Lifespan of our houses?

[Zegovix]

I read that both wood materials and concrete used to build apartment buildings are estimated to have a lifespan of one hundred years.

Does this mean that the buildings must be demolished after a hundred years, or will they survive significantly longer with renovations?

What renovations, if any, need to be done to increase the lifespan of the buildings and the materials they are made of?

Won't many buildings built during the 40s and 50s need to be demolished soon? That would lead to an enormous housing shortage if so.

If ours only survive a hundred years, I also wonder how buildings like those in the Old Town in Stockholm or turn-of-the-century buildings on Kungsholmen and Södermalm have stood as long as they have. Is it because they are made of stone and not concrete? If they even are?

I apologize for my total lack of knowledge about building materials, maintenance, and the lifespan of houses.

 

[manner]

don't know how you think?
but there are buildings made of concrete that have stood for 2000 years, such as the Pantheon temple in Rome. In Sweden, there are wooden churches that are about 700 years old, dating back to the 1300s. Buildings, regardless of material, would stand well if they are kept rainproof, meaning the roof (and windows) are in good condition. Otherwise, rain and snow will enter, causing cement to crumble in frost and cold, and wood to decay from fungi, etc.
For example, a roof tile can last several hundred years. There are houses in Sweden today with tiles from the 1700s. What's important is what's underneath. If you have tar paper, it might need to be replaced after 50 years due to it drying out. If you have birch bark, which was used a lot before, they last much longer.

Then there are many who have doubts about how modern plastic materials (and other things built into houses today) age. We don't know that yet, as they only started appearing on a larger scale from the 1960s onwards.

 

[Avemo]

I read that both wooden materials and concrete used to build apartment buildings are estimated to have a lifespan of a hundred years.

Do you remember where you read this? There's nothing special that happens after 100 years. Houses wear out and require maintenance and renovations from time to time. If you take care of it, the house can stand for hundreds of years. If you don't, it can be destroyed in less than 50 years. It's not like all houses built in a certain year suddenly need to be demolished.

 

[witten]

I read that both wood materials and concrete used to build multi-family houses are estimated to have a lifespan of one hundred years.

Does this mean that the houses have to be demolished after one hundred years or will they survive significantly longer with renovations?

What renovations would need to be done in order to increase the lifespan of the houses and the materials they are made of?

Won't many buildings constructed during the 1940s and 50s need to be demolished soon? This would surely lead to an enormous housing shortage if that's the case.

If our houses only live a hundred years, I'm also wondering how buildings like those in Gamla stan in Stockholm or turn-of-the-century houses in Kungsholmen and Södermalm have stood as long as they have. Is it because they are built of stone and not concrete? If they even are?

I apologize for my complete lack of knowledge about building materials, maintenance, and the lifespan of houses.

One should probably think of it as an economic lifespan. A foundation has a 100-year requirement, but a frame only 50. But it's probably more related to wear and maintenance. For example, a shopping center undergoes an enormous number of renovations, and after a few decades, it can look like Swiss cheese.

But the lifespan classes should not be interpreted as meaning demolition is generally necessary. Think more depreciation. A well-built villa to today's standards is likely to stand for many hundreds of years.

 

[fribygg]

Welcome to the forum!

Sure, I have also sometimes cheated with flimsy constructions and questionable material choices for carports, greenhouses, and wood sheds. In my opinion, auxiliary buildings don't need to have a longer lifespan than a man's age, and greenhouses often don't last more than 20-30 years. Residential houses well-founded on bedrock and made from tightly grown timber will last for generations. I have functioning houses from both the 19th and 20th centuries that will survive at least as long if I or my descendants keep the roofs intact, clean, and tight. I also own a house from the 1940s; it has received a new roof, and eventually, I'll need to 'half-rubber' one of the window frames. Otherwise, regular periodic maintenance suffices, linseed oil and linseed oil paint are the trick for longevity.

 

[Zegovix]

Do you remember where you read this? There's nothing special that happens after 100 years. Houses wear and require maintenance and renovations from time to time. If you take care of them, they can stand for hundreds of years. If you don't, they can be ruined in less than 50 years. It won’t be the case that all houses built in a certain year suddenly have to be demolished.

Thanks for the response! I now feel less worried.

A site where I read that concrete has a lifespan of 100 years: https://www.svenskbetong.se/om-betong/platsgjutet/hallbart-byggande/bestandighet-och-livslangd

Lifespan of wood said to be 100 years: https://www.holmen.com/sv/travaror/fordelar-med-tra/fordelar-med-tra/Tra-for-hallbar-framtid/

Then I read and heard about the UK's concrete building crisis, which made me a bit anxious. There poorly made concrete seems to actually cause buildings to collapse within only a 30-year period: https://www.gp.se/nyheter/varlden/h...rasrisk-.8e053566-b3f1-4e44-81ac-3d58b0ce632f

I understand now and am glad that this is not what's expected to happen after 100 years from when our buildings in Sweden were completed.

 

[Zegovix]

Welcome to the forum!


Indeed, I have sometimes cheated with weak constructions and questionable material choices for carports, greenhouses, and wood sheds. In my opinion, accessory buildings don't need to have a lifespan longer than a generation, and greenhouses often last only 20-30 years. Residential houses well-founded on bedrock and built with dense timber will stand for generations. I have well-functioning houses from both the 19th and 20th centuries that will last at least as long if I or my descendants keep the roofs whole, clean, and intact.
I also own a house from the 1940s; it has a new roof, and eventually, I might need to partially replace one of the window frames. Otherwise, regular periodic maintenance suffices, with linseed oil and linseed oil paint being the trick for long lifespan.

Thank you, then I don't need to worry. And what a nice welcome! I've visited this forum many times over the years but never made an account or written anything myself. But I've often found answers to questions about building materials and maintenance of various houses here. People are so incredibly helpful and nice here

 

[Zegovix]

One should probably think of it as economic lifespan. A foundation has a 100-year requirement, but a structure only 50. But it's probably more related to wear and maintenance. A shopping center, for example, undergoes an enormous number of renovations, and after a few decades, it can look like a Swiss cheese.

But the lifespan classes should not be interpreted as it being generally time for demolition, no. Think more depreciation. A well-built villa by today's standards is likely to stand for many hundreds of years.

That sounds very logical. I hadn't considered that it could be the economic aspect with maintenance etc. that was being referred to. Thanks for the response!

Something that scared me was this about many of Britain's schools and hospitals currently collapsing due to poorly made concrete. I was afraid that a similar scenario was being referred to with a 100-year lifespan.
https://www.gp.se/nyheter/varlden/h...rasrisk-.8e053566-b3f1-4e44-81ac-3d58b0ce632f

 

[Zegovix]

don't know how you're thinking?
but there are concrete buildings that have stood for 2000 years, such as the Pantheon temple in Rome. In Sweden, there are wooden churches that are about 700 years old, i.e., from the 1300s. Buildings, regardless of material, hold up well if they are kept rainproof, i.e., the roof (and windows) are in good condition. Otherwise, rain and snow will get in, and the cement deteriorates in frost and cold, and wood is broken down by fungi, etc.
For example, a clay roof tile can last several hundred years. In Sweden today, there are houses with tiles from the 1700s. The important thing is what’s underneath. If you have tar paper, maybe it needs to be replaced after 50 years? because it dries up. If you have birch bark, which was used a lot before, it lasts much longer.

Then there are probably many who have doubts about how modern plastic materials (and other things built into houses today) age. We don’t know yet, as they started to appear on a larger scale from the 60s onwards.

Thank you for your clear answer!

Yes, I was a little surprised that the organization Svensk Betong and companies that work with producing wood for multi-family houses, such as Holmen, talk about the materials' long lifespan of 100 years. I thought like you wrote about Rome’s buildings that have stood for a thousand years, and that 100 years sounded really poor.

But now I understand that it's not that the buildings collapse after 100 years. Someone else here wrote that it may be costs and need for maintenance, etc., that is referred to.

Something else that scared me was reports about a crisis in the UK regarding schools and hospitals that must be demolished after just 30 years because poorly manufactured concrete was used when they were built. There was already a collapse risk for those buildings.

But now I understand that it's not what will happen with our buildings. It seems to be other consequences that are referred to with lifespan.

 

[fribygg]

Thank you for your clear answer!

Yes, I was a little surprised that the organization Svensk betong and companies working to produce wood for multi-family houses, like Holmen, write about the materials' long lifespan of 100 years. I thought, as you wrote, about Rome's buildings that have stood for a thousand years and that 100 years sounded really bad.

But now I understand that buildings do not collapse after 100 years. Someone else here wrote that it could be costs and maintenance needs, etc., being referred to.

Something else that scared me was reports of a crisis in the UK regarding schools and hospitals that must be demolished just after 30 years because poorly manufactured concrete was used in their construction. There was already a risk of collapse for those buildings.

But I now understand that this is not what will happen with our buildings. It seems to refer to other consequences with lifespan.

It's not uncommon, though, for daycare centers and schools in Sweden to be demolished after less than 50 years, with barrack-like buildings with flat roofs that are not suited to our climate and which are more expensive to renovate than to replace with new ones.

 

[manner]

Thank you for your clear response!

Thank you and welcome to the byggahus forum! Here at byggahus, there are plenty of projects members have done where they have saved houses that were more or less derelict and made them beautiful! In the future, we must be more careful with what has already been built and just upgrade and repair so it lasts for many more years. We cannot demolish fully functional houses just because they have become "outdated." The greatest environmental and climate impact is made when houses are built. It is always better to continue using existing buildings than to demolish old houses and build new ones! The construction industry accounts for an enormously large part of Sweden's climate impact!