Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
ⓘ Readers added context they thought people might like to know:
Max Dubler grew up in a 160 year old house with janky plumbing and currently lives in a poorly insulated Victorian that needs new electrical wiring.
Shingles are classified for impact resistance in two ways – the IBHS Hail Impact Study and by UL (Underwriters Laboratories). Highly rated shingles often qualify for insurance discounts (contact your insurance agent).
More Info: ow.ly/JjKA50TQ7Pm
#ImpactResistant #Roofing
I would frame it as: we should not stop people from knocking down old buildings they own and building new ones.
I don’t care if anyone wants to live in their old house, have at it. But stopping people from building new ones and imagining it is a public service is asinine
I kinda think we should at least try renovate them. Renovated old houses are awesome. Modern on the inside, Victorian on the outside.
As someone who thoroughly enjoys restoring old houses, I agree with you. There is some nuance, but generally speaking, building new is better and faster than doing a shitty renovation on an old house.
Also would reduce fire deaths.
Quote
Jason C
@jasonc_nc
If I were tasked w/ trying to reduce fire deaths I might, instead of attacking single stair buildings w/ modern suppression, turn my attention to retrofitting older housing w/ hardwired fire alarms.
-3x the deaths per occurrence in homes without
-1-2 family homes deaths have
Show more
If the foundations and walls are sturdy, why? That's adding needless expense when we can instead gut them and do total renovations to bring them up to standard. Probably saves at least half of the budget, and avoids the hassle of demolition.
I'd be fine with tearing down 99% of what was built from 1940-1990.
Before that, they're nice looking buildings with good bones. After that, they're fairly energy efficient and still have lots of life in them.
My Victorian does not have "good bones." It has walls that aren't plumb, floors that aren't level, and a ton of earthquake shoring that was added at great expense to prevent it from collapsing.
All of the housing in the world will not add up to ending homelessness if we don't have systems that can connect people who are vulnerable to the housing they have.
Follow us to learn how we're making homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring.
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="355"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
How much extra rent are you willing to pay to live in a nice-looking building?
Auckland had a ton of very nice new townhouse developments when I visited last year.
otoh think people who favor new multi-family construction just like to hear other people fucking. And hey, I'm not here to kink shame you, but I'm #blessed not to hear another soul in my 100 year old building.
Great investments are all about spotting potential others overlook.
For example, an energy-efficient home doesn’t just save money; it also attracts high-value tenants.
What hidden features do you look for before sealing the deal?
Depends what you consider "old".
My house is 50 years old, and I wouldn't say I'm really missing out on anything.
I think about 75 years is the cutoff for "too old", that's when you start to run into knob and tube wiring, fuse boxes and lack of central HVAC.
me and my wife currently rent out a house that was built in the 1920s. it’s time to rebuild america
As a multifamily developer who also has some legacy 1910-1920 smaller properties - I co-sign.
You’d have to make big improvements in how new housing is constructed. I live in a 100 year old brick twin. It has its drawbacks but I never hear the neighbors to whom we are attached. It’s crazy. When I lived in a modern townhouse we heard every footstep.
I agree with you. I feel frustrated reading stuff like SB 8 and LA's new Resident Protection Ordinance. 
in my area there are so many little old brick homes on big lots. Make that a 4 plex and it would shine.
definitely a taste thing to want to live in an old house (it's good taste though)
If there is any government subsidizing I am in favor for, it is to pay to demo structures that are blights on the community and developers are able to come in and build. Lots of revitalization would take place. Infrastructure improvements could also be done during this process.
I think this will eventually have to happen. Within the 150 to 200 year old building mark the buildings will have to be rebuilt.
Fine, but where are we supposed to live in the meantime while the new place is getting built?
Like mass transit advocates who don’t grapple with what characteristics make cars so appealing, this tweet doesn’t address why many people prefer to live in a single-family home, even if its old
This is not a bad idea. could reduce cost in some cases since its multi-family.
This is where me and you start fighting
but honestly I think there's plenty of crappy old shit box buildings that I would be fine with saying scrape and replace.
but honestly I think there's plenty of crappy old shit box buildings that I would be fine with saying scrape and replace.
You can even build new houses that people don't notice as new. Like in central Dresden.
a home is a product built out of technology that depreciates over time, gotta rebuild regularly
Replace them with nice detached single family houses. We need that to increase fertility rate. Multifamily housing is unsustainable.
Close. I prefer newer, nicer single-family mansions with water views, theater and weight rooms, and multi-head walk-in showers.
Have you seen the quality of new construction? No thanks. An old house is only a hassle if it hasn’t been maintained, but the quality is there
It is not a popular opinion because it sucks.
My house was built in 1936. By craftsmen using quality materials.
Modern builders slap cookie cutter homes together using shoddy materials.
No! Older homes do not suck to live in! So ya your opinion sucks!
You should considering removing yourself and being replaced by other people instead, makes more sense.
The old housing stock is affecting the “green new deal” aspects of IRA (eg, electrification). No ducts, ancient electrical systems, lead paint, asbestos. It complicates work, adds costs & involved extra health & safety & abatement issues.
Nothing beats a Nice old home, but holy fuck the work to get 120 year old home up to nice standards is nuts.
Never mind tearing those old beauties down, the trick is getting the slop from the 50's thru now that's aging out way faster than even the old homes.
While my knee jerk preservation reaction is alarm, I have seen enough neglected and heavily altered older houses from the 19th to mid century that could make way for something new.
Yeah but will you get the same volume of houses? The issue with gentrification is mandatory code compliance those houses are immune to, and to build the same house at that size you see far less beds, bathrooms, and higher cost to build.
Counterpoint, a mid century home with mature landscaping is a wonderful place to live, and they are always in high demand.
You can knock down all that 70’s and 80’s crap though.
Yes. Owners of “historic” homes in first ring suburbs should demo all of them and build nice multi-family. Build the nice historic looking homes in the suburbs. Stop building modern farmhouse McMansions.
This opinion is very popular in Tokyo! And it’s working out pretty well for them. archive.is/2024.05.09-232
Current one is like 50yo when we move it will be another older home, nothing newer than the 80's. Layouts are better, lots are wider. Lived in a few multifamily, all sucked. Won't get the neighbours bedbugs or cockroaches in my house, ppl do all the time in condos or townhouses.
If people liked living in them, they would fetch a market price that would keep them around and well maintained. We dont need the politburo forcing us to dwell in them.
Houses that Mohammedan's could live in with their child brides. Maybe the previous residents could be ground into fertiliser for the non allergenic plant display out front of the tower block. Near the bus to the mosque.
I think the disconnect is that when people hear "older homes" they imagine something pre-war made from old-growth timber. In reality we have a bunch of low-quality stuff that was rapidly constructed post-war that would benefit from being torn-down.
My take is that when most people say they like old houses, what they primarily mean is that they like how old houses look on the outside, and also maybe like that they were built with sturdier materials.
I’m renting a condo built in 2008 and it’s amazing how much heat it keeps in.
In my previous apartment (built in 1960s) heat leaked out easily and was instantly cold the moment I turned off my heat.
Dude I was literally on the phone today, talking to the realtor who helped us buy our current house (built in 1905) five years ago, telling her I'm fed up with fixing shit every 5 minutes and that I want to list it next year so I can find new(er) construction.
We live in a 1960 house that’s survived earthquakes and floods. We’ve completely refinished it on the inside to be modern and get the benefit of a one story house in the coastal area
and if I were in America old house all the way! an old home is one of the few ways to get the best selection of nice houses without a HOA ruling over you
I’ve lived in 2 houses built in the early 1900s. Such a headache to fix. Just this past week, I attempted to replace my shower faucet and ended up having a pro come and do it because the housing in my wall was outdated.
$200 project turned into $1200.
I’m for new stuff whether it’s multi family or single family. People underestimate how much worse a 40 yr old house is compared to a new one
The funny thing is when it comes to apartments I’d rather live in a building from the early 1900s than late 1900s. I live in a building that’s built so solid I never hear my neighbors yet I pay less than people who live in cardboard boxes with a few “luxury” finishes.
New American homes are made of cardboard. Temu-tier Newer rarely means nicer in the US.
Very grateful to live in a prewar with nice thick walls, so I'm not constantly forced to eavesdrop on my neighbors.
maintaining a 100 year old home in most climates is effectively an additional tax on homeownership
The problem is new quality is plummeting. Cost of materials and labor is way up so everyone is using the cheapest crap out there.
Here come all the people who have never lived in an old house seriously though this and historical preservation are really hard topics.
seriously though this and historical preservation are really hard topics.
agree. if owners keep up on maintenance and updates sure, but that's a lot of money over time. grew up on house built in 1912, had it's ups and downs. still remember when drain pipe on second floor decided to rot through. wheee.
I live in a house that is over 100 years old. It was nice until the first winter
The 70 yr old apt building I live in is slowly falling apart. Crap postwar construction, barely adequate. Smaller buildings that are even older are being torn down all over Manhattan, but what's replacing them is "luxury" bldgs also made crappily. 
My dude, we lived in a 2 story family farmhouse with wraparound porch built in the 1870s. Absolute nightmare. Electrical/plumbing retrofitted. No central HVAC. When we moved out nobody else in the family wanted it so the town fire department burned it down for practice.
I have the exact opposite experience. Newer houses always seem to fall apart and I would much rather be in a old house that was built to a higher standard than today.
Because American architecture tastes are so conservative a lot of these houses don’t even stick out as historic. A buddy of mine as a pretty normal house in western mass that has a boiler and tube-and-knob wiring
We just need to do the Greece thing where the owner gets a unit or something.
Love the look of a lot of houses in my neighborhood. I often dream of seeing a bunch of them torn down to build multistory mixed use buildings
Less discussed issue: old houses in earthquake-prone coastal california should be considered public hazard
I live in a house I built less than 10 years ago and it's so awesome. The neighbors hated me for tearing down the old house but that thing was totaled.
Brass tacks cost of leveling and re-building vs. flipping/rehabbing? It honestly might be pretty close.
I have flipped 100 y/o houses to good effect. But have not done ground-up construction, which would (obviously) defer the need for more maintenance by a *lot.*
It's a very weird midwit curve in that:
* Rust Belt cities were built in the 1900s and then died.
* Modern cities are modern
* Unless they're expensive at which point they made upzoning illegal in the 1960s and they're also old.
The problem is who would want to share walls with other Americans in a low trust society where you’re branded a Karen if you call cops for noise and other infractions.
I’ve seen the poor quality build in most new construction. I’d rather upgrade an old house.
Idk, this is broadly a fine take, but I don't think it reflects reality. Not every old house is an un-updated wood framed building, and most new construction is done with materials and labor that has been cost engineered to death and I don't trust them to last very long
All of the housing in the world will not add up to ending homelessness if we don't have systems that can connect people who are vulnerable to the housing they have.
Follow us to learn how we're making homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring.
Do you ever watch Bargain Block? It’s entertaining, but often I wonder if the homes they save end up with big expensive problems in the near term, and would have been better off torn down.
I propose to have the city pay for demolition. All homes on the ‘list’.
We just need MORE housing… tearing down a house and building a new one adds 0 houses to the housing stock. Just building a new one adds 1
I live in an updated 85 years old house. I would never trade it for the poorly built pieces of junk that pass for new housing today.
Construction accounts for 37% of global CO2 emissions
See what happens to that number when you “knock down and replace a lot of them”
My house was built in 1977 for $18k. To build a comparable sq ft house (2000 sqft) in 2024 we were quoted over $500k before finishes.
You are correct if you define “old houses” to be anything built in the 70’s.
More specifically Communist blocks.
Otherwise this is the worst opinion
This is mostly true of houses built from the 1950s onward, but also new construction is mostly trash filled with plastic.
Absolutely. One of the worst movements in blue areas are the historical preservation folks. We’re “preserving” buildings that have little historical value beyond nostalgia.
We need a better balance between knock everything down and don’t tear anything down.
I lived in a neighborhood with a bunch of those.
This is a good idea it's great when the new buildings have touches of character that call back to what was there before.
Keeps the neighborhood familiar and distinct while also allowing it to grow.
The problem is that the newer snout houses most home builders are throwing up lack any semblance of charm or durability. Essentially, you get a giant garage door for a facade, no porch, and an HOA that prevents any customization.
Townhomes/apartments at least can placemake.
Knock every shitbox down.
Keep the nice ones.
It's visually and immediately obvious which ones are good architecture and which ones are just old shitboxes.
Knock down the old shitboxes so we don't have to build in the parks.