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

How to build a house that'll last...

[crazyphilman]

Step 1: use stone and concrete. The Romans used stone and concrete extensively, and many of their public works projects are STILL standing two thousand years later. Today we have reinforced concrete, which is even stronger than anything the Romans had. Also, this will make it prohibitively expensive to tear your house down if anyone gets any bright ideas about turning your property into a parking lot in a hundred years.

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:Flexibility

[big tex]

Well, since you started the wood vs. steel idea, here's 2 cents from this Civil Engineer:

Tips for good timber construction:
Don't use a residential contractor. Use a comercial building contractor. They are used to having people check their quality, and do better work. However, you're going to pay for it.

Insist on good lumber.#2 spruce-fir is good for sawhorses and houses that only last a few decades.

Make sure the Engineer uses Cd = .9 (permanent) instead of the more common Cd = 1.0 (10 years)

Glulam and other laminate beams are good. beleive the hype. The problem with most solid sawn timber is the quality since we've used all the old growth. Glulam is a step back towards that quality.

The big problem with steel studs will be corrosion.
They come electroplated or zinc dipped. some are punched and formed _after_ plating, leaving unprotected edges. You then go and poke holes in them with screws, and leave corrosion points. If you go with steel, use bolts in pre-primed holes and paint over the bolt heads.

If you go with concrete, use galvanized rebar. You'll shit a kidney when you see the cost, but it's the best thing since, well, rebar. Bar corrosion and the ensuing spalling is what will eventually weaken your foundation.

Personally, I've been doing some thinking about the house I want to build/ have built when I retire:
concrete foundation, doweled stone walls, glulam and bolt trusses (damn near no structural walls or columns in the envelope), Granite roof.

Re:It can't be that hard!

[Telecommando]

Two words:

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.