Making a House That Will Last for Centuries? 756
tcyun asks: "The intro text from kaisyain's review brought up a thought that has been floating around in my head as I am a new home-owner. If one wanted to design a home that would last for hundreds of years, what would one have to do? I, and many of my friends, have recently/ purchased homes. As with all homes, some things are in good shape, others are not. Many items are the fault of initial design, many are due to poor upkeep and repairs. Looking around, it is possible to have a home last for hundreds of years (my family's ancestral home is about 400 years old and there are castles in Europe that are older). If one wanted to build/modify a home, what would one need to do to make sure that the home would still be standing, and usable, hundreds of years from now?" M : Wired suggests going underground.
"A few elements come to mind: structural integrity, usability, reparability, ease of upkeep, physical location (geology and neighborhood), technology, and aesthetics.
- Structural integrity: Rock lasts a long time, but has a variety of draw backs. Concrete (poured or cinder block) foundations are common where I live but wood is still the material used for most of the structure. Should steel cross-beams be considered for parts of the structure? I have heard good things about laminated/engineered wood.
- Technology: Folks on Slashdot have talked about wiring homes with cat-5/7/x and installing empty conduit 'just in case.' Is this really useful with the proliferation of wireless? Would it be more useful if a crawlspace was made available between the ceiling and the attic so that any type of ducting/wiring could be run into a room? Should all rooms have access to a central column through which wiring, plumbing and ducting were run?
- Usability: I have a small house with a small, combined living-family-dining room. I am fairly sure that 50 years ago the designers were not laying out the space to take into account book shelves, a large television, stereo cabinet, gaming consoles, and more in addition to a couch, chair and dining table. Simply making the room larger is one option, but cavernous space is not necessarily good for usability. What would be a good floor plan and how might different sized rooms be distributed to be useful over time for multiple purposes? Would it need a bathroom? (joke)
- Reparability: the previous homeowners made a number of DIY 'improvements' which are nice, until one needs to make a repair. Many items are installed in ways where the only option is to remove entire installations. What types of modular improvements can be made that allow for easy repair/replacement over time as needs change?
- Location: How would one choose where to build a home that would last for hundreds of years? Do you pick an existing neighborhood, space that is at the edge of a town/city or somewhere further out? Does one pick a neighborhood that has been economically/geologically/stable/safe over the longer term even if it is not in great shape at the moment. At first glance, cities in the United States like San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh have all gone through 10-20 years spells of nastiness, but have been fairly stable cities at the macro level for a hundred years.
- Aesthetics: Does one simply design/architect and deal with the fact that it will variously become attractive/unattractive over time?
And to complicate matters, how different are the options if one imposes a budget for initial construction (depending on your own idea of what a realistic budget is)."
nothing beats hard work (Score:3, Insightful)
and human remains... (Score:4, Funny)
Since the great wall is packed with the bodies of those that built it (and the pyramids probably have some poor saps crunched in as well), should we assume human skeletons contribute greatly to a structures durability?
-rt
Re:and human remains... (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely! [ludd.luth.se]
Absolutely not (Score:3, Informative)
There also used to be a rumor that skeletons were left inside of the Hoover Dam, but as this would have, if nothing else, greatly weakened the structure as the body decayed, no bodies were left behind (this is also why skeletons wouldn't have been left inside of the Great Wall).
Re:nothing beats hard work (Score:3, Funny)
Pyramids not built by slave labour (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pyramids not built by slave labour (Score:5, Funny)
(font color="Black" face="BumHandwriting")
- Will
(/font)Build Pyramid
For Beer!
(/CardboardSquare)
Re:Pyramids not built by slave labour (Score:4, Interesting)
So did the workers that built the railroads in the U.S. back in the 1800's.
It wasn't until lately that this particular perk was abolished. Remember. Beer is good food.
Re:Pyramids not built by slave labour (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pyramids not built by slave labour (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose none of the labor on the Pyramids was slave labor?
You suppose correctly, actually- the pyramids predate Israelite captivity by centuries- the pyramids at Giza were built 400-500 years before Abraham, actually. The Israelites built a number of storage cities for the pharaohs, but no major pyramids. Also, I'm assuming that when you write "the oldest history book we have" you mean the Bible, which is incorrect- there are extensive Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Chinese historical records that all predate the writings of the Pentateuch.
Building a structure that lasts (Score:5, Insightful)
a. Structural integrity
Structures made from rocks tend to last longer. In fact, most of the ancient buildings or structures were made of rock. Ditto for Medeival castles (and not_just_the_ones_in_Europe). So, looking at the past, rock should be your first choice. But is it the only one? I don't think so.
Reinforced concrete *could* be an option. However, concrete is a very treacherous substance Also, if one lives in area that experiences heavy rainfall, concrete might not be a good choice. Moisture/ rainwater can seep through the voids in concrete and can corrode the reinforcement. The cost of waterproofing might be huge.
Bricks. Lots of them. The thicker the brickwall, the longer it might last. But then how many people would want a wall say 4 feet thick?
Timber: In principle, well-cured timber should last for a long time. For e.g the pillars that support the dykes/ docks in many older European cities.
b. Technology
That is an interesting criterion. TV screens are getting bigger, computer monitors are getting thinner. So, the amount of space required for each of these "Display Units" is changing. Similarly, cell phones are a commonplace, so theoretically, telephone conduits/sockets are not necessary. It is difficult to predict what the appliances/ applications in the future would be like.
c. Usability
What do you, the owner/habitant of the structure plan to use the building for? If you plan to stay there for a LONG time ( and I mean till ripe old age) start thinking of having ramps instead of staircases. Or escalators. Similarly, the bedrooms should be on the ground floor (or first floor as some people call it). How many children are you planning to have? Do you plan to convert the building to a museum/public library after your death? THat will decide how much of usable space you will need to provide in the house. Remember, a group of people need more space to move through a room than a single person.
d. Reparability
Concrete repairs are expensive. Rock masonry repairs are difficult and expensive (I am speaking in genral) Timber *might* be cheaper to maintain.
Again by meintenance I am assuming normal maintenance (painting/waterproofing, etc.)
e. Location
As far away from Human habitat as possible. The Pyramids/ castles/ Great Wall of China....were they in the cities/ suburbs????
f. Aesthetics:
I am not the aesthetics type. Personally, I believe that functionality is superior to looks. What is considered beautiful or appealing today might not be considered the same in the future. ("In the 60's in England one could have bad teeth and still be considered sexy"...Austin Powers Int'l Man of Mystery if I am not mistaken)
**Remember: at the end of the day, it is RESOURCES that will decide the fate of the structure. Some kings spent decades building monuments. Some dynasties spent centuries building walls.....They could do so because they had resources. In terms of land, labor, money, material, time and many more.
Re:Building a structure that lasts (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Building a structure that lasts (Score:4, Insightful)
- Don't use concrete
- Brick's OK; lumps of rock are better
- Well seasoned wood; 'nuff said.
Why not concrete? Simple. It's brittle. When it cracks, you get a crack right the way up you nice new house. Give it another ten years, and the surveyors won't touch it with a barge pole. Been there, got the T-shirt.Really, this isn't difficult. Don't build crappy houses out of prefab frames, slapped on breeze blocks and expect it to last for centuries.
They didn't build to last in the old days because it was fun, and they got a kick out of thinking about how their grandchildren would appreciate it; they just knew damn fine they would have to build it again when it fell down, so they didn't get it wrong the first time round.
Re:Building a structure that lasts (Score:4, Interesting)
First, MODERN concrete structures are MUCH better than those of years gone by. Additives increase strength, add flexability, and can prevent cracks. Some of these are acrylics, latex, glass or carbon fibers, etc. Google has lots more info on this. Just because Your builder is ignorant and hasn't kept up with modern technology doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist and works.
Second, prefab panels can be MUCH better than traditional stick-built structures. First, being put together in a factory means that they can be built to higher tolerances, under ideal conditions using materials and methods that simply can't be duplicated at the job site. Stress skin panels are an example of this.
Cost is the big reason most modern housing sucks. Builders are simply not using the technology available as it would increase the price of a home by 20% - 100% or are using sloppy labor. You also need to use the right materials for the right environment. You wouldn't use the same building methods and materials in southern California than you would in Wisconsin.
Lastly, it's a well known fact that the BIGGEST reason building structures fail is WATER. Keep water away from the foundation and out of the house and it will last Much longer. This means that you need a decent roof system that is maintained (Nothing lasts forever), proper grading, keeping landscaping under control (no trees too close to the house or foundation) etc.
Good design beats hard work (Score:3, Interesting)
The main factor in the longevity of buildings is not the quality or type of construction, given reasonable competence on the part of the builders. It's whether or not the people who live in the houses are happy with their dwellings. If they are, they will maintain them lovingly and they will last. If not, they will rapidly decay. For an example of the latter, taken to an extreme, see public housing like the infamous Cabrini Green. Using exactly the same construction techniques could have yielded buildi
It can't be that hard! (Score:4, Interesting)
On the contrary - it can be that hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern buildings, with very few exceptions, aren't designed to last for hundreds of years. Architects, developers and builders design and build for the short term, not for the long term. The materials they choose to work with aren't designed to last for centuries simply because cities, and hence buildings, evolve over time - what's needed and what's fashionable today will be useless and outdated in only a couple of decades from now.
The proof of this is around us - buildings erected in the 60s and 70s are being pulled down all the time, to make way for more "modern", "practical" and "aesthetic" developments. This is especially true of commercial buildings but it also applies to residential structures too.
Modern building design is nothing like Victorian building design. The Victorians constructed brick buildings, because brick was the best material available to them. As a result, they couldn't safely build more than four or five storeys - beyond that a building would not be able to support its own weight. They also (for the most part) didn't have any means of transporting goods and people up and down easily - lifts/elevators didn't really take off in a big way until the turn of the 20th century.
It was only when the means to work steel effectively, to shape it as required, was developed that modern building design took off. Steel being lighter and stronger than brick allowed architects to design taller, more spacious buildings and coupled with the use of lifts/elevators, it allowed them to break the ceiling barrier that previously existed. Once they started to work with steel, they quickly were able to go very high, very quickly, hence the rapid development of skyscrapers almost overnight in New York and other cities.
But I'm digressing from my main point: The reason why buildings don't last is because, generally they're designed with the knowledge that they'll be obsolete within their designers' lifetimes.
Victorians, Durability, Extensibility. (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when I lived in New Jersey in the 80s
The "Victorians" were the rich, had nice things... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the smaller, more low-key homes that are revered today, such as Greene and Greene's craftsmans, were premium products for the well-heeled. They've lasted so long and appear so well-made now, becuase no expense was spared back then.
Do some research into some of these old neighborhoods, and see who used to live there. It wasn't average folks, trust me.
Re:The "Victorians" were the rich, had nice things (Score:3, Interesting)
The houses that have lasted a hundred years are the good ones.
Yes, a lot of the examples on this thread basically prove that rich people can afford to build houses that last. But it doesn't always work that way.
Our house in the Luberon (SE France) is probably about 600 years old, and was probably built by a group of nomads who settled in our area and manifestly didn't know much about building. So they started by digging half the rooms out of the (very soft) bedrock, added a few barrel vaults made from w
Re:The "Victorians" were the rich, had nice things (Score:4, Funny)
Slightly off the topic of houses, but on-topic as far as lasting a long time - I remember hearing about another of Isambard Kingdom Brunel's bridges. I don't know offhand where it is (was), but apparently it was becoming unsound, so the Royal Corps of Engineers was called in to bring it down. They applied the calculated volume of explosives and hit the switch. The bridge went up and dropped back near enough in the exact same place, strong enough for the Engineers to drive their truck over...
I figure I should see at least three comments about how if it was the US Army blowing up the bridge, that bridge would right now be passing Pluto and heading for deep space...
Re:It can't be that hard! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It can't be that hard! (Score:5, Interesting)
Regular Maintenance
The longer you let it go, the more nature reclaims it. You have to plan to fight entropy continuously.
I took a tour in the NE US a few years ago and the guide told us, "Our ancestors built these buildings with the intent that thay would last hundreds of years!" There was a crew on scaffolding against one building tuck-pointing all the mortar on one wall.
I pointed out to the guide that if it wasn't for the regular replacement of the mortar, none of these building would have lasted 50 years. His response was, "Yeah, but they were smart enough to build these buildings so that we _could_ replace the mortar."
I thought it was a stupid answer at the time but later I realized that he was right. They didn't build things they couldn't repair, replace or maintain.
I have friends that live in a 170 year old, wood frame house. Of course, the banister was replaced sometime in the 1920's and the oak posts in the cellar were changed to steel in the 1960's and several steps have been replaced and the siding's been replaced several times and the chimneys have been rebuilt,... you get the idea.
But, it's still considered a 170 year old house even though probably less than half of it is actually 170 years old.
My point is, structures that are maintained, last. Those that are not maintained, don't. It doesn't really matter what material you build with, if you don't or can't maintain it, it isn't going to last anyway.
Nature (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, over time soil was deposited on the roofs of the temples, and seeds took root. The root systems of the trees went inside the buildings, down the columns, and tore everything apart.
Many of the temples have been restored... but it is interesting to see what the jungle ca
Re:It can't be that hard! (Score:3, Interesting)
The old one is trying to out-do the tower of piza for leaning prowess
Most of the houses in the centre date from the 17th century and those outside are around 100 years old or so and are regarded as very modern
Troc
"Some of these buildings" (Score:5, Funny)
The house I live in, is only 100 years old this year.
Use Twinkies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Use Twinkies (Score:3, Funny)
Here is something cool to check out... (Score:5, Informative)
California Institue of Earth Art and Architecture. [calearth.org]
Not exactly what you might be looking for. But I want one of these houses. Cool looking, Cheap, Enviromentally friendly, and they will last a long... long... long... time.
Ted
Flexibility (Score:5, Insightful)
As for materials, any modern materials will last a long long time if properly maintained. Houses built of wood 100's of years ago are still standing and our wood products now are much stronger/better.
Re:Flexibility (Score:5, Insightful)
But I have two sad words to add: Formosan Termites. They are in North America and headed north; the frost line didn't seem to stop them. So I don't think you can count on wood lasting another 200 years - probably better to use steel.
sPh
Re:Flexibility (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with steel is once it gets too hot it loses all structural integrity very rapidly. IE it's fine at X degrees but at X+1 degrees your house just collapsed. A wood beam on the other hand will char on the outside and degrade slowly over time.
Re:Flexibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Flexibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been thinking a lot about building myself
recently. I read "Why Building's Stand Up" and "Why buildings Fall
Down" both by Mario Salvadori, and excellent accessible books that
don't make you feel like you missed the real meat of the subject
either.
I think the point made elsewhere about buildings requiring maintenance
is good. You need to make the fundamental design maintainable. I
personally think the goal of over 100 years of durability is not
worthwhile. It is probably cheaper and better to replace your
Re:Flexibility (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Modern wood isn't milled the same way as it used to... they now get more board feet out of a tree, but the wood is also more prone to twisting and warping (they now cut it perpedicular to the grain instead of parallel, or vice versa, I can't remember which way is which).
Having worked in construction for 8+ years, and having worked with both old wood (from renovating old homes) and new wood, I *much* prefer the old stuff... much more solid.
- Jester
Re:Flexibility (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that's true. An architect friend of mine once mentioned (and I'm quoting from memory so I'll have to paraphrase) that houses built in the 20's will last for 110 years, in the 50s for 80 years, 70s for 50 years and most modern houses 30 years. It was something like that
Re:Flexibility (Score:5, Funny)
- 1920s : 80+ yrs old : expected lifetime = 110 years, expected failure 2030-2040
- 1950s : 50+ yrs old : expected lifetime = 80 years, expected faulure = 2030-2040
- 1970s : 30+ yrs old
:expected lifetime = 50 years, expected failure = 2020-2030
- modern (1990s?) : < 10 yrs old ; expected lifetime = 30 years, expected failure = 2020-2030
So basically, your friend's theory is that all houses will fail around the year 2030. Does he think they run 32bit Unix? Or maybe he is expecting the end of the world around then, and his theory has nothing to do with construction.Extending the theory, we find that houses build in the year 2020 will last 10 years, and houses built in the year 2040 will fall apart before they are finished
In any case, if your friend is still building houses then, he sure is going to be busy!
Re:Flexibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the residential structures in place now will have to be demolished and replaced in the next 20-40 years. Modern skyscrapers, to add another level, are only supposed to last about a hundred years.
Houses built today are not designed to last more than 30 years. I live in Chicago near the lakefront. I watch the new 500K $US condos being built. Cheap exposed steel on the inside walls, sheetrock and cheap wallboard, soft pine trim, cheap aluminum windows, plywood floors, no sound insulation, roofs damned to leak. And outside, the walls are made of cinderblock, not concrete! A couple of decades from now, the walls will be crumbling from the absorbed moisture and acid rain.
Could they be built more durable? Yep. Will they? Nope. The contractors and architects and developers are counting on the frequent replacement of these shoddy piles to replenish their money supply.
For the record, I live in 80+ year old apartment buildings and condos. The simply don't break -- unless a developer gets their damned hands on one, and "gut-rehabs" it by tearing out the plaster and lathe walls, and replacing them with steel and cardboard, removing the cool old iron tubs and replacing them with fiberglass junk, tearing out the custom-made wooden windows and *glueing* in replacement aluminum, ripping out old oak wainscotting, pouring cement down the fireplace chimneys and replacing the brick hearthswith little gas-powered "fireplaces" which we used to call "space heaters", and in short, converting the beautiful immortal building into a crumbling copy of the new condos.
Mostly it's because there are no controls on development anymore in this town. Lazy our Faire, and all that is old and strong becomes frequently-replaced junk. And the change in quality comes too slowly for people to take notice - a matter of decades.
And I don't think it's because we don't have poor but honest immigrant craftsman anymore. Beautiful molding is not hard for a robot manufaturing line to make, for instance. We're seeing a "rush to the bottom" based on maximizing short-term profit in this, as well as so many other industries.
Re:Flexibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, you're not seeing the 100 year old houses that were poorly built, because they aren't there anymore.
Look at Japanese architecture (Score:5, Insightful)
In Japan, on the other hand, there are tons of buildings that are hundreds of years old, _and_ have survived some of the biggest earthquakes, not to mention, a fairly dynamic climate (hot humid summers, cold wet winters). Wooden architecture might not withstand fire, but unless that's a concern, I'm sure there are some lessons to be learned there.
Most Japanese Archetecture is a Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the nifty temples, most Japanese architecture is crap. I live in an "old" building, built in the 1980's. No insulation, ugly from the outside.
Oh, and if you like that pre-war style with the tiled roofs, remember that many many people in the Kobe quake were killed by falling tiles.
Sometimes I think that Gojira stomped on Tokyo because he had good taste.
Re:Look at Japanese architecture (Score:3, Informative)
They were often rebuilt over the years in the same style so they "look" old. Osaka Castle for instance was originally built in 1586, but was destroyed in 1600. The castle was rebuilt and destroyed two more times. Finally in 1931 they rebuilt the castle from old paint
Re:Look at Japanese architecture (Score:4, Funny)
This is the Axe of my ancestors passed down from generation to generation. Sometimes the handle gets worn and a new one is put on, after a while the head will get worn down and a new one gets put on. But it is still the axe of my ancestors.
And since he has a great big bloody axe in his hands are *you* going to argue with him.
Re:Look at Japanese architecture (Score:3, Interesting)
MM
--
Use stone. (Score:5, Informative)
No, use concrete (Score:5, Interesting)
The Romans used concrete extensively, there are a number of several hundred year old concrete buildings.
How long it lasts is down to the building design. Fundamentally, it has to be flexible and low cost to run. People pull down buildings because they become expensive to operate and difficult to use.
Better Compromise (Score:3, Interesting)
Cordwood houses are unlikely to last as long as stone ones (usually > 500 years) but they rival brick for longevity and cost a fraction of what it costs t
steel in concrete BAD (Score:3, Interesting)
But don't mind me. I was just discussing this exact subject with a civil engineer last night and framing that conversation around thoughts from ones I've had with authorities as varied as the senior job site engineer for rebuilding the Statue of Liberty and folks from the Millenium Clock Project at the
And what a wonderful Henge it is! (Score:5, Funny)
And the stones! The stones are 50 foot high, 30 foot long, 20 foot deep, and other measurements as well. And the stones are not from round there! That's the amazing thing. I mean, remember, this is B.C. *mumble*. This was before the B.C./A.D. changeover when everyone was going... You didn't have to wind your watch back - you had to get a new bloody watch! As if A.D.'s enough - fuckinell... And the Muslim people going, "A.D? Who's he?" Yes. Good laugh there.
And uh... So, yeah, the stones are from 200 miles away, in Wales. So these guys in Wales were obviously carving the rocks out of the v - very living mountain... "Fantastic, building a henge, are we? That's a fantastic idea. That's a marvelous religion the Druids have got. Yes, got a lot of white clothing, I like that. There we go." And they smash out a huge stone and then they put tree trunks down to roll it along on. "All right, walk it along, here we go, here we go." Buuuhbuuuhuuh. "Help you push 'em along. It's not far, is it?" And the Druids going, "Heave everyone, heave! Well done, everyone, you're doing very well. You'll love it when you see it. I've seen some of the drawings already, it's very special." After 200 miles, "You fucking bastards! You never told it was 200 miles! 200 miles in this day and age - I don't even know where I live now! *sigh* I wish the Christians would hurry up and get here!" And they set all the stones up and the Druids still there tinkering around going, "No that stone and this one - can we swap them around?" So that was the Pagans.
[Courtesy of Eddie Izzard: Dressed to Kill [tripod.com]]
Cob (Score:5, Informative)
It's a mix of mud and straw commonly used as a building material throughout various times and places. There are houses in Ireland that have withstood centuries of weather and worse with little more than a renewed coat of lime every now and again.
I've used this material myself. It takes temps as hot as 2300F, becomes a more or less solid block once it set, can be built a vertical foot at a session. Amazing amazing stuff.
what about straw bales? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the earliest straw bale homes were built around the turn of the century (see this paper [energy.gov] for a few details) and still seem to have good structural integrity... Aside from that I would hesitate to make any extravagant claims about the length of time straw bale structures might last.
In addition to th
Re:what about straw bales? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cob (Score:5, Informative)
Cob is a carefully adjusted proportion of sand, clay and straw (for 3 dimensional reinforcement). This mixture is extrememly strong when dry and has the added bonus of drying into a monolithic structure, unlike adobe or stone where the mortar and joints become the weak point (think seismic resistance). Walls are also fireproof and can be load-bearing.
There has been a rebirth of this art, particularly through the Cottage Cob Company [deatech.com] (some cool photos) of Cottage Grove, Oregon, which offers classes and workshops throughout the U.S. I also Recommend thier book: The Hand Sculpted House [amazon.com]""
Very Good.
Their style of "Oregon Cob" has the added advantage of using nonlinear designs, curved walls, etc. to create an even stonger structure (no corners)
Surprisingly, this type of construction is well suited for damp climates such as the Pacific Northwest and England, and much of the U.S., except where it gets extremely cold. The walls have good thermal mass, though not the best insulators by themselves.
~scott
strawbale (Score:4, Insightful)
unless your friend is one of the many lame hippies that infest the strawbale community, who seem to confuse "hay" with "straw".
insect OR rodent infestation is extremely difficult in most well designed strawbale structures, as well as providing superinsulated soundproof walls that withstand heat way beyond anything your stick house would sustain.
cob is OK, it's in the same category as rammed earth and/or adobe. they're great building materials in the right environment, but they can get really ugly if you don't plan correctly for drainage, etc.
we had to put extra-large overhangs on our roof to accomodate rainfall, so we have a much better chance of maintaining lower internal strawbale moisture. it's all about thinking about what you're going to do, rather than listening to some dumbass contractor suggesting 2x6's and rollup insulation. sheesh.
standard construction = WinME
Maintenance (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal is to keep the wild elements of nature out of your house with the roof over you. This includes party animals which may be more destructive than cockroaches.
Ventilation will be a key (Score:5, Insightful)
However, a problem you will face is climate control and ventilation. Those 1800s houses were drafty, had huge non-living-space attics, and had poor energy efficiency. After thinking about it for a while, and visiting friends' tract mansions that smell of mold and rot 18 months after completion, I am convinced that the excess (and energy-consuming) ventilation through those old houses is a bit part of why they last so long.
Unfortunatley it is no longer acceptable to have your bedroom go to 110 deg.F in the summer and 38 deg.F + draft in the winter! So were I designing a new house to last, I would add a very large heat exchanger and the necessary vents, fans, smoke detectors, dampers, etc. to force-draft a good amount of air through the house. This would probably mean a duct system separate from the air conditioner (I would probably use radiant floor heating). And also a lot of motors, fans, controls, etc - so buy spare parts for 20 years down the road.
Your idea of an insulated equipment space between the top floor and attic is a good one - possibly you would want to put the heat exchanger there. And I would go ahead and wire for Cat6 and CATV, since technologies like that don't go away as fast as people think. But use conduit so you can change your mind on the media later.
Other things I would consider: real plaster and lath walls, copper supply / cast iron waste pipe, and for sure lots of access hatches so that things can be fixed without disassembling the walls.
sPH
The answer for the next Millenium: (Score:5, Funny)
Not only for repelling chemical and biological weapons any more.
However your edifice was originally built, cover ever square inch with about three layers of duct tape. It will be still be standing when we're all gone and the planet is ruled by damn dirty apes.
Not for me... (Score:3, Funny)
Don't obsess (Score:5, Insightful)
My place is a plain old post-war home that is about 55 years old and is structurally fine but I have had to do many upgrades to it. With maintenance it should last a very long time but at some point it will probably be more economical to flatten it and build something new.
The fact is that tastes and technology change. When I moved in the place had knob and tube wiring and no insulation at all. I rewired (hint: use 20 amp, not 15, and run plenty of circuits - I have every one of my 7 outlets in the kitchen on its own breaker - no problem with overloads here). I had insulation put in. The plumbing was updated to copper years before I moved in.
At some point I will need a new furnace (40+ years old) and a new water heater (16+ years old) and will look into the new energy-efficient technology for those.
The point is that the house was pretty much state-of-the art when built but as things wear out or technology changes then the place gets upgraded to newer standards. What's next? Who knows? I could have pulled lots of cat 5 and then wanted cat 6 or fiber. A friend did a full network wiring during a remodel and never used it - by the time she was done she and her husband had switched to wireless. Even my nice wiring upgrade may become obsolete with DC feeds and smart controls. Someday I may be using fuel cells and heating the place with the waste heat. I don't know. Stonehenge has lasted a long time but it doesn't have any modern upgrades.
Enjoy your house. Pick your battles^h^h^h^h^h^h^h upgrades. Don't drive yourself crazy pursuing perfection.
Last Forever (Score:5, Interesting)
Important things to remember in this plan were things such as:
- A sub-floor or crawlspace below the lowest floor to allow for water drains, wiring, etc.
- Plenty of internal space for ventilation (depending upon the type of rock there could be Radon issues).
- Insulation, depending upon the climate, your rock walls could be cold around the front of the house.
I very much like the "conduit" suggestion of yours. I think it is a good solution to have a centralized access method like that. It allows for easier service, and you never have to worry about where you are going to run that wire.
I would still run network wiring, as wireless should only be used in situations where wires aren't practical/convenient - portable devices mostly. As computers improve, that bandwidth becomes important in-house. (movies, music, etc)
My teenage years (Score:5, Interesting)
The house was all stone construction with huge oak beams and a lovely flagstone floor in the kitchen. That is how to build a house that lasts for hundreds of years.
Unfortunately, it's very expensive to build homes that way these days. And flagstone kitchen floors are damn cold in winter
-psy
Hard floors (Score:4, Interesting)
Plastic! (Score:4, Interesting)
(Yes, I know Homer Simpson saw this house at "ELCOT", but it was actually at Disneyland.)
How buildings learn (Score:4, Informative)
spanish colonial architecture (Score:4, Insightful)
When you built a house back then, it was truly built to last.
Also, in temperate areas, the structure (25 high ceilings with all rooms opening to a central courtyard) provide natural air conditioning year round.
If you look at traditional architecture from around the world, you will find that every climate has had architecture adapted for it.
It has just been in the past 50 - 75 years or so, with the creation of housing developments that architecture has fallen apart and failed. That is because the architecture appropriate for the climate of Massachussetts is not appropriate for Arizona, and vice versa. However, housing developments are built to maximize the profits of the developer, not to last hundreds of years.
Of course, Spanish colonial architecture may not be appropriate for where ever you live, but I would guess you could find climate appropriate architecture for your region that would outlast your great great grandchildren.
Faucets with washers and seats. (Score:5, Interesting)
Faucets with washers and seats. With $10 in spare parts, they'll last for 10 lifetimes. If I ever build my own home, I'm gonna use faucets with plain round rubber washers and simple, standard metal seats.
The ex-apartment-maintenance man in me wouldn't have it any other way.
Dumb Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
To last 400 years a structure needs to be built of non-degrading materials, with a design that remains useful despite unknown domestic evolution, in a location that remains desirable, but not so desirable that the house is removed for redevelopment of the property, and in a style which will always be at least acceptable. Only one of those criteria is under the designer's control.
Simply seeing 400 year old houses no more implies the ability to create them than seeing someone win at roulette implies you can pick the next winning number.
How to build a house that'll last... (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 2: Use concrete for interior walls, floors, well, basically everything. What's the first thing to go in old houses? The roof. And, when it does, water gets into the house and the whole structure rots. A concrete roof will keep water out, which is the most important thing if you want the house to last.
Step 3: Don't use glass for the windows. You can get a 4x8 sheet of inch-thick lexan or plexiglass, which is bulletproof by the way, for 175 bucks down on Canal Street in NYC. It's an extremely resilient material.
Step 4: Don't build the electric and etc into the walls. Design the house so that everything is retrofit, i.e. bolted onto the surface. That way you can always strip it out and replace it later. Note that you can't do this with plumbing, but no plan is perfect. Go for PVC pipes there; at least they won't rust.
Step 5: Paint EVERYTHING with a polymer-based paint to waterproof it.
Step 6: make sure the house sits at the base (or top) of a cliff or some other construction-inconvenient location. Then plant LOTS of oak trees all over the place. Within fifty years they'll turn into a nice forest. This has a couple of benefits:
A) if anyone tries to build on your property, the tree huggers will come out and Hayduke their machinery. They'll also spike the trees, which makes it reeeeeeeally tough to chainsaw them down safely.
B) Even if the local town board figures out how to get around the environmentalists, it'll cost 'em a fortune to knock down all those trees and make room for a wrecking crane to go for the house. They'll give up and go somewhere else.
Step 7: Cultivate the area around the house into a wetland, then make sure every environmentalist in the area is aware that it's there. Then, get the EPA in to declare it a wetland. This is way easier than you might think. It makes it just about impossible for anyone to build anything there ever again.
STEP 8, the MOST IMPORTANT STEP: Put the whole property into some kind of legal trust, so that you don't even really own it anymore and no one can sue you for it. Then, set up the trust so that it just passes along to your children, and so on. Your descendents will have use of the house forever, basically, but won't be able to sell it. In the process, make sure there's enough money in the trust to pay the taxes for at least the foreseeable future.
What do you think? I can't afford to do this kind of thing, but then, I rent an apartment and I'm into the whole "once I'm gone the world will forget I was ever here" thing. I find my complete irrelevance to the universe to be entirely invigorating.
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:5, Funny)
Step 7: Cultivate the area around the house into a wetland, then make sure every environmentalist in the area is aware that it's there. Then, get the EPA in to declare it a wetland. This is way easier than you might think. It makes it just about impossible for anyone to build anything there ever again.
All the other kings said it were daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it anyway! It sank into the swamp. I built another one; it sank into the swamp too. I built a third one; it caught fire, fell over and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you'll be getting, my lad - the strongest castle in these islands!
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:5, Funny)
"All the other kings said it were daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it anyway! It sank into the swamp. I built another one; it sank into the swamp too. I built a third one; it caught fire, fell over and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you'll be getting, my lad - the strongest castle in these islands!"
Don't be so sure... Castle 4 will probably disappear too. But then, *then* you'll have Castle 5 -
The last best hope for housing!
Kill me now...
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:5, Insightful)
{mumble}tack wires on the walls and windows that are bulletproof but won't open{/mumble}
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 2--words of caution. Pouring a flat concrete roof is easy, but if water leaks through a pitched roof over that, acid rain will eat the concrete, allow cracks to develop, and then thermal cycles (possibly even freeze-thaw if it's cold enough) will do the rest. Periodic inspection will prevent this. Figuring out some way to put a slight slope to the concrete would help more. Obviously you can't pour it that way without some kind of mold. If there is a living space between the concrete floor and the
the raised conduit approach (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say that instead you put in an inch deep baseboard covering a two inch deep recessed channel. The baseboard, since it will be unusually visible, will be oak or other material chosen to look pretty and age well. A matched crown molding with tapered base fills it in. If a third horizontal is done in the form of a chair rail then there is plenty of room to run anything that we have reason to know to foresee.
Since many of the approaches mentioned here would work best with nine foot or taller ceilings, all of this should be nicely in proportion. If, as I suggest further down [slashdot.org], window seats, shelving, and other such things are built in out of matching materials, then the room should actually look quite pretty.
A few things to keep in mind:
-All conduit should be attached with brass or other ornamental nuts and bolts. No nails, no hidden connections. This reduces the risk of some nitwit cutting into the baseboard or other conduit because they can't see that it was meant to be removable. Best case scenario would be to have a few small places in the house where vertical conduits have small glass windows so that people can see that stuff is running inside.
-Verticals could be made to look mock-tudor or some other style that typically has visible beams and supports.
-"Spiking" the inside of the surfacing with thin, long ceramic rods might be a good idea. This, again, is meant to reduce the odds of some ignorant future person just starting to slash away. Nothing like hitting industrial ceramic in what seems to be wood to get a person's attention.
- Color code the various types of things running through the conduit with lots of labels in more then one language.
I can't say that crazyphilman's approach is quite mine. But I can see the viability of it.
Rustin
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How to build a house that'll last... (Score:3, Insightful)
"> I find my complete irrelevance to the universe to
>be entirely invigorating.
That's funny, because most people despair to be in such a situation."
Really? Why?
I've always thought it was kind of liberating that no matter what I do, accomplish, or fail to accomplish, in a hundred years no one will even remember that I ever existed. Oh, I suppose that if I decide to have kids, my great grandchildren might remember me in some way, if only as an old, yellowing picture in a dusty book. But
Is this a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
The needs of today are not the needs of tomorrow. If you have ever visited some of those thousand year old towns in europe you know that the streets are too small, the heating sucks, power lines and pipes have no place to hide, drafty and damp. Not a happy place to be but for SCA fans.
The castles of old are horrible places to spend any amount of time as well, not because they are old, but because they were designed with different priorities.
Thus, we can project that in the future, today's home of paradise might be quaint or gaudy to future eyes. But they won't be able to tear it down and building something good because it will be a historical landmark. A useless museum probably. And the children of tomorrow will be trapped inside buildings built by long dead peoples.
Perhaps in the future there will be no houses at all! Borrowing from Philo Farnsworth's ideas about the potential of fusion, maybe house of tomorrow will fit in your pocket when not in use, and be constructed entrirely of force fields. The old time houses will seem like caves!
My parents house (Score:5, Interesting)
The roof beams are old ships masts and a lot of the other timbers were ships timbers.
The foundation is on bedrock.
It's survived a gas cooker explosion (which took out 2 windows and the kitchen cabinets, but the floors and the walls never moved), several huge storms over the last century and a lot of floods.
Building houses that way today does cost a fortune. For a start you can't get good timber anymore - most timber is kiln dried and doesn't seem to age as well as the timber that was stored for 20 or 30 years to dry naturally.
It's also hard to find a builder who knows the principle of dry stone building. Most older Irish homes were built in the same style as drystone walls [northpennines.com], except that mortar was also used.
geez (Score:5, Interesting)
There are numerous threats to a house's longevity:
1) Weather
2) Pests (insects, mice, etc.)
3) insufficient maintenance
4) Problems such as earthslides, earthquakes, settling, tree roots damaging foundations, etc.
This is off the top of my pointy head, so I'm sure there are categories I'm not thinking of right now.
Okay, so we know that you can get a stick-frame, non-stone house to last for multiple hundreds of years. How to PLAN for that is another matter.
First, take the weather and your local area into account. Prone to earthquakes? In a flood plain? Loose soil? Soil that drains poorly? On a hillside? Design accordingly! Many of these are foundation design issues and can be designed around. I'd stay away from the flood plain, though.
Next, once you've got your design TYPE planned, make sure your builder is doing to use appropriate engineering to achieve the design requirements. These include new types of roofing materials, roofing support design (big issue in Hurricane-areas - make sure your roof SUPPORTS can take it). Make sure your roofing system can 'breathe' if that's what it needs. The roofing material needs to be matched to the correct roof support system - cheap builders don't care, but this is what can cause massive roofing problems a few decades down the road, depending on weather in your area. Make sure your soil drains properly. Make sure your foundation is sealed properly. Make sure your windows are correctly installed (and skylights are even more problematic), and installed correctly for YOUR type of wall/roof system. Make sure your house is designed properly for your site - what type of sun/wind/rain do you get in that area? Make sure your window & skylight placement is proper. On the coast? Make sure higher salt content & moisture content in the air is taken into account for ALL materials used. Moisture-resistent drywall. Wood that comes in contact with concrete/stone/earth needs to be treated properly. Don't use wood shingles if you've ever heard of 'fire'. Live in a forest area that is prone to fires? Design accordingly (have a swimming pool - backup water source for dousing house down).
Maintenance. Learn what all the systems in your house would require, and make sure you've got the wherewithall to make that happen. Maintenance costs money, so build that into your accounting. Making your house's internal environment have a fairly consistent temperature/humidity level will go a long way to making wood and drywall last much longer. If your roof needs work, get it done RIGHT AWAY. Same thing for plumbing, electrical, and foundation systems. These are your critical priority systems to maintain, as they can impact everything else in very bad (expen$ive) ways. If your architect & builder are smart, they can minimize the amount of plumbing needed (designing house to that, say, kitchen, bathrooms, etc. share as many walls as possible. A good builder can make things like 'wet walls' (remember the Matrix?) where service people can get access to normally hidden things like plumbing, etc. Having to bust through a drywall to get to hidden plumbing really blows.
Make sure everything is vented properly (bathrooms, oven hoods, etc.) - that helps make things more livable. Make sure you spend the money for the good windows that tilt in so you can easily clean things and INSPECT them. Getting cheap stuff that isn't easily accessible is probably not a good idea in the long run.
Flooring - radiantly heat that floor! Very nice technology.
Zone heating/cooling - a great idea, but having vastly differing temperatures in adjoining rooms makes me nervous. I've seen no anecdotal evidence of this being a problem, though houses with zone heating/cooling
First (Score:5, Funny)
Money (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really want to build a house that will last for hundreds of years, the most important thing to do is to leave your descendants with enough money to keep it up. Most of the popular building materials are physically good enough to last for a very long time, but it's very tough for a building to stand a long time if it's not maintained. A lot of buildings are also torn down long before they need to be in order to make space for a new building of some type. Money will help there, too, because it will give your descendants the leverage they need to fend off possible threats to the house. Beyond that, just look at what materials were used in existing very old houses in the area and use those, since they've proven their durability under local conditions.
A structure for the ages (Score:5, Interesting)
If location is a concern, well, Rome, London, and Peking all seem to have been stable for a very long time now.
Materials? Concrete, solid concrete WITHOUT REBAR will last for thousands of years. Just keep a few things in mind.
Avoid cantilevers. Use arches for verticals so there is never a tension stress. Compression good. Tension bad.
Where possible, round off corners, especially internal ones. Cracks propagate from angles, not from edges of circles.
Keep the sizes of your blocks as close to spherical as you can get, or in reality, cubical. The more the ratios of length, width, and height differ, the greater the problems with thermal and other kinds of dimension shift.
Allow for water drainage. Never assume that your space will stay water tight. Assume that water will get in and give it a good way to get back out.
Allow for expansion and compression due to temperature changes or even changes due to minor misalignments or changes during curing. Again, leave breathing room. Think of old panel door construction. They didn't have those cute beveled center panels to look cool. They had them so that even as things expanded, contracted, or got slightly displaced, the structure did not suffer.
Same thing for animal pests. Design so that if your building is neglected for a few decades and birds build nests on your countertops, while rodents settle into the walls, it won't make major problems.
Other thoughts.
Copper roofing, with a thick gauge is *rated* for a five hundred year lifespan. But be sure to use copper and brass screws as fasteners. Any exposure to iron-based alloys will cause degradation.
I know that I'm repeating myself but water gets everywhere. never look at any surface at all without thinking, "what would happen if this were to be underwater for a long time?"
Use bronze fittings, but not too good. If they are too good then someday somebody *will* steal them.
Heavy cast glass will last for many hundreds of years. I am still waiting to see the first house with a built-in tower of solid glass block that acts as a water purifier. Put rainwater in the bottom, collect the evaporated and recondensed pure H2O at the top.
Don't buy stuff sold as glass block. Heavy square cast glass canisters sold for commercial use (like selling potpourri) are much cheaper and very strong. Look prettier too.
Build your house with several zones, like they did historically in very cold or hot climates.
Have central rooms that are meant to be at "room temperature" surrounded by pantries, entryrooms, earthberm walls, and other intermediary structures so that you don't have to rely on fragile things like styrofoam for insulation.
Speaking of insulation, build interior non-loadbearing walls from aereated, autoclaved concrete [ytong.com]. It is a thermal and sound insulator that does not compress, is fire and waterproof, and can be cut with hand tools. Cheap, too.
Then skimcoat them with real plaster, ideally with some horsehair equivalent like glass fiber in the plaster mix. Glass fiber that will *not* give you lung cancer can be bought from sculpture supply stores, where it is added to clay.
Use milk paint. It is non-toxic and lasts for a very long time.
Only use plastics where they are protected from UV. Ain't no plastic made that can resist ultraviolet forever.
Use heavy gauge wiring. Even ten gauge. Always. Hard to get but will not ever burn, short, or otherwise fail.
Avoid electronics. A bimetal thermostat works just fine if set up right and will never need batteries.
Build uphill from water sources and above anywhere that it has ever flooded. Ideally you want a location on a slope where even if a huge flood went down the slope it would run along a depression that is *not* interrupted by your house.
Minimize window glass. Maybe put cast glass embedded in the walls in places like stairwells or bathrooms where you want light but people don't n
And use "A Pattern Language" (Score:3, Interesting)
The above advice will help you build a house that will last that long, but "A Pattern Language" will help you design a house that people will want to last that long!
Uber-haaus (Score:4, Interesting)
For the walls and foundation - I say thick, granite stone walls and foundation, again over top a massive layer of HDPE that completely isolates the foundation and lower 3-4 feet from exposure to the elements, particularly water, salts, insects, etc. If there was some way to form-fit the HDPE "cap" to the stone, that is definitely preferable.
For the second floor and roof support, you need some sort of light material. Perhaps stainless steel or titanium coated with some sort of artificial sealant with no known lifespan. There would have to be some sort of testing to establish what material could have lateral stress applied to it for all those 400 years and still be as sprightly and strong as ever. Steel, titanium, aluminum or magnesium strike me as metals that might work, with titanium being the most ideal metal if I had to pick one without testing.
Then there is the base of the house - must be solid bedrock, and it must be in an area of the world that has minimal earthquakes, no conceivable danger from massive tsunami, hurricanes, tornados, or flooding.
For my satisfaction, the best States would be North/South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska or Iowa. I'm assuming maximum survivability for the house, and ignoring all stigma with any of the states.
For windows - double gas chamber, sealed dense polycarbonate.
For insulation... must isolate the granite walls from the inner chamber of the house, because rocks will soak up heat like crazy and still feel hot. Again, probably a poly-urethane coat of the granite to seal all cracks in the house, internally. Between the granite and all along its surfaces external to the inner rooms of the house, some sort of foam insulation - definitely do not want any moisture and sub zero temperatures teaming up to split a massive granite slab. Hearing a large rock split due to exposure to those two wonderfully powerful natural elements is like a loud cannon going off, possibly extremely riskly to the house and occupants, so a complete foam coating is called for.
Anyhow, overall I want my house to have several admirable qualities. Sealed, insulation-isolated, dry, and still allow for as much window space as a southern-californian glass sculpture.
Straw Bales (Score:3, Interesting)
Rammed Earth (Score:5, Informative)
The oldest church in South Carolina is made of rammed earth as well as the oldest church in the San Francisco area (towers that Hanibal built in Spain are also still standing). The new techniques of using rebar to tie the pad and rehinforcing top beam together is great. Here's a good book [amazon.com] on it.
We're planning on having a rammed earth ground floor with a timber framed [tfguild.org] second story. The ground floor is going to be designed for additions to be added on as needed (large doorways in exterior walls).
For interior use, we're going to use a manifold system [toolbase.org] that will pipe water to where ever it's to be used. You can think of it as two hubs, one hot, one cold and flexible pcv/vinal lines that run, in the ceiling, from the hub to the faucet. This gives you flexibility in placing sinks and such or even repurposing rooms. For sewage, that'll run under the floor. This'll be accessable from the basement. We're looking into grey water recovery [ajac.co.uk] as we'll be doing this in New Mexico (not that any place can't stand some water conservation).
For networking, am going to be running hamster tunnels (smurf tunnels?) along the base of the walls as well as along the top of the walls, between ceiling and upper floor. Don't know about adding wireless access points/antennas to the system.
The layout of the house will also make use of berming along the north walls and a porch along the south walls that will block most of the summer sun but allow winter sun to heat the place. Some of this design will come from earthships [earthship.org] being built in New Mexico. We'd like to be totally off the net [powells.com], but our love of tech makes this a distant dream (unless low power laptops take over for just about everything).
Insulated Concrete Forms (Score:3, Interesting)
(It's a little more complex than the above description - but not too bad)
A friend of mine who designs buildings says that these are popular in Canada and Europe. The only downside is that they're so freakin' tough that you can't really rip hunks out if you decide to make additions later.
For some pictures see, for example,
www.logixicf.com/ [logixicf.com]
(I'm not affiliated with them, and have no idea if this product is good - but the pictures are better than on the other sites I found)
Longevity is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, Having a house stand for a long time is a nice goal, but if you take into account how people use houses now compared to how they were used 25 years ago, and go back in 25 year increments, you will likely not see any period of time larger than 50 or 75 years where a single dwelling completely met the needs of its inhabitants.
You won't even be around by the time the house you're living in today falls apart - why build your house of the future to today's standards? At best you're wasting your time and money. At worst, your descendants are going to have to waste time and money tearing the useless eyesore down.
Sure, castles last a long time. People still love 'em. Have you tried living in one? They are very ill suited to us in so many ways. Adding modern conveniences is an expensive pain. Bringing them up to code, keeping them clean. Maintenance and upkeep. These costs alone could pay for a new house each year, nevermind the fact that you couldn't get a modern projection TV in more than a few rooms without a crane and a large window.
Unless you have an oracle, you aren't going to be able to design for the future. If the house of the future was designed and built in the 30s and 50s, we'd all have elevator shafts in our two and three story homes, except we wouldn't be using them because they don't have a good price/performance ratio. Therefore we'd convert them to badly sized closets and storage (well, I'd have a firepole in mine, but that's not the point). Even if you overdesigned chances are good that they would still not fit well.
However, as an academic excersize it is an interesting question. Kind of like putting Linux on the atari 2600. You could, but its more fun talking about it than it would be implementing it.
-Adam
My House (Score:4, Interesting)
Find a house that is older and has had a relatively low number of owners. This tells you they were in the house taking care of it all along if it still looks good.
Once in your house be pro-active... What I mean is actively look for problems or potential problems that you can fix. For example, fix that small crack in the steps before it ruins the whole steps. Keep your wood painted, and repaint every few years as needed.
My house is withstanding the test of time, and when originally built had no electrictity, and was heated with fires. Then it was updated with gas lighting, and again with electricity.
One interesting thing about my house is the amount of labor that went into building it. There was no such thing as drywall, which is fairly easy to put up. The walls are amazing if you ever need to take one down, there are inch wide boards with only a quater inch sepearting them, that run all thru the walls to hold up the old plaster walls.
You would pay thru the roof to have a crew of people hammer each one of these boards in, but when my house was built cheap immigrant laber was everywhere, and it was used / abused. Good luck recreating my house in it's exact for for under $300,000 in labor alone!
And I think that's why old houses do seem to last forever. The amount of skilled labor that was put into it, at such a cheap cost.
Think different - design for the short-term (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not, instead, design a home that is easy to rebuild and recycle so you or your descendents can have a different vision and easily remake it.
Tradition (Score:5, Funny)
A few observations... (Score:3, Informative)
Philadelphia is also home to the oldest continually inhabited street: Elfrith's Alley. Some of the homes there are all well over 300 years old.
The homes are all brick townhomes, about 4 stories tall. They have been kept in good repair for all of their existance.
Most of them started off as rental properties for Sea Captains and Trader's who frequented the city. They whole block narrowly dodged a fire in the 19th century, and were almost demolished to make room for I-95 in the 1950's. The only thing that saved them was a community organization and a historical designation.
I think someone about pointed out: having a house last hundreds of years is primarily dumb luck. Continual upkeep and habitation helps. After a while you need nothing short of a historical designation to keep it from being knocked over by progress.
US old vs. UK old (Score:3, Insightful)
Culling the data that people have suggested, I would say that the top three ways to build a house to last is:
This one's easy to answer, but hard to do (Score:3, Interesting)
The second point is the way you lock the structure together. The Elizabethans would use round pegs and square holes (guess where this saying comes from!!). I'm not certain if they used water retention or some other way of varying the sizes, but they'd simply alter the dimensions so that the peg would fit, then adjust them back to normal so that it was firmly locked in place. By then sealing the end with tar, again they could guarantee that that would more or less remain the case forever.
Personally, I'd go for interlocking. Use tiles which interlock along each axis. The reasoning behind this is that stress is a major cause of problems for structures. By having interlocking, stress is localized. A tornado or an earthquake might punch a few small holes, but they won't rip the entire building apart. When the world sorts itself out again, you go out with some fresh tiles and patch it up.
Walls absolutely absolutely should have an internal airgap. It's essential for decent insulation. This is often restricted to external walls, but in today's world where each room might very well want to be at a different temperature, you're much better going with airgaps in the internal walls as well.
Back to longevity. Foundations are a critical part of the structure. It should be impossible for the fondations to crack under any realistic scenario. That means that you need channels under the foundations to keep the ground consistant. (If the ground sinks uniformly, it's not going to be nearly as much of a problem as if one corner falls away.)
Next, you need a reasonably sloping roof - flat roofing is cheap and adds an extra floor, but it makes for a lousy design if you get hit by rain or snow. You want sloped roofing, and preferably slate or a very good synthetic material. This is probably the number one point where buildings sustain needless damage.
Now you've taken care of all external menaces, you've got to pay some thought to the internal ones. Fuses exist for a reason. Use them. I would strongly recommend having each room's power on a seperate loop, rather than looping the entire house. Power spikes and other nasties can then be localized much easier. You probably want a Faraday Cage in the airgap on the outer wall. All arials must then be placed outside, sure - no EMF radiation will cross the boundary - but it will also stop Really Nasty Things happening to electric appliances in a Big Thunderstorm.
Oh, and fuse the arials.
The last aspect is fire. Use fire-retardent furniture and furnishings. That's a big start. Fire extinguishers are handy, too. Now, if you place fans such that fresh air is ALWAYS pulled in at ground level, and ALWAYS expelled at ceiling level, then you will always have a region guaranteed to be free of smoke.
If you want to get even more elaborate, and have the budget, halon fire supression systems in any room used solely for storage, and possibly also in the airgaps, would be a good idea. That way, fire could be isolated, keeping the building as a whole intact.
A further advancement on this theme would be to have a building "skeleton" built in stone, and then build the house through and over this skeleton. Airgaps would be between floors as well as rooms. In this arrangement, fire could not spread upwards. (The halon would shut out the airgap, and if the fire breeched the ceiling, the halon would then douse the fire below.)
The fire could not spread between "ribs" on the skeleton, as stone doesn't burn. This means that even a "worst-case" scenario is inherently limited.
Now, back to those outer walls. I would put a degree of tension within the interlocking tiles, and pla
My house... (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, if you look at pretty much any village anywhere in Europe you'll find the same. A stone structure given a modest amount of maintenance will stand indefinitely. Given no maintenance at all, the walls will stand for three or four hundred years, even if the roof falls in.
There are downsides. 802.11b does not work through metre thick granite walls. Drilling holes in those walls to run cables through is not for the faint-hearted.
But it isn't going to fall down any time soon.
Build them crooked & they will last (Score:3, Funny)
Wood (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The germans have been doing it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Every now and they someone discoverers a pensioner somewhere in the fatherland that's been dead in their home for a couple years. It seems that one can arrange things so that the government payouts are deposited in an account, and all your recurring debts are automatically paid from there. If you don't have friends or family that care enough to vis
Re:How To Build A House That Lasts Forever (Score:3, Informative)
Sixth paragraph [guardians.net]
half way through the article [nationalgeographic.com]
-masshol