Why don't more people build in 19th-century style, or similar?

[JohanLun]

In the new villa areas here in Falun, there is a total lack of consistency. All the houses are different and placed differently on the plots. Additionally, the plots are too small for the houses, so there is often not much yard left.

Many old areas were very well thought out regarding the placement of houses, orientation, gardens, etc. - if you build new without planning, it doesn't mean that variation among houses is bad, just that it is poorly planned. I still think it's more interesting with varied areas where each house is different from the others.

My favorite plans for areas are when the streets curve, the plots are enclosed by the facades of the houses, creating a private sphere from the street, typical garden cities. However, not all old area plans are like that. Many older areas seem to have had the house "in the middle" with large fruit gardens in front and behind, and unfortunately today they are often divided with skinny plots so they don't really come into their own.

 

[Thomas_Blekinge]

I don't like the word "production" for houses. Houses should be built. By builders. It's not like cars that are built on assembly lines.

 

[findus42]

Apologies. I am a builder/tradesman and I probably have to take responsibility for referring to house construction as production in this thread. I am ruined by economic thinking. Unfortunately, it's a necessity for being able to work long-term.

Speaking of economic thinking, someone mentioned the economic lifespan of 50 years. It has nothing to do with building quality. No one thinks that houses only last 50 years. But all houses need love and care. That costs money. The assumption is that it takes 2% per year of what was originally spent at the prod... uh construction to keep the house in good condition. If you maintain it, you've probably spent as much as you've depreciated the building's value over time. Then the book value is the same after 50 years. Those who haven't spent a penny probably have no value either.

This leads me to another aspect. Stone facades and other components considered during the construction phase are sometimes almost maintenance-free = cheap to manage. Those who build this way haven’t intended to spend that 2% on maintenance. Expensive can sometimes mean sound economics.

Regards, Findus

 

[JohanLun]

Speaking of economic thinking. I saw someone mention the economic lifespan of 50 years.
It has nothing to do with building quality. No one believes that houses only last for 50 years. But every house needs love and care. That costs.

How long is a "modern" house expected to last then? It feels like some building methods, such as single-step sealed facades, "maintenance-free" windows, the choice of materials in general, are such that a significant part of the house needs to be replaced during renovation. With a turn-of-the-century house, most of it is made of solid wood (or brick in multi-family houses) which, if maintained (mainly painted), seems to last for several hundred years - meaning you don't need to replace parts if they are just maintained.

In an apartment I lived in that was built in the mid-1990s, it felt like the windows, interior doors, railings, moldings, etc. were all "ready for replacement," at least if you let another 10 years pass. The bathroom door, for example, was made of some kind of pressed paper/masonite that couldn't withstand moisture. The plastic on the windows deteriorated, and the balcony door was also made of some kind of non-moisture-resistant MDF on the inside that swelled if you occasionally forgot to close it during drizzle.

Office buildings from the 1970s don't seem worth renovating anymore, but maybe it has more to do with the need and opportunity to expand the space.

 

[findus42]

When construction companies build condominiums, they care less about the management of the buildings. It should look flashy and exclusive. Whether the facade can withstand snow plowing is not a priority. Look at new apartment buildings. Plaster facade all the way down to the ground. The buildings from the million program are more solidly built.

Modern houses are too vague a concept to say how long they should last. With modern methods, it is no problem to build houses that stand for hundreds of years. It's also possible to build embellished shacks that crack the moment the warranties expire. It depends on the foundation/contracting/project management. With commitment and knowledge, it can be as good as possible.

Best regards, Findus

 

[falkn]

Hardly the entrepreneur's fault in your examples above. Do you think it's cheaper to let the render go to the ground? This is an architect thing that typically Danish architects do. That's how they've built houses there for years. We as a construction company build exactly what the client requests, neither more nor less. Different clients have different priorities regarding operating versus investment costs.

 

[findus42]

You're absolutely right. Fashion causes problems, and clients without a management perspective build houses that can't withstand a normal winter reality. Would you, as a construction company, choose a plaster facade down to the ground on a house that you will own and manage for the next 50 years?

Best regards, Findus

 

[falkn]

The biggest problem with letting the plaster go to the ground is mainly that it gets dirty and damaged by mechanical impact like bikes and such being leaned against it. A base with a concrete slab of 100-200 mm is definitely preferable as the house looks fresher for longer.