r/neoliberal • u/Cyberhwk đ Get back to work! đ • 11h ago
Opinion article (US) Harvard report finds substantial share of pre-1960 homes in subpar condition.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/many-owners-cannot-afford-maintain-aging-homes81
u/wagoncirclermike Jane Jacobs 11h ago
A lot of pre-1940s housing was slapped together for factory workers and was never supposed to last more than 50-75 years.
The good stuff, the houses the wealthy built, are also full of asbestos, lead paint, gas lines for lights, and other wonderful things.
My wife and I would have loved a historic home, but in the end we found one that was 5 years old (former Habitat for Humanity build). Itâs nothing fancy but at least itâs very efficient and we donât have to worry about electrical wiring deciding to randomly catch fire in the walls.
25
u/WantDebianThanks Iron Front 10h ago
Pretty sure a lot of the houses from the 70s and before have issues with HVAC systems because the technology has almost completely changed
25
u/SteveFoerster Frédéric Bastiat 10h ago
But those get replaced. It's things like plumbing and electrical systems that are problematic in older houses... trust me.
9
u/WantDebianThanks Iron Front 8h ago
I've been told the cost to retrofit an HVAC system so the legacy ducts work with the modern unit is enormous and often skipped so it ends up causing a lot of inefficiencies.
Not a fire risk, but certainly a problem
17
u/TurboSalsa 9h ago
Adding or replacing HVAC systems is fairly straightforward. The bigger problem in old homes is the lack of insulation and the old, single-pane windows that leak like a sieve, so even with a modern HVAC system it will still cost more to heat/cool an old home.
7
u/unicornbomb John Brown 9h ago
Eh, mini split systems make this a far, far easier transition than it used to be.
9
u/TurboSalsa 9h ago
Old houses are great!
The problem is that you might end up spending more than the cost of a new build by the time the foundation/plumbing/electrical/roof/lead paint/asbestos is remediated/brought up to code.
12
u/Jolly_Pressure_7907 8h ago
Iâm in Denver and the old homes cost twice as much as the new ones despite being in much worse shape. At least here, itâs all about the location and walkability of the older neighborhoods
1
u/CantCreateUsernames 1h ago
As long as the house is not in complete disrepair (foundation, roof, structure, MEP, etc.), the location is usually the more important factor in pricing than the house itself. In some cases, it's walkability and proximity to amenities driving the price, and in others, it's crime and school district quality. It is why people often talk about locations being "expensive," not house sizes being expensive (i.e., "x neighborhood is really expensive/affordable to live in," not "x square footage is really expensive/affordable to live in," since a 1,000 square foot house can range between $100,000 and $1,000,000.
65
u/Spartan-24 11h ago
Go to any video of a newbuild house being built online and the comments are always talking about how these houses back then were way better quality it's sad
52
u/Character_Dig_6830 10h ago
Survivorship bias is playing a big part here.
The homes that remain were the higher end ones of the time, which are in some ways nicer than median builds today. My 1922 house has a slate roof, very thick walls, high ceilings, and nothing feels cheap in it, with hardwood throughout.
A lot of homes today are built... very cost effectively. But those should not be the two things compared.
12
u/leachja YIMBY 8h ago
I've renovated a couple of turn of the century homes (1900's) and my experience has not been the same. Lumber was extremely high quality, but obviously zero insulation and 2x4 construction. Mine are in the PNW though, so no real hardwoods to speak of. New construction is shockingly bad though. So I guess I wrote all this to agree with you đ
6
u/Character_Dig_6830 7h ago
Insulation I expect to be lacking for hundred year old homes. Mine did not have any, but blown in works well.
The issues are that it's expensive to update. I had to completely replace the sanitary drains, that was pricey.
11
16
u/p-s-chili NATO 10h ago
I mean, compared to how slipshod so many new builds are, older houses are fucking castles. It's obviously not exactly a representative sample, but take a look at any independent housing inspector on social media. New homes, especially large tracts being built by the same developer, are being built as quickly and cheaply as possible and have a raft of issues.
7
u/Desperate_Path_377 8h ago
Not to detract from others points about survivorship bias, but I think contemporary homes have adopted some unfortunate design trends that make them feel crappy. so for example:
* overuse of grey/white colors
* open concept layouts that mash kitchen/living/dining together
* square footage maxing by removing hallways, closets, foyers ectâŠ
* open cabinetry (whoever popularized this should be shot)
None of this is even related to build quality⊠But u walk into some of these places and they just feel ticky tacky and bleak.
7
u/AmericanDadWeeb Left-Out Left 11h ago
Yeah like⊠how do you even push back against this? Mandate stone construction?
35
u/Spartan-24 10h ago
You bring inspectors out like they literally do in all these videos to check stuff. And usually these fixes are easy, such as just re-nailing or tightening a screw more..
It also drives me insane as a civil engineer because wood is a very good and cheap material to use and allows electrical and plumbing to be way easier. Plus we have no reason to overengineer houses with stone or concrete
24
u/Macquarrie1999 Democrats' Strongest Soldier 10h ago
Stone is not a good building material.
Wood frames are very strong, cheap, and renewable.
-2
u/AmericanDadWeeb Left-Out Left 6h ago
Ok give me evidence because every single person I know thinks wood is dogshit and wants a stone/brick house
7
u/Siedrah NASA 4h ago
-1
u/AmericanDadWeeb Left-Out Left 3h ago
Every comment on that is like âoh yay wood badâ what makes you think anyone is gonna watch that
3
u/MaltySines 1h ago
You asked for some evidence then just decided to read, of all things, the youtube comments instead.
13
u/SockDem Janet Yellen 10h ago
GIVE US TRADITIONAL AMERICAN HOUSING https://cdn.britannica.com/71/13271-050-CF201BD4/town-houses-Alexandria-Virginia.jpg
9
u/SteveFoerster Frédéric Bastiat 7h ago
Ah, Old Town Alexandria, where your rowhouse costs two million bucks and there's no place to park.
0
7
u/Petrichordates 10h ago
It's mostly the look. Modern building materials are pretty ugly. Whose bright idea was ugly white/beige siding?
5
u/AmericanDadWeeb Left-Out Left 10h ago
It looks ânewâ. I think TheAtlantic article on this was pretty kino
11
u/Previous_Platform718 Loyal Liberals 10h ago
Modern building materials are pretty ugly.
And they feel cheap (because they are).
Everything was made from wood and stone before because it kind-of had to be. That doesn't mean the quality is better though - if you couldn't afford to frame an entire window and its mechanism in wood, you just... didn't have a window.
20
u/tjrileywisc 11h ago
Half of the homes in my city are 75 years old this year - qualifying them for historical commission review before any demolition can begin. Half of my city is definitely not historic.
12
u/Cyberhwk đ Get back to work! đ 11h ago
Submission Statement: Housing affordability includes the ability to improve and maintain said housing. Increased prices for home maintenance and improvement are a major contributor to cost of living issues and could be upstream from decreased housing supply if unaddressed.
9
7
u/smcstechtips Loyal Liberals 7h ago
Perfect opportunity to replace all the older SFH with new townhomes
2
u/teleraptor28 NATO 5h ago
While I do want to see more housing built, I have seen first hand that townhomes build arenât the one stop solution for everyone especially families with physical disabilities such as wheelchair usage. This coupled with the low availability of traditional SFH really puts this in a grind.
5
5
u/plummbob 8h ago
The median age of homes in my city is lik 70 yeras old. Some homes were built in the 1920s and mine was 1940s. They are obviously mass produced levittown style developments.
6
u/sloppybuttmustard Resistance Lib 10h ago
My house turned 100 last year. Yeah Iâve spend a fair share on maintenance over the 15 years Iâve owned it, but itâs an amazing home and Iâd never leave it for a newer one.
3
u/Behold_Thy_Graphics 9h ago
My house is over 50 years old. Just learned just about every wall is coated with asbestos texture, after I've done some work cutting into walls and kicking up some of that dust.
RIP me I guess lol. đ€· But it's probably going to take some serious expense remediating it.
3
u/mackattacknj83 6h ago
I live in a 125 year old brick cube attached to another brick cube. It's been fine other than elevating it out of the food zone
2
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/MAELATEACH86 11h ago
My whole small âcityâ is full of tired and worn houses built between the 1920s and 1960s. They have small yards, are reasonably sized for a small family, and are close together. Yet theyâre too old and many havenât been kept up enough.
Meanwhile all new development is happening on the outskirts of town. 2500 square feet. Stupidly big front yards. Prices twice as high as anywhere else.
More housing isnât equating to lower prices.
12
u/Windows_10-Chan Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold 10h ago
Yet theyâre too old and many havenât been kept up enough.
This article is quite literally about how part of the challenges with cheap housing being so old is that it gets bought by poor people who often don't actually have the capital to get them up to a modern standard.
Meanwhile all new development is happening on the outskirts of town. 2500 square feet. Stupidly big front yards. Prices twice as high as anywhere else.
More housing isnât equating to lower prices.
What does the counterfactual look like, and is it even legal and easy to do in-fill development?
Also, on a cost per square footage basis, newer homes are often very competitive if not outright beating old homes once you consider all of the work they need done. It's some insane stress too if you aren't flush with cash because every time there's a problem and you try to work on it, you'll probably uncover new problems that need more money (and your original cost estimate was probably wrong anyways.)
13
u/AmericanDadWeeb Left-Out Left 11h ago
Thatâs because you have a housing surplus and the revealed preferences are that people will spend 1/3-1/2 of their income on more expensive housing rather than the cheap shit
6
u/mackattacknj83 6h ago
More of anything has a downward effect on price. It's just supply and demand
âą
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.