[bluGill]

Yes. We now use engineering standards to design houses. Looking at 100 year old houses as an engineering is enlightening (you don't even have to be a good engineer, just look and think). Old houses are often way over built in places where there is no stress and so paper would work - but those places are visible. Meanwhile places that do matter are often under built and it is amazing they are still standing at all - but those places tend to be not easily seen. Which is while people say modern houses are built from cardboard - in many ways they are - but those are all places where strength isn't needed so why waste money.

What you won't see in the above is things that are hidden. Modern code requires you to have a firestop in all walls every 10 feet - old houses were often balloon framed which means the inside of the walls becomes a chimney in a fire and will help feed the fire. New houses the inside of walls do not become a chimney because of that fire stop.

Modern houses also are insulated to much better standards. Something else that often isn't seen but makes a big difference. Even when it is seen nobody thinks about it - those old windows the article is singing the praises of are universally single pane windows that should have been scrapped 40 years ago. Sure there frame is still like new, but the standards for new back then are not acceptable.

The bigger lesson to take from the above: don't build to last too long. What people want out of a house changes over time, and you never correctly anticipate what people will want in the next decade. Eventually that old house will have enough things "wrong" that cannot be retrofitted and the best thing to do is tear down and rebuild from scratch to modern standards.

[VHRanger]

> The bigger lesson to take from the above: don't build to last too long.

Disagree.

Build to last long, but accomodate modification.

Old houses are built to last a very long time, because they weren't commodities being bought and sold on a 10 year timeframe. But old houses are also very difficult to modify. As you noted, no structural engineering, also lathe & plaster walls are a nightmare to take down, etc. etc.

[JAlexoid]

I don't know which houses you're referring to... or maybe you're conflating survivorship bias with quality... but old houses most definitely weren't built for "a very long time". Even fancy mansions from 100-200 years are all but falling apart in most countries across the world.

I live in a house built before structural codes were made mandatory(1964) - and just yesterday we had to replace a third of the true 2x4s because they were rotten and a corner of the house was liable to just come crumbling down.

If you want more proof - look at the remains of civilizations that built primarily from wood... but there isn't much to look at at all!

[oooyay]

You commented further down mentioning "siding", but if I'm following this conversation correctly many of y'all are talking about different periods of construction as if they're all the same, or even linear in quality over time.

For instance, timber framing is a very old practice and the beams used are so thick they do indeed last hundreds of years. However, timber framing refers to the structural beams themselves, not fascia like siding. You could still use OSB and new growth finger boards to do the non-structural framing, and many modern houses do.

Then there's houses like mine from the 1950s. They use solid maple beams, but oak and elm are also common to that time period. They're structurally more load bearing that way. Unlike timber framing they take advantage of both proper joints and things like hangers.

More modern construction doesn't really do much jointing from what I've seen, but I may be wrong or have a limitation of exposure here. They rely mainly on structural forms like hangers.

I'm not sure that any one is better than the other. They do have different considerations though. A timber frame is going to be tough to modify once it's stood up. A house like mine will probably also be tough to modify, but they could by introducing forms. The newer homes are probably the easiest to modify, but probably are somewhat weaker than the frames of my house. Strength like that doesn't really matter until it does, though, imo.

[turtlebits]

Water intrusion is a maintenance problem, not a quality problem. The old growth framing in my 1950's house feels like it will last forever.

[JAlexoid]

If you have to replace your siding wholesale every 20 years to prevent water intrusion - you're not building for "a very long time".

[bjt]

Selection effect here. Plenty of old houses weren't built to last. You just don't see them anymore because they're gone.

[turtlebits]

> What people want out of a house changes over time.

Hard disagree. At it's essence, a house is a shelter from the environment. The need for walls and a roof doesn't change.

Engineering a house for longevity isn't hard, all that really matters is water/moisture management.

Any "wrong" things with a house can be fixed. There are very few houses that are unsafe to inhabit and require a rebuild.

[nuancebydefault]

A house is so much more than a shelter from the environment. If it were, people would live in garages made of metal plate.

> Any "wrong" things with a house can be fixed.

Fixing anything can be done / is possible. That doesn't mean it is the brightest idea to always do so.

[abdullahkhalids]

Modern wood houses have very poor noise insulation. I grew up in a brick house. When I came to Canada, and I found I had to keep my voice down at night, while speaking in a closed room was news to me. Not only can other people in the house hear, but so can the neighbors! I don't know how people live like this.

[gottorf]

> Modern wood houses have very poor noise insulation

I agree, but this doesn't have anything to do with the woodenness of the construction. Virtually all interior walls in your typical North American single-family home, built with wood or not, are lacking insulation. Code doesn't require it, people don't want to pay extra for it, and builders don't want to convince people to spend the money for it.

[jandrewrogers]

That is mostly wall mass and engineering, not anything to do with the use of wood. I have lived in very quiet wood buildings.

[xnx]

Noise isolation is mainly about adding mass. Thermal insulation is mainly about creating a continuous skin and filling the void with something as close to a vacuum as you can get.

[xyzzyz]

Home insulation doesn’t work by making walls close to vacuum. You insulate walls by stuffing more (but not too much) of stuff into them, not by pumping out air or anything silly like that.

Vacuum is a great insulator, because it blocks two fastest ways of heat transfer, conduction and convection, leaving only radiation. House insulation tries to do the same thing: filling up the wall with fluff blocks air from moving around, which impedes convection. Fluff itself is made from materials of low thermal conductivity, like cotton or mineral wool. At the end of the day, though, filling walls with fluff makes them less like vacuum, not more.

[xnx]

> The bigger lesson to take from the above: don't build to last too long. What people want out of a house changes over time, and you never correctly anticipate what people will want in the next decade.

Probably even more applicable to software projects!

[bluGill]

Maybe, but most software projects isn't designed for as long as things will last (I'm not sure we even know how to do this!). It is best to think of software as under continuous remodels. Very few houses survive for 40 years without a major remodel - adding rooms, moving walls. (much less "minor remodels" like replacing the kitchen cupboards - and the paint will not last for 40 years no matter how hard you try).

If you continuously remodel your house like software is, then by the time it is 50 years old there should be zero original walls left. But software is a lot cheaper to make changes to.

[mannyv]

"The bigger lesson to take from the above: don't build to last too long"

In the world of the Rich Third World, houses are almost always torn down after they're bought. It's actually pretty bad, because those houses are always built to last...but they only really last for about 8-15 years on average. Then it's almost always easier to rip and replace again instead of renovate, because they're built with concrete.

[BizarroLand]

Even something as simple as granite countertops are a good example of that. A stone countertop is hundred of thousands or millions of years old. They would likely last until the planet itself was swallowed up by the sun as it swells with age.

But, granite countertops installed in the 90's and 2000's are considered "old" and "dated" and are being torn out for a different stone often at great expense.

It was a waste that they were ever installed to begin with. Could have installed a laminate countertop that would last 5ish years and look good for 1/10th the cost and then swapped it out 5 times in the same time period for a fraction of the cost and essentially no permanent waste.

[JAlexoid]

Granite countertops sit on top of wooden frames. They're as long lasting as the wooden frames underneath.