This is a longer article than I've quoted here. Interesting, especially the part about Japan at the end of the article.

the atlantic" stop-fe tishizing-old-homes-new-construction"

Stop Fe tishizing Old Homes

Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure.

Americans are paying ever more exorbitant prices for old housing that is, at best, subpar and, at worst, unsafe. Indeed, the real-estate market in the U.S. now resembles the car market in Cuba: A stagnant supply of junkers is being forced into service long after its intended life span.

The biggest reason for preserving older homes is because of their Architectual design and character. It isn't about being capable of being able to adapt it to modern needs. However, in today's world, most people would not dream of not having their modern amenities. You have to be willing to live with the nature of a historic home.

As far as modern life is concerned with its amenities, new construction is better.

I say, malarkey!

First off, that would be assuming that every new home is build to best practices. We all know, that is only as good as the guy on the end of the hammer...or caulk gun.

Second, old growth lumber, anyone? We've used up our world's supplies, pretty much. I replaced some window sills on a house I purchased in 2012, one I fabricated myself out of an old piece of lumber. The others, I bought new sill boards at a lumber yard, not a big box store. The ones out of new material already have rot! Older lumber often has much tighter grain, which I believe makes it inherently more rot resistant. Obviously that old-growth lumber wasn't what was used on my little prefab houses, or, maybe it was, but seventy years of intermittent neglect of those window sills took its toll.

Third, where does the author of this opinion piece think we should dump all the building materials that make up 'a stagnant supply of junkers'? That a lot of landfill!

I just came back from adjusting the drain pipe on a plastic laundry tub. Two years ago, the old concrete laundry tub wasn't going to be patched with WaterWeld for much longer. Rusted support structure and badly crumbling concrete around the drain meant it was time to go, after seventy years of faithful service. The plastic laundry tub i found to replace it- oh! No way is that an improvement. Those puny metal legs are going to be a pile of rust quicker than a Japanese car from the 70s. If I had access to the manpower, I'd pay a crew to haul a used concrete tub into the basement.

Of course, laundry tubs aren't the only component of a new build, or even a slightly significant one. Houses are components. Some components have improved, others have not. Some components can be easily improved during rehab, others, not so much.

Fourth, a new house functions ONLY as well as the persons operating it. A fancy high efficiency heating system, complete with wi-fi programmable thermostat isn't better if the tenant's kids mess with the temp so much they foul up the programming. Or, if all the intake ducts are blocked with piles of laundry.

Older homes are entry-level affordable, and improvements can be customized to the owner. Obviously a new build is customizable to the purchaser, but, once the first owner moves on....?? Do we have a never-ending succession of tear down and build new?

I say, fix 'em up, keep 'em in use as long as we can. Update components to better if we can. But those oldies are worth keeping in service!

Suppose I have a house that was built in 1920 for $6k. "Six rooms and a bath." That house continues to be lived in for 100 years, and gets sold and resold and updated every 20 years.

Depending on where it is, that $6k house might sell for $x or it might sell for $y, but it certainly couldn't be rebuilt for less than $300k-$500k, depending on finishes.

The vintage house already exists. The materials they used in 1920 are probably more solid than the hockey-stick lumber I buy at the box store.

My business is salvaging old houses. I tear out the decrepit-- whether it's structural or cosmetic-- and replace it with clean/safe/functional. Not because I fe tish ize old structures, but because it makes sense. If I wanted to, I could buy a vacant lot for $5k and put a $500k house on it, but why would I? I'd rather take that $500k and use it to buy and renovate 8-12 houses.

As homes in our neighborhood are sold, they are being completely stripped and you wouldn't know they were once beautiful homes rich with woowork from the 20's. Three on our block so far...I would never dream of living in anything like them. I love the comfort I feel each time I come home to rooms that hug me as if it were their arms we reaching out to welcome me home. No echoes of cold, sterile volumes of space painted grey and gloomy.

Another way to look at it - these houses have sold for $175,000-$290,000 more than their predecessors. So when we finally sell ours, we can enjoy it the way it brings us comfort while we are here and when we leave, sell if without modernizing it for much more than before because the new home prices raised the bar in our neighborhood.

Don,

It would depend how close that row house is to Genos or Jim's. I can live with close neighbors if the food is good near by.

Not a bad article because it talks about the insanity of zoning regs that prevent rehab/repurposing. Also lots of good call outs about lack of maintenance on houses that are past their designed lifespan.

That said, according to this article by the National Association of Homebuilders, over 50% of US housing stock it 40+ years old. Almost 40% is 50+ years old. We do not have the resources or labor to tear down and replace that much housing "affordably."

eyeonhousing.org/2021/06/the-aging-housing-stock-4/

Don, not sure why you are asking.... yeah, i did go on a long rant...too long..

I'm bored sitting around watching my dog heal after her surgery. Old beagle had to get her knee fixed. Well, she's not that old, lots of years left of hootin' and hollerin' in the backyard once this knee heals. So, maybe cuz I was bored, I did drone on...

[[[[[...... if we want to ensure universal access to decent housing, we should be building a lot more of it. ......]]]]]

Who is this "we" who should be building more brand new housing?

A lot of people are tenants because they can't afford to buy brand new houses. Construction isn't cheap. Permits aren't cheap. Connecting to utilities isn't cheap. Lot preparation isn't cheap. Driveways sidewalks, landscaping isn't cheap.