Slashdot Mirror
Making a House That Will Last for Centuries?
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)."
look @ great wall of china and pyramids of egypt. people worked really hard to build them.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I would suggest avoiding load-bearing interior walls. That way the house can be reconfigured as needed in the years to come. Also, use nice thick (at least 2x6) walls to allow space to run whatever you want in them later.
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.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
There are many centuries-old buildings in Europe, but then, Europe doesn't have very many earthquakes and such. As a result, many of the oldest buildings seem to be made of stone.
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.
---
Open Source Shirts
Your lifestyle may be the main determining factor how long your house lasts. Keep it clean and dry and pests will not find its structure a desirable alternative to a more suitable food supply. The metal composition of the plumbing (nickel, chrome, other stainless, etc...) will determine if rust will eat through over the years (and it will!) and cause a flood. Is there sufficient drainage of rain gutters? Is your basement sealed from cracks?
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.
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
Yeah, I had that crazy idea when I built my house, too. I'd fix it up and that would be that. It just ain't going to happen.
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.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Concerning your points #2 and 4 (technology and repairability), and, to a certain extent, #3 (usability)...
You know, it's really not that hard to tear down a sheet rock wall, make whatever changes you want and build another one. We're talking about one Saturday's work here. The materials are dirt cheap too: have you ever bought 2x4's? Or sheet rock? The most expensive thing you'll buy is likely to be the case of 24 beers for your pals who'll help you out.
So if you're planning to build a house that's going to last hundreds of years, a few Saturday's worth of the owner's time really doesn't weigh in heavily in the sum of the relevent considerations.
I live in Central Mexico, and there are a lot of old Spanish colonial here homes that were built anywhere from 200 - 400 years ago. They all have meter thick walls, and have proven very adaptable for modern needs, such as electrical installation and plumbing. Of course this is because you can just gouge out the wall for cabling and then plaster over it.
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.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
The buildings that remain from 400 years ago only do so by dumb luck. Virtually all of their contemporaries have failed, even ones of similar design and construction.
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.
I was once enamored by the idea of building a house that would last a thousand years. While I came up with several ways to do it, I also came to the conclusion that to do so is a terrible idea.
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!
{mumble}tack wires on the walls and windows that are bulletproof but won't open{/mumble}
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Some of the criteria mentioned by the author set me thinking: and here is what I think might be useful in building a house that lasts:
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.
I remember reading about some Western architects who came here to study construction methods, especially the puzzle-like way that wooden beams are fitted together to create a temple roof. Their determination was that it was simply too complicated to be able to be reproduced in the west, as it took years of apprenticeship to learn how to cut and fit the joints.
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.
-- My Weblog.
Before I start I should say that my girlfriend (well, partner, but using the word girlfriend should get a few Slashdotters drooling) is a town planner, a graduate of the internationally reknowned Bartlett School of Planning, and I've learnt a thing or two about urban design, planning and architecture from her along the way.
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Why is it so important to build a house that would last long after you're dead? Why would you want to make it difficult for your children and grandchildren to sell the house, or for anyone to tear it down?
I just don't understand the motivation here.
... i have some opinions on this.
number one above all else: build a home that you can love. in sickness and in health, as a child and as a senior, good times bad times. a house that is loved will have people take care of it. a home is shelter, for bodies and for souls.
then think about making it easy to take care of. that's not necessarily by exotic construction and materials. it's by sound materials, available materials, and materials a homeowner can repair or maintain or change him[her]self when times are poor.
think of the pieces of your house as items in a changing wardrobe, not a one-time suit of armour.
okay. that's philosophy and your young ears want tech wizdom. let's do that now. use the hundred year rule. if a material or technique has lasted a hundred years, it's a pretty good one. we've had a *lot* of new materials since the mid eighties. a good many were bunk. some are turning out okay and i'm warming to them. but when undecided i use the hundred year rule.
regardless: keep a sound roof. water must stay out or everything beneath will fail. similar words for the foundation. do very good drainage of the property.
now go subscibe to fine homebuilding magazine by the taunton press. spend a few years absorbing the varied opinions [not quite as bad as slashdot, but bring some salt].
oh, and about the 'they don't build them like that anymore' refrain... bullshit. we've always made lots of crap. it's just that better work lasts and hence we tend to think that's how it was done 'back then'.
Longevity is good. It did wonders for Cobol.
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
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 pitched roof, the thermal cycling won't be a problem, and leak inspection will be performed daily. :)
Step 3--Lexan+weather=cloudiness after a while. This would be especially true in a dusty, harsh chemical, or maybe even in some forest environments where saps do a number on it. Glass outer panes are good, Lexan as an inner insulating pane is probably fine.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
On the other hand, Europe's best moments and triumphs lie in the past hence their desire to live there, so to speak. America's best moments lie in the present and, hopefully, the future.
Let the flames begin... :)
bullshit. I *LIVE* in a strawbale house, and the straw is packed so tightly there's no chance anything is getting in there.
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
EOM
The houses that have lasted a hundred years are the good ones. There were many more bad ones, virtually all of which have disappeared. The people we know as "Victorians" were the rich people of a hundred years ago, who could afford houses with lots of gingerbread, tile, fine woodwork, and other expensive, craftsmanlike touches. These people were relatively richer than the rich people of today, so the homes you're thinking about were even beyond the MTV Cribs and HG channel stuff.
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.
Dried compressed mud, also known as pisé can last incredibly long under the right climate. The most fascinating construction is the Arg-e Bam, in the middle of an iranian desert. It was founded 2000 years ago, and abandonned 200 years ago, and it is still here. Of course, very little rain there, or else... It is said that the citadel was never defeated; the only time an army almost conquered it, they had to make a river run against the high walls; when they tumbled, they realized there was much more thickers walls to get to the citadel, so they gave up.
Bam is now under heavy restauration, it is a highlight of every tourist trip in Iran. I highly encourage everyone going to Iran to get there, despite the long long boring trip by bus to reach it.
Culling the data that people have suggested, I would say that the top three ways to build a house to last is:
i met a man who was a traditional indian stone mason and accomplished builder and teacher.A UNESCO heritage person. He builds stone shrines. He said all things crumble, stone lasts longer, but the factor of longevity of a structure is nothing but SIZE. referred to pyramids of egypt as example. nothing but size played the main role in longevity, he said.
alanak said:
;)
"> 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 other than that, I am completely confident that everything about me will fade into dust just as my physical body will, and that ultimately, nothing that happens in this life matters even a little bit.
This is a Good Thing. It means we're truly free to live our lives the way we want to. Our ultimate, inevitable, and total obscurity is a blessing you're underestimating.
BTW: it is true that SOME people attain fame, or infamy, and are remembered for hundreds of years. But, there's a flip side to this. Future historians, trying to flog their new book, may entirely misinterperet everything you do, misquote you, make you look like a total knob... Even if your future PR is generally GOOD, there will still be some people who try to discredit you for no better reason than that it burns their ass that you're known and they're not. So my thinking is, it's more relaxing to be a complete unknown than to be known. At least, you don't have to worry about someone making an ass out of you posthumously.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!