It is often said that old houses (around 100 years old) were built with a completely different quality than today. Whether this is true or not can certainly be debated. The old houses of poor quality probably no longer exist today for comparison anyway.
But if you want to build a house that will last for a hundred years and then be considered well-built, how should you build it? Should you timber like the houses made in the 1800s, should you build with concrete elements like in the million program, or is it today's slender framework with a vapor barrier?
For a house and its value to last, I believe one must consider several interior renovations and surely some extensions/additions, so I think a good building technique is quite flexible and can be easily repaired/expanded.
So, what technique should you use if you want the house to be "built to last"?
Brainstorm away
But if you want to build a house that will last for a hundred years and then be considered well-built, how should you build it? Should you timber like the houses made in the 1800s, should you build with concrete elements like in the million program, or is it today's slender framework with a vapor barrier?
For a house and its value to last, I believe one must consider several interior renovations and surely some extensions/additions, so I think a good building technique is quite flexible and can be easily repaired/expanded.
So, what technique should you use if you want the house to be "built to last"?
Brainstorm away
Last edited:
Great thread you've created!
Personally, I would also like to know which materials are the most cost-effective over, say, 100 years. That can also be acquired for money today...
Personally, I would also like to know which materials are the most cost-effective over, say, 100 years. That can also be acquired for money today...
The problem is that no "wooden houses" are being built today. Today's constructions with plastic vapor barriers and gypsum board on a light frame probably won't last long, it seems. When the tape on the vapor barrier loosens, the vapor creeps in, gypsum and the wood molds, etc., etc.v-g said:
But a real wooden house - log-built will surely last a long time.
Brick is otherwise what lasts the longest, I imagine, like hundreds of years.
Kind regards
Absolutely the most sustainable must be stone, but it might be expensive. Otherwise, I believe in plastered brick or leca. Timber is sustainable under ideal conditions but can easily be affected by rot and fire.
Build in granite. Then it easily stands for a hundred years.
Build in granite. Then it easily stands for a hundred years.
Don't understand either why the question seems to be too difficult.
The brick houses today are basically built the same as the wooden houses, but with a different facade that's easier to maintain. Brick houses often have a structural frame and framework of wood. It's quite funny when you hear people wonder why their house creaks a bit when it's windy. They have a brick housesomelvis said:
Here in Sweden, the only alternative in this climate is probably steel. It doesn't move and lasts forever. If it were in Africa, it would probably work just as well with elephant dung. It would have been cheap too
The question becomes more interesting when you consider it in relation to price/comfort/energy consumption as well.
As previously suggested, it is likely the vapor barrier in "today's" wooden houses that gives way first.
This is what my favorite setup looks like:
Brick structure
Windows with energy glass (probably need to be replaced after 20-30 years)
Zinc metal roof
Warm foundation (crawl space heated by outdoor air and air pump)
Support from geothermal heating + prepared for tomorrow's solar panels + storage tank
As previously suggested, it is likely the vapor barrier in "today's" wooden houses that gives way first.
This is what my favorite setup looks like:
Brick structure
Windows with energy glass (probably need to be replaced after 20-30 years)
Zinc metal roof
Warm foundation (crawl space heated by outdoor air and air pump)
Support from geothermal heating + prepared for tomorrow's solar panels + storage tank
No, very interesting question.
We who work with management have the durability of buildings over time as a core function. A building that is good over time - one can roughly divide that statement into two dimensions:
1. Construction and material. That is, the building as a technical object.
2. The building's ability to handle changing needs and functions of those who use the building. That is, flexibility.
1. Here, I am a fan of the "sheathed layers" approach.* That is, a building is a composite construction where the parts have different lifespans. How long a building lasts from a technical perspective depends partly on the durability of the parts, partly on daily maintenance, and partly on how easy it is to replace the parts among themselves.
A building's frame can very well have a technical lifespan of several hundred years, even a wooden frame. But the exterior finish might have a lifespan of 10-20 years. If the facade isn't replaced when it's time, the frame will be exposed to impacts it wasn't designed for, thereby shortening its lifespan.
With this approach, a building is a system of components. The internal different lifespans and how they are linked to each other determine how long it is rational to use the building - roughly speaking.
The buildings that empirically work the longest - from a technical standpoint - are probably those which have low coupling between "layers" and where it is possible and economical to replace the parts among themselves. That many old wooden houses stand is probably because it's relatively easy and cheap to replace siding, shingle roofs, etc. That many old stone houses remain is probably because the lifespan of the frame and exterior surfaces is long in itself. However, it is expensive and difficult to replace when/if it is needed.
2. A building's lifespan practically depends on how well it can adapt to societal changes that alter users' requirements and usage. This, of course, partly ties into the connection between sheathed layers. But also things like size, plot size, location, etc.
Take for instance all the half-abandoned farms in the countryside. They are not primarily a result of poor building technique, but rather that there has been no demand for them as residences/premises. Therefore, they have not been maintained and have decayed. The construction itself was hardly worse than other buildings of the same type and year of construction.
Then it's also true that "form follows funding." Economic conditions affect how buildings are constructed. During the 1960s' throwaway society with double-digit inflation that wrote off the loans, it became rational to build houses that were maintenance-free for 30 years but then should be demolished. They did not care about constructing houses that were maintainable to achieve a long lifespan. That people still live in them means they are used in a way that was not originally intended. Then it not infrequently becomes expensive and troublesome...
Today's small houses are probably unfortunately constructed with a fairly short technical lifespan and in many cases without consideration of maintenance aspects. But on the other hand, that is what the market wants, one might argue???
*Building components are usually categorized as: Site, Structure, Skin, System, Space plan, Stuff.
We who work with management have the durability of buildings over time as a core function. A building that is good over time - one can roughly divide that statement into two dimensions:
1. Construction and material. That is, the building as a technical object.
2. The building's ability to handle changing needs and functions of those who use the building. That is, flexibility.
1. Here, I am a fan of the "sheathed layers" approach.* That is, a building is a composite construction where the parts have different lifespans. How long a building lasts from a technical perspective depends partly on the durability of the parts, partly on daily maintenance, and partly on how easy it is to replace the parts among themselves.
A building's frame can very well have a technical lifespan of several hundred years, even a wooden frame. But the exterior finish might have a lifespan of 10-20 years. If the facade isn't replaced when it's time, the frame will be exposed to impacts it wasn't designed for, thereby shortening its lifespan.
With this approach, a building is a system of components. The internal different lifespans and how they are linked to each other determine how long it is rational to use the building - roughly speaking.
The buildings that empirically work the longest - from a technical standpoint - are probably those which have low coupling between "layers" and where it is possible and economical to replace the parts among themselves. That many old wooden houses stand is probably because it's relatively easy and cheap to replace siding, shingle roofs, etc. That many old stone houses remain is probably because the lifespan of the frame and exterior surfaces is long in itself. However, it is expensive and difficult to replace when/if it is needed.
2. A building's lifespan practically depends on how well it can adapt to societal changes that alter users' requirements and usage. This, of course, partly ties into the connection between sheathed layers. But also things like size, plot size, location, etc.
Take for instance all the half-abandoned farms in the countryside. They are not primarily a result of poor building technique, but rather that there has been no demand for them as residences/premises. Therefore, they have not been maintained and have decayed. The construction itself was hardly worse than other buildings of the same type and year of construction.
Then it's also true that "form follows funding." Economic conditions affect how buildings are constructed. During the 1960s' throwaway society with double-digit inflation that wrote off the loans, it became rational to build houses that were maintenance-free for 30 years but then should be demolished. They did not care about constructing houses that were maintainable to achieve a long lifespan. That people still live in them means they are used in a way that was not originally intended. Then it not infrequently becomes expensive and troublesome...
Today's small houses are probably unfortunately constructed with a fairly short technical lifespan and in many cases without consideration of maintenance aspects. But on the other hand, that is what the market wants, one might argue???
*Building components are usually categorized as: Site, Structure, Skin, System, Space plan, Stuff.
Why not slab on grade?Fabrikör Stava said:
What you're describing is a house in "light construction technique," "light framework," or whatever you want to call them. It has the same disadvantages as a regular modern "wooden house," but you don't have to paint the facade.Bonan said:
What I'm talking about is a real brick house, either of insulating brick blocks with integrated air gaps like Porotherm, or like those the Germans and Danes build with a brick framework + cavity with mineral wool + brick facade. (two brick walls with insulation in between, that is)
Here's a picture of Porotherm.
http://www.wienerberger.se/images/db/srref/1058161170289.jpg