41–50 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention wood fireplaces in the home and the noxious byproducts they produce is likely to shorten your lifespan considerably.
This is not the case when using modern wood burning stoves though right?
Stainless steel girders? I see this is a no costs spared build. At one point the author even considered Inconel girders, but practical considerations on builder experience with exotic alloys made that a bridge too far. Even so he is planning to have builders come in an brick up the entire frame before the rest of the house is built. I did like that he realized one of the most important aspects of keeping a house arou…
This is an interesting one, lots of interesting buildings were torn down as old eyesores to be replaced with much more efficient modern buildings in the post-WW2 UK. Nowadays these are considered eyesores ripe for demolition and the buildings they replaced are valued, to the point post-War town planners are sometimes cursed to this very day. Taste changes often, I think the best chance of keeping a building around on these grounds are to make it an interesting or particularly elegant example of a style subjectively considered by most to be timeless.
I know it's purely subjective, but I really think the trend in architecture to do away with ornamentation was quite bad from a 'places real people have to live in' perspective, even if it's interesting from an artistic point of view.
Stainless steel girders? I see this is a no costs spared build. At one point the author even considered Inconel girders, but practical considerations on builder experience with exotic alloys made that a bridge too far. Even so he is planning to have builders come in an brick up the entire frame before the rest of the house is built. I did like that he realized one of the most important aspects of keeping a house arou…
"Eyesore" also depends on the community. Lots of places will keep an eyesore place gladly because they can't infringe on the property owners rights. Many places in Asia are like this in general.
This is some fun new meaning of the word "gladly"
Why have the chimney outside? It's very inefficient... https://www.quora.com/Why-do-American-houses-often-have-the-...
Constructing a building that would last 1000 years is not particularly hard with modern engineering and materials. The hard part is, first and foremost, getting someone to pay for it. I'm not going to live 1000 years. My great grandkids likely won't even live to see the year 3022. Why would I spend orders of magnitude more for a house if a structure meant to last ~100 years serves my needs perfectly? My friend just n…
a good society is one where old men plant trees who’s shade they’ll never sit in
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention wood fireplaces in the home and the noxious byproducts they produce is likely to shorten your lifespan considerably.
This is not the case when using modern wood burning stoves though right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The second problem is making sure people want to maintain the structure for 1000 years, or at least not tear it down. I don't think this is as hard as the other comentors are saying, though. Just don't build the house in a city. I live in about a 200 year old house but it has been extensively reworked over its lifetime including by me. And given that it's on a nice piece of exurban property it's hardly a stretch to…
There's a bit of a question about how much of the house is actually left from 200 years ago. My house was technically built in 1897 but was moved in the 1920s on to a new foundation and we basically knocked the entire thing down and rebuilt it a few years ago after we bought it. Now we're adding to it again. It shares some of the DNA of that house from 1897 but basically none of the parts anymore and is much nicer lo…
Constructing a building that would last 1000 years is not particularly hard with modern engineering and materials. The hard part is, first and foremost, getting someone to pay for it. I'm not going to live 1000 years. My great grandkids likely won't even live to see the year 3022. Why would I spend orders of magnitude more for a house if a structure meant to last ~100 years serves my needs perfectly? My friend just n…
Is your friend Grady from Practical Engineering? His latest episode talks about foundations and replacing the old wooden piers holding up his house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_KhihMIOG8
Also reminds me of the classic phrase "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
If I were to design a house with the idea that it should serve future generations, I'd design it to be reconfigured, recycled, or torn down easily. After reading some of Stewart Brand's writing, I've learned to love ugly buildings.
I think the reconfigured / recycled easily makes sense. Tough to build a product in 2000s for life in the 2900s. That said the cost to make homes reconfigured/recycled easily is probably quite high and who knows if there will be people with knowledge to be able to perform that work in 400 years. Whereas a shelter can always be used by humans...
An example he cites is MIT's Building 20[1]. It only stood for 50 years, but that's not too bad for a structure that was intended to be temporary. Some amazing stuff came out of that building.