[turtlebits]

My house was built in the 50s. It's perfectly livable, and the wood used for framing is better quality than what is used for construction now.

Compared to cost of new construction, adding proper insulation is nothing, even if you rip out all the drywall.

That said, in my area, old houses aren't torn down because they aren't viable. It's because tearing it down and rebuilding a mcmansion nets you so much more profit/worth.

[tonyarkles]

Yup, we've got a house from 1957, 1800 sq.ft. single storey slab. The whole thing is made of Douglas Fir, super sturdy although a pain in the ass to drive nails into. We're in the process of an interior re-design, and purchase price+slab levelling+reno is going to put us quite a bit lower than new builds around here. Down the street there was a 60s bungalow that was torn down and replaced by two new builds, currently selling for $499k each. That's about $180k more than our total, with less floor area. (Plus, if we ever decide to move... there's the backup plan of "tear it down and build two shitty new builds and sell them for $499k each")

[robocat]

I have a wooden house from the 30’s: because I like the feel and I like the trees.

I should have been clearer: there are houses from the 80's that I love. However there are also many houses from the 80's that are built poorly or are just fugly.