“Noisy and Unsafe: Stop Fetishizing Old Homes”
Interesting article in this month’s issue of The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/stop-fetishizing-old-homes-new-construction-nice/621012/
Interesting quotes:
“Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure.”
“For comparison’s sake, consider the Japanese approach. The average Japanese home is demolished 30 years after construction, the realistic life span of a typical cheaply built structure. The Japanese have virtually no “used home” market: Fully 87 percent of Japanese home sales are new, compared with 11 to 34 percent in the West. As a result, most Japanese households enjoy a new house or apartment with all the modern amenities and design innovation that entails, including ever-improving earthquake standards. And this steady supply of new housing has helped make Tokyo one of the most affordable cities in the world, despite a growing population.”
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
New construction usually isn't as solidly built, but new construction is usually more energy efficient due to better insulating and air sealing standards. I wouldn't say treating homes as a disposal '30 year and trash'em' type of asset is particularly "green" though. Renovation of older structures is a type of recyling, in a way. You also tend to have really nice finishes in some older homes that are crazy expensive to put in new (solid old growth hardwood floors, fancy crown moulding, big rosettes, etc.). I like a lot of the old architectural details.
That thing about Tokyo being super affordable sounds off to me. Big cities everywhere tend to me among the most expensive places to live. Japan is somewhat famous for having multigenerational 100 year mortgages too, which is conflict with the 'most homes are less than 30 years old' part. I can't say I've really researched this enough to be sure, but there is some info there that doesn't seem right to me.
Bill
I would probably enjoy reading the article you have referenced in your link, however, like so many these days they require a log in leading to a subscription. I Fetishize the good old days when you could click on most of the internet articles without demands for personal information and subscriptions (the downside of the internet) - my instinctual response to such demands is usually a few choice curse words followed by a mouse click on something else.
I think the majority of the Fetishizing about older homes revolves around feelings of nostalgia and that the majority of the reasons that new construction is better revolves around the fact that at least a little actual engineering has gone into the new. One can only hope that as technology continues to advance there will be more engineering and less nostalgia. CHEERS!
Interesting. I had no problems reading the article.
I find if I right-click on the link and select "open in incognito window" I have no trouble reading it.
dccontrarian:
Thank you! I was not aware of that strategy for avoiding subscription demands.
I got a message "This is your last free article."
Opening a private (incognito) window (on a Mac), then pasting the link, gets the article.
I get the same thing (and the same workaround works) with every Fine Homebuilding article. Even though I'm a subscriber somehow I never seem to be able to stay logged on.
[pssst turn off Java in settings temporarily]
Counterpoint: writers deserve to be paid for their work.
Yes, yes they do
The problem is that everyone wants 10 bucks a month or more so you can read that one article.
The real problem is that no one still makes real money, least of which the author
It is because of the cost of the transaction and the middlemen involved
There needs to be a service developed where one can have a kitty of money[IOW one transaction cost] and then every article you read costs, I dunno, 10 cents. That one article in WSJ 10 cents. NYT 10 cents. When your kitty gets low you get a notification, or it can autofill or whatever. Probably a browser plugin could run it.
The world is set up on all these monthly subscriptions that simply didn't exist 30 years ago, and I don't see it as sustainable.
If no one had invented animated ads, no one would have invented ad block software and this problem would not have started.
Remember when the paper was a quarter? How much of that went to the Boston Globe or whatever?
Zero
Went to distribution[paperboy, drug store]
Ads paid for it.
Stupid animated talking popover popup pop under ads ruined the financial model because they created ad blockers
countercountercounterpoint? Craigslist killed the classified ads which was the best earning per square inch and thus the profit margin for papers.
In general the Internet blew a hole in the price of advertising, which disrupted every industry that depended on advertising. I can't believe that these days people pay a monthly fee to get TV -- with advertising!
"The world is set up on all these monthly subscriptions that simply didn't exist 30 years ago, and I don't see it as sustainable."
I can recall having magazine subscriptions 30 years ago. Even longer -- but I'd date myself.
Ironically, I once got a fortune cookie with the fortune "Keep the old as long as it's good..take the new as soon as it's better" If you want a new home or live in a stack and pack with 2x4's that are 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 and all new appliances that last three years and listen to and monitor everything you do, thermostats that can be controlled by a third party on the internet, minisplits that are "noisy" and don't perform as advertised, cameras in every nook and cranny, toilets with such little flush you have to flush three times, showers at 1 gpm, houses so tight they can't breath and you have to bring in air from elsewhere and filter it, toxic foam insulation, everything electric so you can be easily shut off with the flick of switch miles away etc. etc....go for it....I'll stick to the old... as long as it's good.
Tom
Unfortunately, the old that people have nostalgia for and think of as good were usually the houses of the wealthy of the time and they are usually compared against the housing of the masses of today. A more rational comparison would be a house designed and built by a fairly wealthy individual today who also has a driving interest in housing technology with most of the remaining mansions of yesteryear. Such a comparison should be based on living convenience and energy efficiency, not someone's sense of aesthetics.
While correct on some levels the author misses the mark. In expensive markets like Los Angeles it is the location which drives the price rather than the house itself. While infill housing is built better the gross living area is going to significantly smaller and not drastically more affordable because as I mentioned previously it's location location location.
I think one important thing to keep in mind here is survivorship bias. The old houses (and cars, appliances, etc.) that have made it this long are often the ones that were built and/or maintained better (perhaps because they had / have more aesthetic or cultural value). There's plenty of old houses that weren't, and don't still exist. But, that doesn't mean that every old thing has intrinsic value or quality that must be preserved -- sometimes they're just old.
Also, people have different ideas of what's considered "old". I've heard it said that "Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance, and Americans thing 100 years is a long time". There's quite a difference between a well-maintained 1800s house with intricate woodwork and architectural details, and a 1950s generic suburban ranch. I got the impression that the article was mostly criticizing zoning & related regulations that inhibit redevelopment or densification of older (mid-century), mostly lower-end housing stock, not the occasional well-preserved higher-end historical structure.
All that said, I do wonder what the best solution to aging housing stock is. Looking around my city, there's tons of old-er, poor-quality housing. Tearing it all down and replacing it doesn't seem very green from a resource usage / up-front energy perspective, but upgrading it to better standards isn't easy either, and sometimes there's not much left that doesn't need replacement. And, some of the sins of the past never quite go away -- what happens to all the lead paint that's flaked off over the years and contaminated the soil (and all the dust created if the house is demolished?) There's not a good solution to returning a piece of land to a "blank slate". I've thought of the possibility of meticulous de-construction and maximizing material reuse, but that's not a cost-effective of scalable solution in this economy. Likewise, I've wondered about the possibility of building new structures to be maximally recyclable.
Right, of course there are going to be some older houses that have to go, but are these new houses going to be those same houses 10-20 years from now? Especially with all the new things that can go wrong, not time tested.
Sad thing is, water, shelter and food is a must for every animal. Without these, nothing would get done. Everybody should be entitled to each, and should be a priority in life. Everything there is comes from the earth...and who owns that, and all it contains? And who has the right to pick up a stone and sell it to someone. If I need a stone I can pick it up myself or I can give you a piece of wood you need, that I picked up, and exchange it for the stone. Each saved ourselves a little bit of time that we can now go and enjoy.
Habitat for Humanity...
Energy.....it's free throughout the universe.
And unfortunately, their are those in the world who are to lazy to pick up a stone or piece of wood, and feel they are above those who do, these are the ones who don't deserve either.
I read this article and had a few conversations with people about it. One thing that doesn't get covered is the upfront carbon emissions that come with new construction. I hope to develop an article that takes a more well-rounded look at the pros and cons of building new vs. renovating old. That's a glaring omission in the Atlantic piece.
That's a really hard comparison to do, there are just so many variables. I would argue however that people in the construction/development business tend to be highly cost-conscious. So I would assume that the people making the build new vs. renovate decision are making decisions that are economically rational, at least on a personal level. The question I would ask is whether there are situations where decisions that are rational on an individual level end up creating situations that are not optimal on a community or societal level, and what market distortions exist that make individually optimal decisions sub-optimal on a collective level.
Kiley, you sound like me bringing that up :-) I'm always saying that it is important to look at the whole system and not any one part of it. DC is right that that can be complicated though. At some point a renovation project might take more resources than a brand new build, especially if you have to correct major problems like a deteriorating foundation. I think production builders are pretty good about minimizing materials use, since they strive to minimize their build costs as much as possible, but the quality of the finished house often suffers as a result.
I'm very much against anyone arguing to tear down historic structures to rebuild with new though in all cases. Sometimes it may make sense, but it's important to preserve history too, so you don't want to be out bulldozing ALL old structures in the name of greeness.
Bill
Plus the fact that seeing, learning and understanding about old simple technology may come back in style in the future when we all have to get back to the basics......after those who farm on the computer or try to start a fire with their smartphone are gone.
I hear you, Bill, and 100% agree. I just think associated carbon emissions need to be part of the conversation when it comes to new vs. old. It didn't even get a mention from the Atlantic writer. Also, materials selections is a huge factor in either case. That's an area that needs a good looking at no matter the builder/designer/planner/project/objectives. In fact, I asked Scott Gibson to do an article on tools for measuring upfront carbon emissions (a term coined by Lloyd Alter that Allison Bailes and I have recently adopted); it will be published tomorrow. An excerpt:
Rachel White, the CEO of Byggmeister, a renovation and design company in the Boston area, said her firm has already taken the biggest step toward lowering embodied carton—staying away from new construction completely. When houses are renovated rather than replaced, most structural elements along with the foundation are reused, eliminating the worst carbon offenders that most new buildings must have. Writing in The New Carbon Architecture, Larry Strain estimates that renovating a building produces between 50% and 70% less carbon than building a new one.
I have a feeling that there are some errors in logic in the article.
If I pretend that it is true that there are almost no 'used' houses sold in Japan, I have to ask, what percentage of the housing does that represent?
I am thinking almost none.
Are they tearing down skyscrapers after 30 years?
I think not
Also consider the weird world of real estate in Japan
There was a time in the 80s when the land under the imperial palace was worth more than all the land in California. Not the palace, the land.
How does that affect what you do with single family homes?
Hi Keith,
A friend of mine from high school/college has been living in Tokyo for the last 20-plus years, so I asked her to tell me it ain't so. Indeed, it is the case that perfectly good houses are torn down after 25 years. She is flabbergasted every time she sees it. You are right, the land is what is valued, not what's on it. I didn't think to ask about commercial-scale buildings but now I am curious.
Here in the US it seems that the functional life of skyscrapers is about 40 years. I was go smacked when in DC they started tearing down high-rises built in the 70s and 80s. You'd think a building like that you could just gut every 30 years or so and replace the finishes. But it turns out that it's more cost-effective to start fresh.
If carbon externalities were properly priced, no way that would be the case...
100 years ago we were building houses in California with tight grained old growth redwood for framing. They also had no vapor barriers and not much insulation. In most of those houses I've worked on the framing is almost as good as new, a century later, thanks to it being gorgeous material and having the ability to dry out.
Now we don't have materials like that and understand that we really do need better thermal envelopes, which adds a whole bunch of building science issues to solve since we no longer have easy drying.
So, which is better? An old growth redwood house that could well last for centuries but require plenty of heating fuel? Or something built of basically inferior material, to a higher energy efficiency, which may well not last a century, or even a lifetime?
Personally, I think we should be striving to build for 500 years AND be energy efficient.
Life is complicated. There are good things from the old and good things from the new.
Antonio,
In established communities where not much changes, it may make sense to build houses that last centuries. However in North America the factors that affect the longevity of a house are not primarily its construction, but are rather social, demographic, and economic. Almost any structure can last for centuries if it is maintained and regularly updated. That happens when the house meets the needs of its occupants, and is located in a community people want to live in because it is flourishing culturally and economically. Without those advantages houses are allowed to decline or abandoned, and all the redwood framing in the world won't save them.
I'm from New England. Having framing last 100 years is entirely unremarkable. The oldest house in my home town is over 340 years old, 100 year old houses aren't even considered particularly old. Of course if you go to the Old World even 300 years isn't considered very old.
Houses generally don't get torn down because they have physically worn out, it's because they're no longer functional. When they have physically worn out often it's because they weren't maintained, because it was no longer cost-effective to do that.
>"Personally, I think we should be striving to build for 500 years AND be energy efficient."
Houses need to be affordable too. I remember one of my engineering professors who liked to say "We could build an airplane that would never wear out. Unfortunately that airplane would also never be able to get off the ground." You have to have a balance, you can't go to extremes, and "cost is no object" means that you can't scale the project outside of very small numbers.
I've spent a fair bit of time around DC/Baltimore where there are many 100+ year old structures. It's not usually the framing that fails, it's the brick facades. The framing is usually in surprisingly good shape, albeit unusually assembled in many cases. Energy efficiency is not always so great, although an arguement can be made that party walls between row houses are, in effect, a way to save energy.
As I have said here many times, it's always important to consider the entire system and not focus on any one part of it. If we made passivehaus-level energy efficiency and 500+ year lifetimes design goals, we'd probably have 500 square foot houses costing several million dollars. Very few could afford that, so it's not really practical. It makes more sense to aim for a reasonable cost target, then do the best you can with energy efficiency and longevity within that financial limitation.
Bill
I'm embarrassed for my alma mater UCLA that they hire clueless researchers like M. Nolan Gray. He's a recent grad, a young kid with an ignorant utopian view of housing. He's the same one who advocates for eliminating all parking spaces for businesses to force people to walk instead.
As for the topic of the article, many old homes are built with stronger, more robust materials whereas new cookie cutter homes are built like Chinese products. Only a trash rag like the Atlantic would publish such nonsense.
While M. Nolan Grey makes some salient points, he also goes off the deep end with some sweeping generalizations and seems to lack a thorough understanding of new construction and its cost as well as perils due to a lack of the building trade skills that haven't kept up with the advances in building science. While the housing market in many areas is seeing bidding wars that are driving real estate well above asking prices, the majority of the real estate market is still significantly more affordable to the middle income population who can not afford new construction, let alone high performance construction. And if someone's "fetish" is enjoying an older home, hopefully that appreciation comes with the care and sensibility for the improvements that both preserve the structure and precious materials that went into it, as well as the climate.
He's an idealistic kid who just got his PhD, and has never been outside the classroom. Since I read UCLA alumni publications, unfortunately I've been exposed to his other articles which are all progressive utopian nonsense that would never work in the real world.
I should have just started and stopped at the last paragraph of the article:
"All that construction consumes a fair share of resources, and housing in Japan doesn’t double as an investment vehicle. But I, for one, would take that trade-off."
Clearly the author espouses very different priorities than I do. 99% Invisible did a podcast episode on exactly this conundrum with Japanese housing. Very insightful. What started from improving earthquake-safety standards became a paradigm unto itself; homes there are no more or less safe than they were 40 years ago.
Jason,
Japanese culture is fascinating, and I don't know much about how it intersects with their architecture, but I've always found it odd that they traditionally didn't include insulation in their buildings, and still lag behind other countries in that respect.
They produce some of the finest woodworking hand tools, and their timberframe joinery is second to none and definitely doesn't fit into the 30-year plan.
Not sure what you mean by "traditionally," but it is true that Japanese architecture has always been more geared toward keeping cool in the hot, humid summers than keeping warm in winter. The majority of Japanese have always lived along the eastern side of the islands, where winters are fairly mild. Modern homes are badly insulated, but the Japanese consume far less energy to heat their homes than we do in the US or Canada because they commonly heat just the room or room they are in at the moment. There is no tradition of central heating. Kerosene stoves were commonly used for heat for decades after WWII, as well as portable electric heaters. Mini-splits are common now. The craftsmanship and timber framing involved in their temple and shrine architecture, and in homes of the well-to-do in the 17th - 19th centuries is of the highest order.
That's because Japenese traditionally use Kotatsu for heating, as a sort of cultural family socializing centerpiece. This is all the more reason that the author M. Nolan Gray is clueless.
"What is a Kotatsu?
Essentially, a kotatsu is a heated table that keeps the lower half of your body warm with a space heater as you dine. The table is fitted with an electric heater in the center, so the diners' legs are close to (but not touching) the heat source. A floor-length blanket hangs over the tabletop to trap the heat. Diners' legs go under the blanket so they stay toasty, even in the cold. In a traditional Japanese setting, diners sit on the floor, either on cushions or legless chairs, but you can build a hybridized Western variation with raised tables, too.
Early versions
of the kotatsu have been around in Japan since the 14th century. Originally the kotatsu started as a charcoal hearth used to
cook meals
and provide warmth to the home, called an irori. Early innovators started draping these hearths with heavy quilts called kotatsu kakabuten, which trapped the heat, so they and their families could cuddle up and stay warm. The invention took off, becoming known as a "hori-kotatsu," which effectively translates to "fireside footwarmer."
The electric kotatsu, the standard today, arrived in the 20th century. In Japan, some people have rooms in their home designed around the kotatsu, with
recessed areas of the floor, and a deeper pit for the kotatsu itself — think a 1960s Mad Men-style conversation pit, but timeless."