|
|
|
|
|
by epoxyhockey
3553 days ago
|
|
But, what I think is unfortunate in house design and construction is that houses are built for use < 100 years We could be building small modern castles that we could hand down While I see value in structures standing as monuments to be handed down to future generations - mostly large structures built for public use - I can't say that I've met a 100-year-old-house that hasn't had significant shortcomings. Renovations upon renovations to upgrade electrical, plumbing, HVAC have the potential to make building interiors look like a hodgepodge of bolt-on improvements. Then, one still contends with features that fall out of modern building code: that narrow staircase or the low ceiling in the basement or no windows in the bedrooms. At a certain point, one cannot predict the housing requirements of the future and it would be more economical, and humane, to just start from a pile of dirt once again. |
|
That's true. But if the next generation did not have to build their own houses it would give them a 'dividend' passed down by the previous generation and that wealth would ultimately give them more economic freedom and fewer opportunity costs.
Then with those advantages, any problems will be easier to face, such as starting from the pile of dirt again.
Otherwise each generation is constantly facing the same struggles with paying the rent.
Also consider, and I think this was implicit in what the OP was saying, that closed loop systems might make many existing problems relating to maintenance obsolete. So the next iteration of building might take place in two or four generations from now instead of for each one.
Sadly truly effective maintenance free filter technology appears to be holding closed loop systems development back. I know Kamen was trying to build a Slingshot mechanism but so far as I know this has not bourne any fruit. This is the kind of unsexy, hard stuff that Silicon Valley need to be pulling together.