lot of teardowns in Dallas and Houston and the new houses are almost always much nicer. But have to admit that isn't often the case in DC.

Those new homes are also contemporary but much more stylish than the lot filler boxes (surrounded by siding) of DC. The nice homes have a clear facade, its not flat all around or pushed to the lot line. Plus the homes they replace are often eyesores. They still have those styles people mention here to maximize space but they're not in as nice of neighborhoods.

I have noticed this too -- why are the newer houses in Texas often brick and very nicely constructed, while here they are all siding? Or boxes or farmhouse that looks like it's done on the cheap?

Some of those they replace in Texas are eyesores, but there are also lots of absolutely beautiful old homes in Highland Park (Dallas) and other old neighborhoods that have been torn down by opportunistic developers. It's so sad.

https://www.theglampad.com/2022/03/the-destruction-of-highland-park-texas.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats not a justification. The reason is it's cheaper often to tear down and rebuild vs. do a full replacement of electrical, plumbing, etc.

Plus, many people (those who can afford a new home, not I!) prefer the tall ceilings that a new home provides. It then becomes more economical to build new.

A lot of old houses have tall ceilings. It seems like some of you think all old houses are 1940s-1950s tiny cape cods or colonials. But my 1930s house is 3k Sq ft and has 9 ft ceilings downstairs plus a 10ft step down living room.

I am not upset when an unremarkable older house is replaced with a newer one. There's a lot of teardowns in Dallas and Houston and the new houses are almost always much nicer. But have to admit that isn't often the case in DC.

Those new homes are also contemporary but much more stylish than the lot filler boxes (surrounded by siding) of DC. The nice homes have a clear facade, its not flat all around or pushed to the lot line. Plus the homes they replace are often eyesores. They still have those styles people mention here to maximize space but they're not in as nice of neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats not a justification. The reason is it's cheaper often to tear down and rebuild vs. do a full replacement of electrical, plumbing, etc.

Plus, many people (those who can afford a new home, not I!) prefer the tall ceilings that a new home provides. It then becomes more economical to build new.

A lot of old houses have tall ceilings. It seems like some of you think all old houses are 1940s-1950s tiny cape cods or colonials. But my 1930s house is 3k Sq ft and has 9 ft ceilings downstairs plus a 10ft step down living room.

I am not upset when an unremarkable older house is replaced with a newer one. There's a lot of teardowns in Dallas and Houston and the new houses are almost always much nicer. But have to admit that isn't often the case in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats not a justification. The reason is it's cheaper often to tear down and rebuild vs. do a full replacement of electrical, plumbing, etc.

Plus, many people (those who can afford a new home, not I!) prefer the tall ceilings that a new home provides. It then becomes more economical to build new.