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)."

Comments

Look at Japanese architecture

[ryochiji]

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.

Ventilation will be a key

[sphealey]

I have lived in several North American houses >100 years old, and I was sure that most of them would last another 100 with proper maintenance. So it is possible.

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

Building a structure that lasts

[civad]

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.

Re:Flexibility

[Captain Nitpick]

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.

Remember, you're not seeing the 100 year old houses that were poorly built, because they aren't there anymore.