[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.