Brief update: I’m pleased to announce that I’ve received an Emergent Ventures grant to continue my work on Construction Physics! This will help some work on some new projects that I’ll be able to say more about in the coming months. In the US, our buildings tend to last somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years, depending on the type of building (residential buildings tend to last longer than commercial buildings). This means every year, something like 1 to 2% of our buildings get torn down or demolished.
Thanks Brian, and congratulations on your grant. Since we're in an area of architecture that's sort of my specialty I'm tempted to tie up a lot of server memory for my comments. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit myself to just a few comments:
-Stewart Brand's comment "Whomever builds with wood, builds a shack" actually doesn't correspond with the longevity of residential structures. Pure masonry structures, i.e. pyramids/Parthenon/Pantheon don't represent the majority of homes that have exceeded the 2 century mark. Wood is good if you keep it pretty dry and manage fire risks suitably. The verdict is still out on the American stick-framed traditions. My anecdotal observation is that the majority of wood framed homes will still be in use a century from now---but see my final comment.
-Location factors are probably more critical than architectural features when it comes to absolute longevity, but it's worth looking at the trajectory of early American home styles for some reference points about decisions that contributed to success. The Josiah Quincy house in Quincy, Massachusetts serves as a good example of "terminal design" with respect to good site selection, robust construction, sensible ceiling heights, and functional room sizes. The "Colonial Revival" succeeded as the dominant American house style because it employed these principles during the post-war building boom.
-The "learning process" of buildings refers to the fact that the maintenance and renovation costs have to be considered on a timespan that exceeds the average tenure of the homeowner. Critical structures i.e. foundations & framing stay relatively unchanged for centuries, but roofs, siding, mechanical systems, and interior finishes get replaced on 20-40 cycles. I would speculate that over a hundred year period, several generations of homeowners will put double or triple the initial construction cost of the house into the "sustenance" of the property.
My question: is it a good idea to build a house that lasts for 1000 years? I think the ideal building would last 1000 years if there is the will to maintain it, but would also be easy to disassemble and leave behind very little impact once it is no longer needed. I'm really interested in what buildings do or don't get maintained over time and why. I wonder how much of it has to do with the building itself (ease of maintenance, flexibility, aesthetics in context with changing tastes) and how much of it has to do with larger forces (economic forces, the context in which it is built, is the program/use for which it is designed still relevant). I would guess that a single family suburban tract house is not going to last 100 years both due to the quality of construction but also because the pattern of development in which it sits will not be sustainable or desirable forever. So it's not just a question of the building itself but the larger context.
This is so interesting. I don't have any background at all in architecture/construction/civil engineering, so it's all new to me. I'm kind of bummed that the location is so important; I have a house on California's central coast, so between the wildfires, the earthquakes, and the encroaching ocean, maybe I should buy a pied-à-terre in, say, Pueblo, Colorado. Though I suppose that might get wiped out in the Yellowstone supervolcano...
I'm really looking forward to seeing what sort of building systems and designs you arrive at. I've been thinking about this subject (though not necessarily a 1,000 year timeline) for many years, and have some ideas myself. it will be interesting to see how closely our conclusions align!
See also Joe Lstiburek & Building Science Corporation's “Perfect Wall” concept which describes methods to build that should theoretically last centuries.
I built my houseboat with 7-bag cement reinforced with hundreds of feet of stainless steel 1x19 fishing wire used by trollers, and embedded with EMT with water-tight connections to heat the floor. Worked great. I could run 2 hours without using outside cooling water in the heat exchanger. The SS wire was free. Only needed to rinse it well. Not very fast, tho.
Thanks Brian, and congratulations on your grant. Since we're in an area of architecture that's sort of my specialty I'm tempted to tie up a lot of server memory for my comments. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit myself to just a few comments:
-Stewart Brand's comment "Whomever builds with wood, builds a shack" actually doesn't correspond with the longevity of residential structures. Pure masonry structures, i.e. pyramids/Parthenon/Pantheon don't represent the majority of homes that have exceeded the 2 century mark. Wood is good if you keep it pretty dry and manage fire risks suitably. The verdict is still out on the American stick-framed traditions. My anecdotal observation is that the majority of wood framed homes will still be in use a century from now---but see my final comment.
-Location factors are probably more critical than architectural features when it comes to absolute longevity, but it's worth looking at the trajectory of early American home styles for some reference points about decisions that contributed to success. The Josiah Quincy house in Quincy, Massachusetts serves as a good example of "terminal design" with respect to good site selection, robust construction, sensible ceiling heights, and functional room sizes. The "Colonial Revival" succeeded as the dominant American house style because it employed these principles during the post-war building boom.
-The "learning process" of buildings refers to the fact that the maintenance and renovation costs have to be considered on a timespan that exceeds the average tenure of the homeowner. Critical structures i.e. foundations & framing stay relatively unchanged for centuries, but roofs, siding, mechanical systems, and interior finishes get replaced on 20-40 cycles. I would speculate that over a hundred year period, several generations of homeowners will put double or triple the initial construction cost of the house into the "sustenance" of the property.
My question: is it a good idea to build a house that lasts for 1000 years? I think the ideal building would last 1000 years if there is the will to maintain it, but would also be easy to disassemble and leave behind very little impact once it is no longer needed. I'm really interested in what buildings do or don't get maintained over time and why. I wonder how much of it has to do with the building itself (ease of maintenance, flexibility, aesthetics in context with changing tastes) and how much of it has to do with larger forces (economic forces, the context in which it is built, is the program/use for which it is designed still relevant). I would guess that a single family suburban tract house is not going to last 100 years both due to the quality of construction but also because the pattern of development in which it sits will not be sustainable or desirable forever. So it's not just a question of the building itself but the larger context.
This is so interesting. I don't have any background at all in architecture/construction/civil engineering, so it's all new to me. I'm kind of bummed that the location is so important; I have a house on California's central coast, so between the wildfires, the earthquakes, and the encroaching ocean, maybe I should buy a pied-à-terre in, say, Pueblo, Colorado. Though I suppose that might get wiped out in the Yellowstone supervolcano...
Minor point but NYC isn't the best example for your % of buildings torn down. 3000 buildings torn down is just 0.3% of 1 million.
I'm really looking forward to seeing what sort of building systems and designs you arrive at. I've been thinking about this subject (though not necessarily a 1,000 year timeline) for many years, and have some ideas myself. it will be interesting to see how closely our conclusions align!
See also Joe Lstiburek & Building Science Corporation's “Perfect Wall” concept which describes methods to build that should theoretically last centuries.
As a guy who is currently constructing a new house, this post was really helpful. Thanks a lot indeed! I will be reading the other two parts as well.
Brian, what do you think of this?
Is concrete that durable? - https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/a-house-to-last-for-500-years
Nice work on landing the grant!
I built my houseboat with 7-bag cement reinforced with hundreds of feet of stainless steel 1x19 fishing wire used by trollers, and embedded with EMT with water-tight connections to heat the floor. Worked great. I could run 2 hours without using outside cooling water in the heat exchanger. The SS wire was free. Only needed to rinse it well. Not very fast, tho.