[HN Gopher] How to design a house to last 1000 years ___________________________________________________________________ How to design a house to last 1000 years Author : ddubski Score : 406 points Date : 2022-01-05 15:42 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (constructionphysics.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (constructionphysics.substack.com) | supperburg wrote: | Yuck, colonial. | | Here's the best way to build a 1000 year house or a 10,000 year | house: build a giant in-place concrete form with the following | features: deep waffle grid foundation slab, rounded corners and | arches everywhere, thick walls and of course tasteful layout of | rooms and embossings. Lay out tons of carbon-fiber reinforcement | and then fill the entire form in one monolithic pour with ultra | high performance concrete. Attach a thick layer of rock wool to | the outside with masonry screws. | WhompingWindows wrote: | Pressure treated wood: I see this as an essential material in | modern building. Our own house used non-pressure-treated, regular | boards for the sill (the walls attach to these sill boards, which | are directly on top of the poured foundation, which had moisture | seeping in). We got ants and termites who loved this damp wood, | and they turned it to shreds in just 40 years. Will pressure | treated wood last for 1000 years? I have no idea, but regular | ole' wood didn't last 50 in our case. | ortusdux wrote: | Stainless steel rebar is an often overlooked option. In theory, | solid SS rebar should outlast the concrete, but it is a difficult | thing to accurately study. In favorable conditions, regular rebar | reinforced concrete starts to need major repairs after ~40 years | due to corrosion. | | The Progresso Pier in Mexico was build over 80 years ago with SS | rebar, and reportedly has not needed any renovations. A pier | built 20 years later using mild steel rebar has been almost | completely destroyed by the ocean. | | I wish more large infrastructure projects would use it. The up- | front costs can be 2x higher, but the lifetime savings win out in | many situations. | | https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/10/progreso-pier-worlds-l... | rsync wrote: | I came here to mention that. SS rebar is, indeed, a thing and | would be an interesting combination with long lasting (fly ash) | concrete, etc. | yosito wrote: | How long lasting is fly ash concrete? | rsync wrote: | "How long lasting is fly ash concrete?" | | We don't know. Existing structures that use "Roman | Concrete[1]" are (roughly) 2000 years old and counting ... | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete | lenkite wrote: | Wish we could re-discover how to produce Roman Concrete, which | has already proven its long-lasting efficacy. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete. | ThrustVectoring wrote: | My understanding is that modern concrete would last as long | as Roman concrete would, if we built the same types of | designs that Romans used concrete for. The big difference is | that we want to span gaps without using large unwieldy | arches, so we need tensile strength, so we need to use steel | reinforcing bar in our concrete, which is the eventual | pathway to failure. (Well, that and heavy machinery like | semi-tractor trailers, which the Romans _also_ didn 't have | to design around) | | The Romans did not have the quantity of cheap steel necessary | for this, so they ensured only compressive loads on their | concrete, so it lasted about as long as you'd expect a random | rock subject to only compressive loads in a field to last. | foofoo55 wrote: | Stainless steel needs oxygen[1], otherwise it will eventually | corrode with pitting and "crevice corrosion"[2]. I wonder what | the ingredients are in stainless rebar, and what the oxygen | environment is like. | | [1] https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/metals/is-stainless- | steel-... | | [2] https://www.cruisingworld.com/how/beware-stainless-steel- | cor... | prox wrote: | How does the Pantheon in Rome keep its structure? Is it just | concrete? | | Since it's 2000 years old now. | brixon wrote: | Roman concrete is not like modern concrete. The process in | modern concrete does not stop and eventually makes it too | brittle and falls apart, Roman concrete does not do this and | can last a very long time. | | https://science.howstuffworks.com/why-ancient-roman- | concrete... | horsawlarway wrote: | Compressive shapes and good concrete. | | You start talking about rebar and other complexities when you | want a shape that puts concrete in tension (where it's very | weak), instead of compression. | | Basically - lots of domes and arches. | kibwen wrote: | Here's a good video on the use and tradeoffs of Roman | concrete engineering: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL0BB2PRY7k | | TL;DW: whereas modern construction uses rebar as a way to | keep concrete from fracturing under tensile stress, the | Romans made their constructions enormous so that the weight | of the structure itself would compress the material and keep | it from failing from tensile stress. Their monuments weren't | built huge just because it cool, but also because it was | practical. But large concrete constructions are both | expensive and take years and years to cure, and depending on | your concrete chemistry the strongest mixtures can also be | much more difficult to work with. | prox wrote: | Thanks, so very cool how they were able to make such | structures! | lqet wrote: | Judging from the old towns where I grew up in in Europe, the | problem isn't building a house that won't collapse for a 1000 | years (a classic half-timbered house [0] will get you through | most of the earthquakes to expect here for centuries). The | problem is getting it through town fires [1], floods [2], and | wars [3, 4]. | | [0] | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Ma... | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg | | [4] | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Lu... | londons_explore wrote: | The biggest risk to a house built today for the next 1000 years | is regulatory. | | Eg. The government coming round and saying "this isn't up to spec | for [energy efficiency, fire safety, future housing | requirements], it needs to be torn down and rebuilt". | | The way to _defend_ against that is to make it a building of | historical importance, so that rules or exceptions are written | specifically for it. | | So my 1000 year building will be a massive artpiece, cathedral, | or something along those lines. | | As soon as you get famous enough, it doesn't matter what | materials your building is made of, it will end up being | maintained. | chrisseaton wrote: | Look around you at the houses which are still standing after 1000 | years. Copy their design. | arethuza wrote: | You could also look at houses that are still mostly standing | after ~5000 years, complete with some furniture: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae | jethro_tell wrote: | 1. Be rich 2. Don't not be rich 3. Make sure your | kids marry in a way that keeps the money in the family 4. | Build a castle/house of stone. | | Congratulations, you own a castle | chrisseaton wrote: | 4 is the only really relevant one. | | Plus just 'don't knock it down'. | | Stone is far more durable than the wood and plaster they use | in the US. | franch wrote: | Not all stone houses are castles or luxury residences. My | family's house (northern Italy in the Alps) is at least 600 | years old (there is a painting on the outside that has been | dated to around 1420) but it is a working-class home. The | interior has been repurposed many times over the centuries, | but it is still there and inhabited. | | edit: spelling | arethuza wrote: | Entire cities in the UK are famous for the kind of stone | they are largely built from e.g. Aberdeen and its granite, | Edinburgh and sandstone: | | http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/Building_stones_of_Edi | n... | polymerist wrote: | My only issue with this was the steel potentially rusting over | 1000 years. There is a lot of water vapor that moves in and out | of a house and mitigation of that water is important. Stainless | steel will rust given enough time/water too. | | Anti-corrosion coating on the steel and waterproofing of the | foundation slab with a self adhered membrane are two overlooked | points imo. Easy enough to tie in waterproofing of the slab with | a water/vapor barrier on the walls and the roofing underlayments | too. | | Unsealed brick is also relatively weak if there is a significant | amount of water vapor and prolonged years of freeze/thaw will eat | away at the brick/mortar and reduce structural integrity of the | facade. | | I may be biased since waterproofing product development is my day | job. | | As for the other comments on the cost of steel being obscene, I'd | counter that volumetric steel modular construction is a growing | market. Steel is also more easily recycled than wood and lumber | costs in 2021 were really high. Probably part of the reason | Katerra went bankrupt too (mismanagement played a role too I'm | sure). | | I agree on the steel in the ground with corrosion, I'm guessing | the author implies there is an anti-corrosion coating on there | already (since not having one seems idiotic), but I suspect it | wouldn't last that long and honestly it seems a little excessive | since slab on grade is pretty common and I've seen 200+ year old | homes sitting on big rocks that are sitting on compacted soil. | | Fun article though. | yob89 wrote: | sebben wrote: | For those interested this project has been built with longevity | in mind. | | The MiniCO2 Houses: The Maintenance-Free House | https://www.realdaniabyogbyg.org/projects/the-minico2-houses... | 0000011111 wrote: | It is fun to think about how you could build something to last | for 10 generations or 1000 years. | | I personal would look to the subsurface. In the right location | unground dwellings could last longer that human civilization the | earth. https://www.atlassurvivalshelters.com/ | melenaboija wrote: | 1 meter wide stone walls, mortar, no foundations and wooden beams | is what my family house in Spain is made of. It has been there | for several hundred years with absolutely 0 structural | remodeling, some cosmetic work has been done. Seeing the house | will be there for few more years, not sure 1000 though. | | If I am correct some of the Romanesque constructions don't need | wood and those have been there for 1000 years. | | The seismic activity in Spain is almost null, which I guess | matters for this structures. | EricE wrote: | Wow - when I got to the comment about brick and moisture... it's | a solved problem. In fact there are even better solutions like | | https://youtu.be/WuYvDuOQ-5M?t=375 | | Indeed if the author would just follow Matt Risinger's channel | they would get quite a few far more practical ways to address | their concerns. | | Expert in a vacuum vs. experience in the field. Also a prime | example of "no plan survives contact with the enemy". | RedBeetDeadpool wrote: | Also don't build the house in Florida. | klaussilveira wrote: | I know this is a joke, but there are several advancements in | coastal engineering that are quite interesting: | | https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_tb_2_f... | RedBeetDeadpool wrote: | Hmm... very interesting. | biztos wrote: | Apologies if someone already made this comment, but if you want | your house to last 1000 years I think you ought to start with | giving your fellow humans a reason to want that too. | | Your future self, revived from a frozen brain in your Auckland | compound, is unlikely to find the house still available | regardless of how you built it. Because laws, incentives, needs | and desires change. This could work to your advantage, with | future generations valuing your project-house for reasons you | can't predict, but it's more likely to go the other way. Even if | your sarcophagus is good for eternity, you need folks to leave it | alone. | | Maybe start by founding a religion. | ravedave5 wrote: | Did he just make a castle with more steps and not as good? | Robotbeat wrote: | One problem is that stainless is valuable. So is aluminum. Even | regular steel has scrap value. The Great Pyramid lost its nice | smooth exterior simply because the rock it was made of was nice | and not easily available in that area. | | Build it out of basalt blocks in an area with lots of basalt. Low | seismic activity, ideally no freeze/thaw cycle, little to no | water, and no humans. | danans wrote: | > But this cycle of replacement is relatively modern - medieval | houses would often last for centuries, | | Most people in medieval times lived much cheaper structures made | of fast degrading materials like wood, mud, and thatch, not stone | houses. Therefore most medieval houses did not last centuries. | | People reused the much rarer stone structures for centuries | because without the aid of machines, it was extremely labor | intensive to build stone structures. Obviously, they were more | valuable since they were more durable. | | Populations and technological advancement exploded during the | centuries afterward - especially after the industrial revolution | - so it's not a useful comparison. | | > and there are examples from around the world of buildings that | have lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years while | remaining in use - The Pantheon, Aula Palatina, Brihadeeswarar | Temple, Verona Area, Chartres Cathedral are a few examples. | | Those are mostly houses for god[s], not people. Their function is | primarily ritual, not to enable the functions of human life. | | Then as now, for human existence, you need facilities to heat and | cool, provide water, prepare food, and remove waste for a large | number of people per square meter of building. | | Modern buildings perform better at those things due to the | quantum leap in precision manufactured materials, which are able | to keep the elements at bay - but time and nature are constantly | attacking man-made square corners and tight fitting joints and | seams. Caulk fails. At some point that stuff all needs to be | replaced and it represents the majority (materials and labor) of | building/maintaining a house. | | What might be original after 1000 years of the author's house | (assuming it survives cultural change, which the author | addresses), is only the structure. And a house structure that | lasts 1000 years is interesting in the same way that a fossilized | dinosaur skeleton is interesting - but the dinosaur's actual | plumbing was lost eons ago. | | The author seems to understand this because they discuss that a | goal is for it to survive until the point where people want to | maintain it just because it is old. | | That's great, but it's not a kind of prescription for building | housing at scale sustainably today. | alecst wrote: | I stayed at a farm in South Tyrol, Italy this fall. (South Tyrol | is actually in northern Italy, near the Austrian border.) | | The oldest property record for the place dated it back to the | year 1200. It's a large, normal looking house, and the walls are | made out of irregular stone blocks mortared together. | | For what it's worth, buildings like this aren't that uncommon in | Italy. | bruce343434 wrote: | Do you have a picture? | alecst wrote: | This is the only one I have of the exterior: | https://imgur.com/a/q1Y4nlL | xondono wrote: | Why would you want a house to last 1000 years? 150 year houses | are already a PITA to adapt to modern standards. | irrational wrote: | Step 1. Build it on solid bedrock in a location not prone to | earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, rising | ocean levels, volcanoes, etc. Build it in a location unlikely to | be bombed or otherwise involved in human conflict. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | so... Mars? | irrational wrote: | I'm thinking some places in central Canada. Currently you | would have to deal with lots of snow, but climate change will | shortly sort that out. | sfx77 wrote: | I live in the midwest. Would this hold up against a tornado? | boringg wrote: | This is interesting. About to do a major reno on an old home | (early 1900s) and definitely had questions about making upgrades | that would last a long time. One of the greenest things that you | can do to a home is not build a new one as I understand it. | Another one would be to build it so it lasts ... not like this | throwaway society we live in. That said I don't think I can do | steel girders to extend the life of the house -- that would be | tough ask. Any thoughts anyone? Thanks. | | Other green benefits -- electrify as much as reasonable, thermal | regulate, insulate etc. | johne20 wrote: | Look into Passive House designs, and videos by Joseph Lstiburek | if you are interested in energy efficiency and building | structures to last with modern materials. | jakeinspace wrote: | At this moment in history, building a cheaper 50-100 year house | now and letting a future developer rebuild it with hopefully | carbon-neutral materials might be more sustainable, assuming | that building it to last now would cost more in dollars and | carbon and immediate environmental impact. If we haven't | figured out how to build in a more sustainable way 100 years | from now, then there might not even be any developers around | anyway, so it's a win-win (sort of). | timeon wrote: | You can build with straw bale and wood today. | lastofthemojito wrote: | But on the other hand, it's probably greener to build a house | to last 50-100 years and then tear it down in 75 years when | housing preferences change rather than build a house to last | 1000 years and then tear it down in 75 years when housing | preferences change. | | On the one hand I think this is a worthwhile experiment, on the | other hand I can see why most houses are not built this way. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > One of the greenest things that you can do to a home is not | build a new one as I understand it. | | I would need evidence for this statement. There have been many | great advances in technology over the years, to the point that | I can see old insulation/wiring/plumbing to not be worth | repairing and replacing. Not to mention if any of the previous | stuff used harmful materials such as lead and asbestos. | | I also think it is unreasonable to assume current lifestyles | and needs will be satisfactory for future generations. | boringg wrote: | I would surmise that by not sourcing new materials (that | currently aren't that green from a carbon footprint | perspective which is probably the largest part of your | footprint) you are saving a lot of carbon cost. There are | challenges with old homes such as sealing the building | envelope and updating wiring/heating etc. | | Maybe I am telling myself that - I'm not sure. My argument | does resonate though. | | New builds require the destruction of the old material, | sourcing of new material, energy and time spent to put that | together. And if you don't get a good build is all going to | have to be rebuilt in the not too distant future whereas the | house I have has lasted over 100 years and is still in great | shape - I figure I can get another 100 with the proper | maintenance/updating etc. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I have yet to come across an old house that I did not want | to gut. To update wiring, plumbing, gas lines, central air, | siding, roof. By the time you are done, you are only saving | on replacing the frame, but tearing down a frame of spaced | 2x4s and plywood sheets are not that much waste in my | experience. | darkwater wrote: | There is a big chunk of the world that doesn't live in | wooden houses, so rebuilding the frame indeed is a big | deal compared to "just" redo all the wirings and | plumbings. | boringg wrote: | I would also posit that your own preferences aren't the | same as everyone else. Such that there are many people | who prefer not living in many of the newer homes. | politician wrote: | Buckingham Slate shingles are currently not available. | | [1] https://www.buckinghamslate.com/roofing/ | culi wrote: | If you really want to build a house that will last, you need to | build with decay not against it. The reason Japanese | architectures are some of the oldest in the world is because | they're built to be modular. The prioritize form over material. | If one part breaks, you can replace it without having to destroy | the entire building. This is also true with Kath Kuni | architecture in India. Not only are these building forms | extremely resistant to earthquakes and other disasters, but they | can also be continuously rebuilt piecemeal | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58O7SRy46DM | bdamm wrote: | A building to last a thousand years, but it has no eaves at all? | | Good luck with that. The building might last, but only if each | successive owners can afford all the maintenance costs of | replacing windows, flashings, sidings, sealants, etc, and all the | other exterior materials that will rot quickly due to no eaves to | protect them. | DiffEq wrote: | You should still use reinforcement in the concrete: Use basalt | rebar instead of steel; it will not corrode. Use a nylon fiber in | the mix to protect against impact and spalling from fire. Use | 5000 psi concrete instead of 2500. This is much stronger and will | be less likely to break down under any environment. Use a vapor | barrier underneath to help prevent moisture and gas from coming | up into the house. Put the foundation on 8 to 10 inches of 1" | rock. This will help protect against soil expansion and allow | water to quickly flow underneath or out of underneath the house. | It will also prevent critters from digging into any possible | underground utilities, etc. Any cracks after the concrete sets, | fill and then seal the entire pad. Be sure to keep the concrete | wet and covered for 30 days to aid in maximum strength. | | Instead of a steel frame, use insulated concrete forms, again | using basalt rebar. This makes a concrete walled house. Use | stainless steel trusses (or onsite galvanized steel) for the roof | or build a concrete roof with similar construction methods as the | insulated concrete forms. | | The siding of the house should be concrete board or other non | combustible material (brick or stone)..or both where it makes | sense. But be careful on the mortar used..seal it at least if you | expose any of it to the weather. | | Make sure the eaves are at least two feet out and the eaves over | doors more than that. This keeps water away from those areas and | the house as a whole. | | Make sure you have gutters...good ones. | | Make sure your land around the house moves water around it - even | in flash flood events. | | Have real shutters for your windows. | | Where it makes sense, especially those areas exposed to weather, | do not use wood. | | Instead of slate..use aluminum shingles. | | Forget the fireplace...too many potential issues with fire, | leaking, etc. They are hard to build for 20 years let alone 1000. | | Use Fiberglass windows. The best ones will outlast any hardwood. | LunaSea wrote: | Thanks for all the insights! | | I have a few questions regarding your suggestions: | | > Instead of slate..use aluminum shingles | | - Is this purely a question of price? | | > Use Fiberglass windows. The best ones will outlast any | hardwood. | | - Wouldn't long term exposure of the fiberglass windows to the | sun weaken the fiberglass (this effect seems to be called | "Fiber Blooming")? | | Finally, do you have any links to share regarding these topics | for people wanting to build a house but without the technical | background? | jacquesm wrote: | And build it either on bedrock or on a stable sand layer. The | foundation is key. | boringg wrote: | Why do you need shudders for your windows? Is that for | hurricane/storm protection? | arethuza wrote: | Out flat in Edinburgh New Town had built in shutters on the | _inside_ of sash windows - these were actually really | effective at helping to keep the place warm - far better and | easier to care for than curtains. | | Edit: I should point out that the Edinburgh New Town is quite | old, but not as old as the Old Town, obviously. | LunaSea wrote: | But wouldn't that be an apples to oranges comparison | because shutters are fully opaque while curtains are only | partially opaque? | | I would also expect outer shutters to insulate the window a | little bit and thus limit the heat loss no? | arethuza wrote: | "curtains are only partially opaque" | | Not any curtain I've ever encountered - people used to | have net screens for privacy and curtains for warmth. But | that's going back a bit (i.e. my youth). | LunaSea wrote: | Indeed that's what I'm thinking about where the curtains | are open most of the day but the net screens are always | closed. | | It is still a decently common practice in a lot of | European countries. | | Other option would be to use rolling window shutters on | the outside. | DiffEq wrote: | Yes. And if a window is broken long term (who knows what 1000 | years may bring) the opening can be somewhat protected still | and easily so. | jdmichal wrote: | I think the constraint of expanding the house prevented a build | like you're suggesting. I personally think it's a silly | constraint when the plan is already 3000+ sqft, which is larger | than anything used as non-communal shelter by humans for our | species' duration. | | I also dislike how the author completely punted on insulation. | I think that's a very important part of any new building. It's | easy to insulate your proposed design. | DiffEq wrote: | Yes, insulation is very important. I actually built this | house for myself. Took 2.5 years...the insulated concrete | forms I used have built in insulation for the walls...and for | the foundation I used special foam around the edges of the | foundation to help with that. A commenter mentioned elsewhere | that you would not be able to find contractors to build a | house like OP designed - that is a true statement even with | my build and that is why I had to build 90 percent of myself | (my sons and wife helped too). | jdmichal wrote: | That's awesome! It's a dream of mine to someday design my | own home, though more from an architectural perspective and | not a technical one like this. Will likely be unrealized, | though, for financial reasons. Unless I win the lottery or | something, but it's kind of hard to do that when you don't | play -\\_(tsu)_/- | GavinMcG wrote: | It's "steel" here, and "shutters" | DiffEq wrote: | Thanks...fixed. | jacquesm wrote: | It still says 'steal'. | freeopinion wrote: | Solved problem: | | https://www.nps.gov/meve/index.htm | 6510 wrote: | Nice but no cigar. You start bij looking at structures that | lasted thousands of years. | | So you start with a giant blob of rock (mountain) then carve your | cave out of it. | | Have a reliable source of water nearby and carve out a trompe for | compressed air. You cant beat a solid state megalithic generator. | | For heating you carve out a chicken coop with a thin wall | bordering the living room. | | Use finger paint on the walls to explain how everything works and | for decoration. | ctdonath wrote: | Related resource: https://twitter.com/1000yearhouse | tigerlily wrote: | Living in a coastal area and having lived through a couple of big | earthquakes, what you want is housing that can be recycled or | composted after a lifetime of around 60 years. Long enough for a | generation or two and probably 3-4 renovation cycles. | | Hurricane Katrina and the Christchurch earthquakes created a lot | of green spaces afterwards. It was amazing to see a house | disappear and be replaced by grass before long. Or sometimes just | an empty section with a letterbox. | | In my experience it's better to work with entropy when it comes | down to it. | Brendinooo wrote: | Eh, I'm somewhere in between the article and your reply. You | need to work with entropy, but you can do that AND have 1000 | year houses by trying to optimize for cheap, locally-sourced | materials that regular people can work with, and tailoring your | architecture to the challenges of your region. | | I saw a thread on Twitter once about how some old Japanese | homes are built on stilts that sit on flat rocks. When | earthquakes happen, at worst the house shifts off the rocks. | That kind of thing. Don't force a style on a place that can't | accommodate it. | | If a stainless steel beam goes out in 500 years, the people | living in the area might not be able to replace it. But if it's | made of wood, you've got a better shot at finding a tree and | someone who can work with it. | berkeleynerd wrote: | Build with stone blocks. Even if it gets knocked over the blocks | just need to be reassembled to be useful whether as a wall, a | tower, a road, or another house. | jacquesm wrote: | Add some mortar and before you know it you'll just be building | a house in the traditional way. | arethuza wrote: | I actually went on a course a couple of years ago to be | trained in how to prepare and use traditional lime mortars - | the course had us building a wall that was going to be | knocked down and the stones re-used for the next class: | | https://www.scotlime.org/ | | NB I did this because our house is an old Scottish farm | building that was converted to a house ~12 years ago - I | wanted to be able to do proper wall repairs and build garden | walls in the same style. | jacquesm wrote: | Neat! I just added a very small section to an existing | brick wall and I'm super frustrated with the result because | the original wall had it's bricks in the weirdest lines and | I had the choice of following them or trying to improve it. | I tried the latter and ended up with something that was | less bad than it could have been but it still isn't | perfectly level at the top so I'll have to do some | improvisation to make the connection to the ceiling. | | If you see experienced bricklayers at work, the speed with | which they go and the perfection of the result then that's | always a good reminder that plenty of the 'trades' that IT | people tend to look down on are actually highly skilled | professions that can take the better part of a lifetime to | master. | peter303 wrote: | Lets see, Bill Gate's 1990s house had ethernet ports and a 512K | screen on every wall. Perhaps he should have consulted Gordon | Moore (still alive) first. | mvaliente2001 wrote: | Thank you very much for sharing this. In more of one occasion | I've asked myself this exact question, even if for only as a | thought experiment. | jandrese wrote: | One thing he didn't mention in the location section: Make sure | your spot is at least 20 meters above sea level. Not only do you | need to account for the ground subsisting, but you also need to | account for sea level rise. I wouldn't put it near moving water | larger than a creek at all, riverbanks can shift over time and so | can coastlines. | | His suggestion to build in New York City is a bit dubious in a | future where we may be forced to abandon the city due to | flooding. | dekhn wrote: | What's more important? Building a house that lasts a thousand | years, or building a culture that lasts 1000 years and can build | houses on demand? | postalrat wrote: | How to build a house that lasts 1000 years: tunnel into stable | hard rock. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | This might work in a universe with spherical cows but they seem | to hand wave away all human elements. My eyes rolled a loop in my | head when they advised an urban location. That's a great way to | ensure it gets demolished when a marginally better use for the | land comes along. | | If it were me I'd just build some monstrosity of a palace in | somewhere that nobody wants such a thing and I'd build it out of | stuff that's highly inefficient to repurpose, not steel beams. | The best way to keep something around is to make its continued | use better than any other option so that people take care of it | and give it the capacity to withstand a couple generations of | neglect without falling in on itself. A castle (metaphorical or | literal) on some cheap land along the highway in North Dakota | should suffice. | bpodgursky wrote: | I would expect a southwest desert to be better than North | Dakota. Fewer freeze/thaw cycles while wet, and milder weather. | | But yes. | [deleted] | rsync wrote: | This is a very odd design document and it makes me think this | author has _thought_ a lot about materials and buildings but not | _actually built anything_. | | The steel moment frame, to someone with shallow knowledge, | _sounds so strong and resilient_. But in fact, a rigid steel | structure is more vulnerable to seismic (and even wind) loads | than wooden framing which can flex and move and dampen those | loads naturally. | | The _stainless_ spec for the frame is just pure silliness. | Looking at my notes now, for steel beams _buried in the ground_ : | 200 microns of rust per year in very aggressive soils, but it | rusts on both sides, so make that 400 microns. | | ... which means that it takes ~25 years to rust through _naked_ 3 | /8 steel _buried in the most aggressive soils_. | | ... which also means that unburied steel, protected from | elements, up in the air, is going to last more than 1000 years. | | Oh, and also, the SS is more brittle so you've made your seismic | issues _even worse_. | | ... | | If I had an unlimited budget and was aiming for >1000 years I | would pour the piles to bedrock with stainless rebar inside fly- | ash concrete and top those pilings with plate connectors into | which you could socket large wooden columns (perhaps 8x8) and | build the structure with large wooden members connected with | steel connectors and column caps, etc. | | I would only use steel members if the span called for wood that | was too big (like a 24' span needing a 8x14 or whatever). | mikewarot wrote: | Steel beams buried in the ground, no matter what they're made | of, are going to rot away quite rapidly if they contact any | other metal, due to galvanic corrosion. I think you'd be better | off with basalt fiber reinforced concrete for anything going in | the ground. It's going to be strong, and it won't rot. | entangledqubit wrote: | There is also basalt rebar. Last I checked, some building | codes allow equivalent 1:1 tradeoff with classic rebar - even | though the basalt rebar is stronger. | | From what I understand, basalt rebar does not have the usual | problem of regular rebar where oxidizing (rust) expansion can | cause cracking in concrete. Additionally, the temperature | expansion rates are much closer (rebar vs concrete). | | My main hesitation would be that it is relatively new so we | don't have that much data on how well it ages. Overall, it | seems better than rebar classic by far (other than cost - | which hasn't been scaled) - but I don't build structures for | a living. | tzs wrote: | > If I had an unlimited budget and was aiming for >1000 years I | would pour the piles to bedrock with stainless rebar inside | fly-ash concrete and top those pilings with plate connectors | into which you could socket large wooden columns (perhaps 8x8) | and build the structure with large wooden members connected | with steel connectors and column caps, etc. | | Are there any existing buildings constructed that way that have | stood for >1000 years? | | If not, my approach would be to copy an existing building that | has stood for >1000 years in a region that has had several of | the same kind of natural disasters that happen at the place I'm | going to be building. | ok_dad wrote: | I would certainly use wood, and then just design it like the | Japanese do for their old buildings, which are continuously | repaired and after 1000 years you would still have the same | home but it would be a Ship of Theseus type of situation. | Wood has been used for building for thousands of years, and I | _wood_ imagine that humanity will forever be using wood for | building, so there is a small chance you would lose the | knowledge of how to build with it. | frnkng wrote: | Unfortunately German only: https://www.rheingau.de/sehenswert | es/sehenswuerdigkeiten/gra... | | The oldest stone house of germany, ca. 1k years old. The wood | is dated to 1035..1075 ad. | | But Im sure that house is pretty young for Italian or | Egyptian standards... | abainbridge wrote: | York Minster in England is mostly 1000 years old. There are | some nice stories about how it handled a serious fire in 1984 | here, (starting about 18 minutes in) | https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0007pws. eg, the 2000 year | old Roman drainage system got used for the first time in 1000 | years because lots of water got inside the building from the | fire hoses. | | When rebuilding it, they had to decide whether to remake it | in the same way it was originally, or to use a modern | approach. They decided to use oak beams again because of lack | of evidence about what happens to steel structures after | hundreds of years. But then they couldn't find any oak trees | big enough. | tempestn wrote: | Could be prone to some survivorship bias. | maxwell86 wrote: | Sure, but what's the alternative? | | Dig out all other buildings that failed over the last 1000 | years, figure out how they failed and why, and take action? | | You can just copy what is known to work instead. | hwillis wrote: | Or like, look at any of the million dilapidated houses | and realize that 1. most houses leak at some point and 2. | termites eat wood. Then conclude that actually, maybe | .0001% of wood houses lasting for 1000 years is not | actually good evidence that wood is a material that | easily lasts 1000 years. Then think twice about using | wood. | | Personally I'd a concrete dome: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome | skylanh wrote: | > author has thought a lot about materials and buildings | | > but not actually built anything. | | That was my impression. As soon as they started talking about | unenforced concrete pilings (drilled? monopile?) to bedrock and | stressed steel framing I wasn't certain I would enjoy anymore | or that it was a good use of my time. | | I think costs at this stage are unrealistically low "probably | in the neighborhood of $1000-2000 per square foot ... (8 to 16 | times as much as conventional construction)". ~$250-400 sq ft | is the cost of modern labour expediated and material optimized | building. They're describing stainless steel framing with what | would be (what?) 316 SS in S-beam with a custom end plate? A | blob of rolled 1" x 6' 316 SS is $200. | | There are the examples we could draw from: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_known_surviving... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_Puebloans | | Material wise we'd look at clay, solid high-density rocks, non- | ferrous metals (lead, aluminum, copper, tin), dense naturally | mold resistant woods (cedar, redwood), high density with high | oil content woods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignum_vitae), | and easily replaceable sacrificial surfaces, dirt with live | plant, cobble rock. | | Building techniques aren't going to improve with technology, we | already have examples that have lasted -- we're looking at | building a heap temple with ancient style water and sewers. | This is either a rock temple or a log-house with highly | resistant woods. | | Either we aim for a light-weight footprint or we find solid | rock for building on. Solid rock is the most appropriate. | | Our fasteners are all based on managing gravity. Rock with | concave and convex connections under gravity. Wood pegs in non- | load bearing configurations. Lead sheets with crimped folded | seams. Solid copper sheet trays with crimped folded seams in | rock trays. | | The first thought should be "what happens if I drive a truck | into the side of this building 10 times?" And the answer should | be "not much, you move a few things around, but there is | limited stressed coupling, and things rest on top of each | other." If you do substantially damage the building, all you | should be doing is reassembling the pile. | | I called the author out for not having built anything, and in | honesty, I haven't built using these ancient approaches, so, | perhaps this is a self-destructing prophecy. | lstodd wrote: | No you're right. | | Stainless steel is insane, in those conditions it will | corrode in several decades, if not faster. | | Foundation is just laughable, it won't last 200 years, much | less 1000. | | Like you say, a structured pile of rocks with everything else | easily replaceable is the recipe. | | The question actually should be not of a several truck hits, | but of several fires, like, complete burnouts. That's what | would happen in 1000 years. | Animats wrote: | _" rigid steel structure"_ | | Steel is springy. Tall steel-framed buildings and bridges | routinely sway in wind, which is usually harmless to the | structure but annoying to occupants. Unless you get harmonic | oscillation, where the energy stored in the motion builds up, | which can be a problem and has destroyed bridges. Much of | seismic design involves connections which raise the resonant | frequency of the structure so it can't oscillate at a low | frequency with high amplitude. That's what those triangular | reinforcement beams one sees in San Francisco really do. It's | also what all those rectangular trusses under the Golden Gate | Bridge do. Those were a retrofit. | | Wood's flexibility usually causes problems at joints. Nailed | joints are not very strong in tension. Most construction today | in areas with earthquakes or high winds involves metal | reinforcement of joints. There's a collection of galvanized | sheet metal parts for that at any Home Depot. | | Tension joints for wood are seen in classic Japanese | construction, in boats, and in cabinetry. Not so much in modern | houses, partly because they work better in hardwood. I wonder | if, in the next installment, the author will discuss those. | clairity wrote: | > "Steel is springy. Tall steel-framed buildings and bridges | routinely sway in wind, which is usually harmless to the | structure but annoying to occupants." | | exactly, i recently mentioned my swaying-in-an-earthquake | story[0], which was in a class A (steel+concrete) highrise | office building. driving steel into the ground doesn't | automatically mean it will rot and/or break in the first | earthquake/windstorm that hits, even if that's a general | possibility, given that engineers do think about that stuff | when designing buildings. the gp comment is classic bullshit, | plausible sounding but unconcerned with truth. | | [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29665129 | rsync wrote: | You misunderstood my comment about steel in the ground ... | I was trying to convince the OP that they _don 't_ need to | worry about the corrosion since _even in terrible | circumstances_ the steel still lasts quite a while. | | With regard to your skyscraper experience: | | I'm not sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison. | | Skyscrapers are not made of skyscraper-height columns - | they are a stack of elements that are connected every X | height that has a well known flex per connection. It's also | (hopefully) a uniform flex at every connection. | | But a smaller building would, indeed, have unbroken steel | members (like a column) and you might "successfully" | connect them to one another with an incredible amount of | rigidity. | | It will either be _tremendously strong_ throughout (good | for you) or there will be some tiny piece of the chain that | isn 't as strong and can fail. | | I would be confident attempting this on a very small | building. | | I would be hesitant to attempt this on a medium, two-story | building. I would want wood framing. | | For aesthetic reasons, I would want that wood framing to be | big timbers. I'd rather spend my money on those than on | stainless steel roof framing :) | clairity wrote: | gotcha, my bad for misconstruing your point. joint | strength relative to span strength is definitely a non- | obvious issue to the average home owner-builder. | | i also vastly prefer wood/mass timber for aesthetic | reasons. mass timber has better burn characteristics than | steel, and i'd recently read that builders are actually | starting to surround steel columns with cross-laminated | timber (rather than concrete) for that reason[0], while | providing greater strength/flexibility and better | aesthetics. that's probably what i'd want if money were | no object. | | [0]: mentioned in this article, but i'd read more about | it elsewhere: https://www.vox.com/energy-and- | environment/2020/1/15/2105805... | | p.s. - i've also daydreamed about building warehouse | style: a separate steel superstructure for the roof | integrating solar panels and solar heating, with a simple | stick-built house underneath. | rsync wrote: | "... and i'd recently read that builders are actually | starting to surround steel columns with cross-laminated | timber ..." | | Somewhat relevant - might interest you: | | https://easternwhitepine.org/this-office-buildings- | wooden-fr... | | TAMedia office building in Zurich. | ggcdn wrote: | Rigidity is good for some things and bad for others. In | seismic design, inertial forces tend to decrease as | structures become more flexible (Good!). But the | consequence is that things move more (Bad!) meaning that | all the nonstructural things get damaged - drywall, | chimney, ceilings, etc. If things move too much, they | also are subject to various types of degradation - | yielding, fatigue, etc. | | The other structural aspect not mentioned in the above | discussion is strength. You can trivially get an order of | magnitude more strength than required by even the | harshest of loads using steel in a small structure like | this. The same cannot be said about wood. For instance, a | single 3/4" A325 bolt will be able to resist about | 40,000lb shear or 70,000lb tension. The entire base shear | of this size of structure in a code-design earthquake | would be somewhere around 4,000lb. | Animats wrote: | _they are a stack of elements that are connected every X | height that has a well known flex per connection. It 's | also (hopefully) a uniform flex at every connection._ | | The flex is supposed to be in the beams, not the | connections. Stress concentration is bad. Here's an | intro.[1] Beams are easy to analyze, and tend to meet | their specs, while connections are hard to analyze, and | are subject to construction mistakes. | | The January 1994 Northridge CA earthquake caused damage | at beam-to-column connections in steel moment resisting | frames. That got a lot of attention. Few buildings | collapsed, but a lot of joints needed to be fixed or | reinforced.[2] Welded flanges with bolts turned out to be | weaker than expected. | | Now, there's a style of construction where all the joints | are rotational. That's seen in older truss bridges.[3] In | classic designs, all components are in pure compression | or pure tension. This shows in the construction; the | tension components are flat plates or cables, and the | joints are big steel pins. Those are easy to analyze, and | if you take a statics class, that's a homework | assignment. Popular for railroad bridges. | | But building skeletons aren't usually built that way. | They usually have rigid connections. You do see some | buildings with lots of diagonals and pin joints. Long | span roof trusses, which are a lot like bridges, are | often built that way. Look at buildings with large | atriums and you'll often see pin joints. | | [1] | https://www.thestructuralmadness.com/2014/04/possible- | types-... | | [2] https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/IR/nistir562 | 5.pdf | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge | nashashmi wrote: | Rigidity is actually a variable. rigid in the simplest of | definition does mean no springy action. Rigid through various | fixed connectors implies some spring like behaviors. | | This is my favorite topic and I could go on and on about | this. Point: it is a matter of precise definition. How rigid | are we talking? | alex_sf wrote: | But everything is a spring. | archontes wrote: | Literally everything. Harmonic oscillators all the way | down. | jahewson wrote: | > That's what those triangular reinforcement beams one sees | in San Francisco really do. | | Interestingly enough that's not quite right. They were added | in response to the Tacoma Narrows collapse which was not, as | is popularly misstated, destroyed by harmonic resonance but | by aerostatic flutter. | | Certainly resonance due to cars or pedestrians can damage a | bridge, but that's a separate issue. | Animats wrote: | Right. But you have to have a structure capable of long- | period oscillation to be vulnerable to that particular | problem. That's an inherent problem for long span bridges, | but a building has to have a big unsupported span to be | vulnerable to that problem. Sports stadium scale, though... | All that potential lift. | rsync wrote: | I would agree that connections should be steel - I like the | thick gauge, heavy duty simpson connectors, plates and column | caps, etc., which allow you to lock in beams and columns with | 3/4 machine bolts, etc.: | | https://www.strongtie.com/boltedcolumncaps_columncaps/cct_ca. | .. | roywiggins wrote: | I'd carve it out of a cave somewhere. | | https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/anglo-saxon-cave-house-sc... | strken wrote: | The dugouts in Coober Pedy are a modern example of this. I'll | bet they're still there in 1000 years, albeit with damage to | the exterior facades. | hwillis wrote: | With .5" of monthly rainfall and nearly no seismic or | insect activity to speak of, you could make _any_ house in | Coober Pedy last nearly forever. | rrobukef wrote: | Here is a testimonial about a modern cave home: | https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground- | Ho... | tyingq wrote: | >makes me think this author has thought a lot about materials | and buildings but not actually built anything | | Here's an interview with the author: | https://on.substack.com/p/what-to-read-construction-physics and | his LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian- | potter-6a082150 | | Anything's possible, of course, but he does seem to have the | right credentials and experience for the subject matter. | Spooky23 wrote: | Agreed on the design. | | I worked in a post and beam barn built in the 1600s. It will be | there in 2200. Basically, if you need the roof maintained and | those buildings will last forever. | | Personally, I'd do a stone foundation with post and beam. Over | 1000 years, luck and location mean more anyway. Chances are the | building will be flattened by a war or other calamity over that | timeline. | rlaanemets wrote: | I would like to know more reasoning behind choosing a frame | without diagonals. I have had to repair many old garages and | shacks which had wooden frame but lacked diagonals. Often we | had to push them upright and brace the frame with diagonals to | avoid problems in the future. | | A cube-like building frame without diagonals or shear walls is | unstable and does not sound so strong or resilient at all. | clairity wrote: | in a typical wood-frame wall, it's (usually) plywood nailed | to the studs that acts to resist shear forces. you shouldn't | need diagonal cross-members, unless there's not enough | structural plywood cladding or not enough studding. | voisin wrote: | > I would only use steel members if the span called for wood | that was too big (like a 24' span needing a 8x14 or whatever). | | What about laminated timber to achieve these spans? | phkahler wrote: | >> If I had an unlimited budget and was aiming for >1000 years | I would pour the piles to bedrock with stainless rebar... | | Yeah they reject reinforced concrete, but the reason it doesn't | last is the type of rebar used. To then site stainless later | seems odd. IMHO our roads need to be built with stainless | rebar. | avereveard wrote: | > If I had an unlimited budget | | at some point on the price scale you can just build a titanium | cast for a house and pour molten rocks in, probably a basalt. | what's the yield strength of igneous rocks? maybe the roof need | to be arched. | MR4D wrote: | So, a cave in a basalt mountain then. | | I like your thinking. ;) | samstave wrote: | What are the load-baring capabilities of a Basalt Cave | during the Apocalypse? | | /MontyPython style... | sedatk wrote: | Is that a European basalt cave, or African? | titanomachy wrote: | Is that something that we've actually done at any kind of | scale? | wongarsu wrote: | Many cold war bunkers are kind of like this, but using rock | that's already in-situ: start with solid rock (either in a | mountain or in bedrock), remove some of it, in the cavity | add linings of concrete, copper and steel to enhance | properties as desired (copper for better EM shielding). | samstave wrote: | On a global scale, probably, yes... but I'm either 1 or 0 | correct. | gridspy wrote: | Well, we've done it with concrete tents [1]. | | It seems plausable you could begin with that kind of | shelter and use that as a basis for further reinforcement. | | [1] https://www.concretecanvas.com/cc-shelters/ | Anon1096 wrote: | Not the same, but the Pyramids of Giza are essentially huge | rock houses. I don't think they provide very modern | amenities though :) | entangledqubit wrote: | Maybe tungsten molds instead? | HPsquared wrote: | Titanium is quite expensive though; a house made from | titanium likely would be broken up and stolen for the scrap | value. | hwillis wrote: | Okay, so your step #1 for building a 1000 year house is to | just... have a house that never has any leaks or termites? I | can see some issues. | | If you want something to last, you plan for when it _does_ go | wrong. You should be designing a house that survives _ten_ | once-in-a-century floods and storms. Freezing pipes. Hot and | cold. Termites, carpenter ants, mice. | | > ... which also means that unburied steel, protected from | elements, up in the air, is going to last more than 1000 years. | | Rust is protective. That's why cars can rust so quickly, | because vibration breaks the rust flakes off and exposes steel | to more air and water. Steel beams are subject to bending and | vibration. Steel buried underground is not. A larger problem is | also that rust is expansive. I'm not positive what you mean by | plate connectors, but nailed tie plates push their nails out | over time. Screws and bolts work fine. | | The biggest problem comes with using treated wood and steel | together. Treated wood, even the non-arsenic ones, use copper | compounds. That causes galvanic corrosion. It'll even eat | through zinc-coated steel. Galvanized steel is enough for at | least a couple decades, but I have no idea about a millenium. | t_minus_4 wrote: | Build a pyramid and call it a day ... | pharke wrote: | They forgot the most important part about making a structure last | 1000 years: it cannot be made of materials that people would | conceivably want to repurpose in times of duress _or_ those | materials should be in such a form that it is extremely difficult | to remove them from the structure. This is how many historical | buildings were lost, they were mined for stone to use in other | structures. It 's also how many modern buildings get ruined by | people looking to sell the copper wiring or pipe, and that's in a | politically stable era. | | A better strategy would be to build the house from massive blocks | of the most common stone in the area. The blocks should be large | enough that they would require significant effort to move or | demolish. I wouldn't recommend using any metal in the structure | of the house at all. Even wood could be conceivably stripped in | times of need. | jerf wrote: | "We're also taking something of a risk using something as | valuable as stainless steel - a common failure mode for | buildings is for valuable material to be ripped out and | repurposed. This can range from looters ripping the copper | piping out of a house to sell for scrap, to Londoners reusing | the stones from ruined Roman buildings, to countries at war | melting down building components to make munitions. I don't see | an obvious way of addressing this problem - the risks of | corrosion we're avoiding with stainless steel seems like it's | worth the tradeoff, and covering it with masonry or concrete | seems like it would make it less likely on the margin. But this | is another reason not to use something as durable as Inconel - | the value of the material would likely exceed the value of the | building, which is inherently risky for long-term survival." | pharke wrote: | Missed it, thanks. I still take issue with the design. I | think over 1000 years the risk is much higher than they | imagine. | jerf wrote: | All you can really do is minimize it. You can't eliminate | it. I mean, you can't even tell me whether humans will | exist in 500 years, or whether intelligent non-humans will | be running around (doesn't even have to be "aliens", humans | will create them), or what. Trying to second guess how | people will valuate things in 900 years is a joke. | jcadam wrote: | Centuries-old wooden buildings have the advantage of being made | from old-growth wood, which isn't available to modern builders. | | My current house is made out of logs. We'll see how long it | lasts, though I suppose I won't be around to see it in 1000 | years. | dahfizz wrote: | 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 needed to redo the foundation on his house. He | could have spent 10-100x what he needed to and installed a | reinforced concrete foundation with deep steel pylons. But that | would have been a waste of his money when wooden peirs works just | as well for all his intents & purposes. | | 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. The house will be torn down | if it's in a city. The house has a good chance of staying a house | if it's built out in the countryside on a decent plot of land. | Nobody will ever want anything from that structure but to live in | it, so it will be maintained. | gherkinnn wrote: | You and your grandchildren are only so relevant. | | I for one adore walking around built up areas where the | original builders thought further than that. There is beauty in | solid houses. They carry history. An old part of town tells so | many stories. They embed culture and provide some degree of | continuity. | | The initial cost is higher. But your grandchildren can sell it. | Many generations can profit from an existing building. Floor | plans can be adjusted to some degree and modern comforts added | at any time. | | A flimsy plywood house built to be replaced in 15 years is an | expensive tent. It is nothing. | ghaff wrote: | >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 imagine someone in that time deciding a teardown | just made more sense than all the upgrades that have taken | place over that period. Just as one example it presumably | didn't have indoor plumbing when the first part of the house | was built. | meheleventyone wrote: | 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 looking whilst keeping the | old timey style. | ghaff wrote: | Probably not much. | | My contractor for a couple of big renovations I did figured | that the 4x4-ish posts on the first floor were probably | original along with at least some of the subflooring (about | half of which I redid because it was collapsing). We think | there was a substantial addition (probably including a | second floor) around 1900. That's when the demolished barn | on the now adjacent property dated to. | | The house I grew up in was similar. It dated to either the | 1700s or possibly even late 1600s. But the original house | was just two rooms (two stories) built into the side of a | hill. | bkfunk wrote: | Mentioned earlier in the series: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus | azalemeth wrote: | I grew up in a 600 year old house. That isn't particularly | unusual in the part of the UK I was born in. The village | church is 1200 years old. There's a chapel not too far away | that dates from around 600 AD. | | We're not going to change it much. We fix it when it breaks. | | Most of North America (or at least, the bits I've visited) | seems to be fixated with new buildings of sometimes | questionable construction standards, and they tend to get | replaced fairly regularly. One of my Canadian friends told me | that "People prefer to live in new houses". Here, the | opposite is much more common. | kleiba wrote: | It's funny - I grew up in a country with the same mentality | as in the UK. But I've now come around a bit more toward | the American approach: I still see the merit in preserving | history but besides that, what is a good argument for | constructing a house to last for a very long time? See, | whenever you buy an older house and start renovating it, | more often than not you start running into unexpected | things that need to be updated. Partly because the original | construction may have been especially shoddy (think post- | war years), but even for houses that are younger than that, | changes in the building code often require updates to the | building. | | But then, why did the code change in the first place? Some | cynics will say "so that they can keep making money" but | most of the times it is to synchronize with changes that | have happened all around is, including the development of | new materials, gained knowledge about the impact of natural | factors (not only in earth quake regions), and - in our | generation - increased expectations regarding energy | consumption (insulation). | | All the old houses that do not undergo renovation are way | out of sync with modern considerations that manifest | themselves in any current building code. So why not tear | down a house after 100 years and build a new one from | scratch? That process is, of course, quite a bit simpler | for the more light-weight wooden houses in North America. | | A lot of the construction snobism in Europe against | American construction standards is unfounded. As far as | residential homes are concerned, I don't believe that there | are many advantages of brick constructions over wooden | framing besides better soundproofing for most intents and | purposes. | | Of course, one important thing to consider in this | discussion is the availability of land: in North America, | outside of the big cities, there is still plenty of land | available for building new building while Old Europe is | already pretty tightly built up. A lot of the land is in | private hands and often unlikely to be turned into lots. | Plus, for North America with its car-centric developments, | it's easier to find usable unoccupied land that will not | force you into crazy long commutes. This is more difficult | in some parts of Europe, where the ratio of people to | square foot of land is much higher. | osullivj wrote: | A house, or any other infrastructure. IMHO a big factor | in America's capacity for reinvention and renewal is not | being saddled with infrastructure designed to last for | centuries. Disclose: I live and work in England, love old | buildings and own a 19th Century home made from Malvern | Stone. | cafard wrote: | What do you get with new houses? Well, you get wiring, with | outlets conveniently located. You get modern plumbing. You | ought to get good insulation. | | You may not get good design, you may get shoddy | construction, true. | azalemeth wrote: | This is all true (although not all old houses are poorly | insulated -- the ~60 cm of thatch and wattle and daub | construction also is surprisingly good at insulation. It | even comes complete with Tudor-era built in biomass | heating!). | | I think a lot of the bad press that goes on about new | builds in the UK at least at the moment are due to | "chicken coop Barrett Homes", i.e. a large developer | building the largest number of houses possible with the | cheapest construction method. There are horror stories in | the tabloid press of people buying houses from ~2000 that | are starting to have major structural problems, or have | other major flaws. The rooms are meaner in size and there | is a lot of resentment about developers making ~PS300k | profit on each property (and building ~200 of them at a | go). | | Obviously, there's a massive selection / survival bias | here. Bad homes are more likely to be demolished. Good | homes are more likely to survive. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | > The house will be torn down if it's in a city | | The world is varied, it's not just a copycat of the terrible | design affecting US cities. | | One example? I live in Venice, Italy. The city is 1,600 years | old. Most houses and palazzos are at least 400 years old; a big | chunk of them is at least 600-700 years old. No one is going to | tear down these places. And no, rising sea levels will not | destroy Venice (see the MOSE dam [0], which is working, despite | the big corruption scandals). | | Besides Venice, which I'd agree it's a rather unique place, | many other places in the world consist of small/medium towns, | not huge megalopolis where a small house will be tore down to | make space for a skyscraper. | | Finally: I'd love to build a house that will last 1,000 years. | Even if my great-great-great-grandkids will not be around to | see it. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mose | dahfizz wrote: | > Finally: I'd love to build a house that will last 1,000 | years. Even if my great-great-great-grandkids will not be | around to see it. | | I mean yeah, in the abstract I think anyone would agree. I | would also love to be able to build a 1000 year house. But it | costs a tremendous amount of money, and there are things | higher on my priority list than the status of a structure 900 | years after my death. Until you fork up the cash for it, my | point stands. | perth wrote: | a good society is one where old men plant trees who's shade | they'll never sit in | [deleted] | tiredofU2 wrote: | zokier wrote: | > The hard part is, first and foremost, getting someone to pay | for it. | | Isn't that merely a matter of establishing a foundation/trust | fund arrangement with the explicit purpose of maintaining the | building? Of course you need enough capital so that it can | sustain itself indefinitely through low-risk investments, but | that is just the nature of the game. | mytailorisrich wrote: | I don't think anything 'modern' is needed. | | There are Roman building still standing and many of those which | no longer are are so because they were abandoned and/or | 'recycled'. Buildings like for instance Notre Dame de Paris are | 800+ years old. | | A thick stone structure seems to do the job fine. | dahfizz wrote: | Its easy to overlook the constant maintenance and repair | these historical buildings get. Thick stone buildings are | definitely sturdy, but I still maintain that modern | technology makes it significantly easier to make a 1000 year | building. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | The money part of this treatise is the steel frame, right? As | they stated, things like warehouses and other buildings get | reused because the steel frame is still useful regardless of | the other stuff. | | The foundation actually seems to be a danger point. I don't | know much about pylons/stilts for foundations, but it would | seem a better plan because you can adjust those for the life of | the structure, can't you? And the design called for a lifted | first floor/crawlspace anyway. | | And that would enable a basement. | | American cities rebuild everything. There's at a minimum 500 | year houses and buildings in most European bustling cities. | | Which means, I guess, that the structure and its surrounding | structures should be integrated and beautiful. | duxup wrote: | I grew up in a semi rural area. In the more rural area it was | not uncommon to have on old farmhouse rotting and a new house | next to it. | | At some point those folks wanted a new house and presumably the | cost of what they wanted to remodel was close enough to new | that they built news. | | The available space that you note can also facilitate just | building a new house. | ghaff wrote: | I live in an old farmhouse on some nice land. I've done | fairly extensive renovations after obviously no money being | put into the house for a good fifty years. And it works for | me. | | It's also "quirky" in a lot of ways including a basement that | still tends to get wet and having one small bathroom and no | way to easily add another one. I can imagine a _lot_ of | potential buyers saying "Love the location but the house has | got to go." (The person I bought the house from actually | bought the property for the land. He built a new much larger | house on one of the two plots he subdivided from the original | property.) | MichaelApproved wrote: | > _My friend just needed to redo the foundation on his house. | He could have spent 10-100x what he needed to and installed a | reinforced concrete foundation with deep steel pylons. But that | would have been a waste of his money when wooden peirs works | just as well for all his intents & purposes._ | | 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." | hnthrowaway0315 wrote: | Yeah, unless I' rich and thinking about building my family | somewhere, I wouldn't even touch this idea. And even I do, I'll | probably purchase an old, but good-standing building and | heavily renovate it. Modern technology also provides means to | strengthen the foundation and weight-bearing part of the | building. | peanut_worm wrote: | Putting it in London (or any other giant city) seems like a good | way to have it demolished as soon as possible | KaiserPro wrote: | I hate to be a stuck in the mud, but a concrete pad, with | unreinforced piles is not going to last a 1000 years. those piles | are going to be impossible to repair without breaking the slab, | or undermining, which means it's expensive to maintain. (yes | Roman concrete has lasted 1k years, but thats a different type to | the cement they use now.) | | The other thing that they've not managed to control is moisture. | You can't mix and match steel with lime mortar (I mean you can, | but its not wise) You can just put a moisture barrier in there, | but you need a way to maintain that (its not like a damp proof | course, its far more extensive). | | Personally if you want to make a house last 1k years, just make a | clay lump house. It'll be far cheaper to build, look more | realistic and much more well understood how to repair it. | tibbydudeza wrote: | Have they ever figured out how the Romans made concrete and got | away with not using rebar ???. | hguant wrote: | Yes - basically, high quantities of volcanic ash act as a | much stronger binder than is currently used/available now, | and the chemistry of the cement they used meant that as it | aged it got stronger. | | Tangentially - it's not that we can't make concrete that way, | it's that for many structures we're building of concrete, | building to last 100+ years is over kill, and would increase | costs drastically for a building or structure that will most | likely be torn down before it reaches its life expectancy. | jandrese wrote: | My making the walls incredibly thick, not having large | overhangs, and having the foresight to build an empire in a | seismically dead area. | joatmon-snoo wrote: | Yes, the research came out a few years ago: https://pubs.geos | cienceworld.org/msa/ammin/article/102/7/143... | | tl;dr: we took a long time to realize that the Romans didn't | use potable water, they used saltwater; the volcanic ash they | had access to was also very important | coryrc wrote: | They only used the arch, so everything was in compression. | Rebar gives concrete tensile strength. | fumblebee wrote: | The author cites London as being a desirable city given the | historical lack of disasters, steady government, and cultural | preference for preservation etc. London was also my first thought | as a safe haven for a long lasting build. | | On the other hand, I can't help but feel London would be an | obvious target for nuclear annihilation in some future conflict; | UK commerce / industry / power / wealth is deeply centralised in | London. | | A better option would be to stick to the UK, but maybe a 100 | miles outside of London proper. | surfingdino wrote: | Please build it somewhere else. We have enough eyesores in | London, don't need another one. Also, based on evidence, houses | that last ~1000 years are typically built from stone (see | Italy, South of France, Spain, Greece, Portugal) with easily | replaceable wooden roof, ceilings. | notahacker wrote: | Never mind the small possibility of nukes (think my house | surviving would be the least of my concerns for humanity then), | London has the highest value land in the country and most of | 1000 year old London is buried several feet below much newer | and bigger buildings. Pretty much any smaller UK town that | isn't threatened by coastal erosion, flooding or mining | subsidence offers better survival prospects. | tibbydudeza wrote: | Venice has been around for ages and it is just brick houses build | on top of a lot of tree trunks driven into a lake and wooden | platforms with stone on top - no complex engineering here. | | I think the biggest issue having a house lasting is doing | constant preventative maintenance or swapping out bits with more | modern longer lasting bits e.g replaced all wooden window frames | with aluminum. | akeck wrote: | Building Science Fight Club (I follow on IG. There's also a | website.) has made me skeptical about these kinds of articles. | There's a ton of nuance to doing construction correctly for the | particular environment one is building in. | yourusername wrote: | I doubt this house would make it to 50 years in places with a | moderate climate. The lack of insulation makes it way too | expensive to use as a dwelling or office (ignoring that you could | not get a building permit in many places because it would not be | able to meet energy efficiency guidelines). It is mentioned as a | detail to be worked out but it is a critical detail. Around here | not being able to be made energy efficient in a cost effective | way is one of the main reasons old houses are torn down. It will | be torn down long before it has a chance to become historical. | dr_orpheus wrote: | > Adding interior insulation makes the house much more | comfortable, but also changes the thermal dynamics, potentially | causing freeze/thaw damage in the brick, and allowing moisture | to accumulate between the brick and the insulation. This is one | of the many details that would need to be worked out for the | complete design of the home. | | Yeah, this comment struck me as a more major detail to be | worked out compared to the other many details listed. Most of | the others had multiple options with different drawbacks and | benefits but either would work. This seems like we still | haven't reached a solution for the exterior walls. | EricE wrote: | Yup, that's when I stopped reading. It's clear the author has | little practical, real world experience with building. In | another comment I pointed out if he started watching Matt | Risinger's YouTube channel he would see that things like his | concern about bricks and moisture have been solved problems, | with even better solutions that handle the issue better while | decreasing construction time and cost. | | Also is 1000 years really necessary for the vast majority of | housing? There has to be a balance to these things and that | seems like way overshooting for most needs. | | Rather than shooting for something silly like 1000 years, how | about focusing on building to climate of the area the home is | in? I'm thinking of the picture from about 4 or five years | ago of the major hurricane in Florida where an entire area is | wiped out except for one house that looked practically | untouched. The home owner spent about 20% more and got | something that survived a major hurricane. 20% more is far | more feasible and will get at least some people's attention - | but what this person is advocating is a complete non starter | for any kind of broad adoption. The costs are just too great. | | Another example is all the above ground housing in tornado | prone areas. We should be building partially buried houses | with domed earthen roofs - no sharp edges sticking above the | ground for wind to get under or drive debris into at high | speed. Would be simple to implement - partial in ground | houses have been a thing since the 70's and had their share | of problems but as time and experience builds, we have | techniques and new materials to make their construction | pretty routine (and they can still be light and airy inside | despite being partially underground). The real problem is | people - a major culture change is required to drive | acceptance of different home styles. Good luck with that. | Maybe if the government stopped handing out disaster relief | funds unless the funds required people to take steps like the | above to prevent future disasters on the same scale - might | be the only way to get people to think more of long term | consequences. | | The tales of the grasshopper and ant (and the cultural | analogs) are thousands of years old for a reason. It's far | easier, short term, to be a grasshopper :p | unethical_ban wrote: | > It's clear the author has little practical, real world | experience with building. | | Who gives a damn? Is anyone reading this and checking their | $2 million bank account to start a build? It's a thought | exercise and a fun one that has generated some cool ideas | in my head and some good discussion. | | It's one thing to comment on mistakes or corrections to be | made, but it's frustrating to see someone go "this is silly | and the author is stupid". | xyzzyz wrote: | > partial in ground houses have been a thing since the 70's | and had their share of problems | | Yes, and if you build one, you're almost certain to have | these problems, while at the same time, tornado is almost | certain to not actually hit your house. | m_ke wrote: | For people interested in construction I really recommend checking | out Passive House Accelerator on youtube | (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFsq1de6hTZOuwQd46pRUQg). | | Building energy efficient homes from regenerative and recyclable | materials makes more sense than a stone and steel bunker. | | A good intro to Passive House Design: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxeuRByPpeM | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | > but reinforced concrete is a poor choice for a long lifespan | building due to its susceptibility to corrosion | | You can reinforce concrete with materials other than rebar. The | theory behind reinforcement is a great idea, we shouldn't abandon | it. If you don't reinforce it, it needs to be much much thicker | and the ground needs to be much more resistant to uneven | settling. | | The most durable construction is solid stone, period. Go to a | quarry, quarry some gigantic boulders, carve them into giant | walls and pillars. It will be very difficult to install but it's | been done before by ancient peoples. It will be a very _cold_ | house, but it will last thousands of years. Some rich dudes in | Egypt made some pretty big ones a while back, but I imagine we | could make them more efficient today. | | Barring that, just pour the entire house out of a slow-cure | concrete. The foundation doesn't actually have to last 1,000 | years, it just needs to be modifiable with jackscrews into the | main load-bearing members of the house. | giantg2 wrote: | "you'll still be able to chop your own firewood." | | Assuming you own enough forested land and regulations permit | cutting. | throwaway879080 wrote: | bendbro wrote: | > It should be legible - it should be easy to understand what it | is and how it works in the absence of drawings or other | information | | I like this use of "legible" | Gravityloss wrote: | Why have the chimney outside? It's very inefficient... | | https://www.quora.com/Why-do-American-houses-often-have-the-... | c2h5oh wrote: | It also causes condensation because of rapid smoke cooling. Tar | condensate will slowly seep through chimney wall. | | Stainless or ceramic chimney liner slows that process down, but | neither will last a 100 years let alone a 1000. | franklovecchio wrote: | I was wondering that too. If I wanted to design a wood-burning | apparatus that would be efficient and last 1000 years, I'd use | a design that was more like a masonry stove (centrally located | on the inside of the house). In any future (I think), a backup | source of heat in a cold climate is a necessary redundancy? I | would use the most efficient tech now for the burn chamber | (rocket?), but also design the burn chamber in such a way to | allow for it to be replaced with better tech in the future | (perhaps the masonry stove outer structure and thermal bank | would support itself - steel exoskeleton? - etc.). | wing-_-nuts wrote: | Why was that done traditionally? Because if you had a chimney | fire, you could hook your mules to it, pull it down, and save | the house. | alasano wrote: | This seems right but I don't know enough about chimneys, | mules or even houses to determine if it's true. | MichaelApproved wrote: | If we're talking about chimney efficiency then we should talk | about including heat exchangers within the chimney walls. | | Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters added one to his house and talks | about it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T3nIk3S8Wc | bigyellow wrote: | Not to mention wood fireplaces in the home and the noxious | byproducts they produce is likely to shorten your lifespan | considerably. | johtso wrote: | This is not the case when using modern wood burning stoves | though right? | stevekemp wrote: | Apparently they're not as great as people have been | thinking | | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/18/wood- | bur... | mikeyouse wrote: | Or wood burning fireplace inserts that draw combustion air | from outside and expel the fumes/combustion byproducts | outside as well. Not ideal for local air quality, but | essentially eliminates indoor pollution from them. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Well sure, if you are the only person for miles that uses | a fireplace. | | Additionally, I think people who are outdoors still have | to breathe air. | mikeyouse wrote: | To that point -- last summer, my friends moved from a | mountain town under constant threat of wildfire to a | pleasant spot by a lake in the Midwest -- their new | neighbor keeps a fire burning 24/7, so they still get to | enjoy the terrible air quality all winter long. | elmolino89 wrote: | Unless it does turn wood into a pure gas without a trace of | sulfur, silica etc. it must emit such stuff. Or it comes | with filters cleaning fine particles, nitric oxide etc. In | the end it does emit CO2. | c2h5oh wrote: | Wood pellets largely solve this. | beaconstudios wrote: | the smoke goes up the chimney. | notahacker wrote: | _Most_ of the smoke goes up the chimney. You still open it | to light, relight and sweep away the ash and in that time | you 're going to breathe in some smoke or dust particles | which you ideally shouldn't | | Mine's gone out... | wing-_-nuts wrote: | Bah. Freezing to death in an ice storm can also 'shorten your | lifespan considerably'. There's damned good reason to want a | simple, off grid means of heating your home if you lose | power. | almog wrote: | Not sure about 1000 years but I've been following Dylan Iwakuni | (Instagram and Youtube) in his process of relocating an entire | Kominka (a traditional Japanese house) which will turn into a | chairs-museum. | | The beams that make the structure are held together using some | clever wooden joints that I've never seen before, some of which | only reveal their secrets when taken apart and reassembled, all | of which is done almost exclusively using hand tools: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_geUQSlnbQ | | https://www.instagram.com/dylaniwakuni/ | FuriouslyAdrift wrote: | There's an entire field and organizations that study and develop | contstruction technologies... | | https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t... | bigyellow wrote: | Having built my own house, I can definitely say this article is | for intellectual stimulation only, and won't result in the | construction of an actual home. Not only will you never find | contractors and subs that give a shit about this level of detail, | but you will struggle explaining these things to permit | approvers, county bureaucrats and other people who want to make | your life hell because you know more than they do, have more | money than them, and are doing something different. Fun article, | great information, but won't result in an adobe as planned. | EricE wrote: | Hehe - you are very right! Never underestimate the ability of | the "code enforcers" to stifle innovation. | | However occasionally you do see examples of excellence managing | to push through the bureaucracy - I would love to build a house | like this someday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuYvDuOQ-5M | jethro_tell wrote: | I would absolutely disagree. | | My guess is that you have less money than you think you do. | I've worked on buildings that were coming in around $2500/sq | foot and if the owner didn't like a knot in the board we'd pull | it and try again. | | My other guess is you don't know as much as you think you do | and your probably not the building savant you think you are. | | If you hire an engineer, county bureaucracy doesn't care. If | they have to put their stamp on it, and they don't understand | it, they care, because they are liable. If you know so much | more then them, why didn't you put your stamp on it? | | I've also built a lot of really odd structures and you do spend | a lot of time making sure that everyone agrees that you are | doing it in a safe and sane way. Not entirely unlike building | consensus in a enterprise setting. | | There are people that are pros at doing these things. And they | know how to get things done. And I've worked with them to build | all sorts of crazy stuff. | stephencanon wrote: | A friend grew up in an actual 1000 year-old house in Italy. It's | made of stone. It's still there. None of this fancy nonsense. | [deleted] | ummonk wrote: | If you're gonna use stainless steel frame, might as well use | reinforced concrete with stainless steel rebar too, no? | | Of course, if you want true longevity, carve out a cave in a hard | rocky hillside. That'll last thousands of years. | criddell wrote: | 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. | kube-system wrote: | Agreed. The idea that homes don't last 1000 years because of | their construction quality is conflating correlation and | causation. Homes don't last that long because ideas about _what | (or where) a home should be_ don 't last 1000 years. Heck, in | recent times, they hardly last 100 years. | tablespoon wrote: | > Agreed. The idea that homes don't last 1000 years because | of their construction quality is conflating correlation and | causation. Homes don't last that long because ideas about | what (or where) a home should be don't last 1000 years. Heck, | in recent times, they hardly last 100 years. | | And (IIRC) in Japan they often don't last past one owner, | since a new owner will typically want to build a new house | for themselves on the lot. An old home actually _lowers_ the | value of a lot, since you have to factor the demolition cost | into the price. | flanbiscuit wrote: | > in Japan they often don't last past one owner | | This has been brought up before on HN and I remember a | comment mentioning that they thought it was due to the fact | that earthquake proofing technology advances quickly in | Japan so an old house might not be up to the most current | standard. Curious if that's correct, and if not, why is | this so common in Japan then. | Rikuesque wrote: | A thing I've noticed while attending school in Japan was | that many old "Machiya" houses get torn down and more | modern and western houses get built. At least this was | the case in Kyoto. Earthquake-proofing the house is one | aspect but I think people in Japan prefer to own a more | western home. It's too bad because those old Japanese | homes are getting taken down | JAlexoid wrote: | It's not a case of "more western home". | | What you see as a "more western home" is a more energy | efficient outer shell. Which just happens to be fairly | universal. | Rikuesque wrote: | I agree on that, although there are residential homes in | Japan that implement energy efficient outer shell, while | still keeping the Machiya look. There definitely is a | preference in Japanese society for western style homes. | bluGill wrote: | Earthquake is part of it. However culture is also part. | Houses are built to last 20 years: even if you like where | you live they still assume you will be rebuilding in 20 | years. As such they can cut corners to save money - no | problem so long as you rebuild every 20 years. | myohmy wrote: | I immediately thought about the schools in smaller towns | around here that were built in the 90s, which were built to | last, and are now sitting as barely used community or senior | centers. Society's needs can change a lot in 30 years, let | alone 1000. | d0gsg0w00f wrote: | Wood is pretty easy to reuse and basically lasts forever if you | keep it dry. | cschneid wrote: | Seems like a lot of the article is about just that. A really | robust, reliable structure & foundation, with progressively | less permanent things attached. A brick facade can easily last | hundreds of years, but not a big deal to replace. Interior | walls made of non-load-bearing-wood makes it "easy" enough to | reconfigure rooms. | | He mentions how the building shape is just a rectangle, which | makes it reasonable to repurpose for many uses (he mentions | office & separate apartments). He takes care to allow for | routing of utilities under and inside the building. | | It's not quite as reconfigurable as I think you're getting at - | optimized for being torn down, but it's much closer than a | typical 100yr house would be. | JAlexoid wrote: | Wood walls are more complext to rearrange, than steel framed | walls.(that is why offices have steel frames under that | drywall - easy to install and move) | boringg wrote: | 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... | FinnKuhn wrote: | I personally believe that you need to find a compromise | between a framework that lasts very long and party that can | be recycled so you can adopt the house depending on your | needs without needing to redo everything (for example | foundation and some integral supports could probably be | designed as a framework that can be adapted while walls, | windows, room configuration, doors, etc. need to be changed | eventually and therefore should be recyclable). | jethro_tell wrote: | We already do this with commercial construction. Every | floor is just a big box that can be sectioned off as the | new owner sees fit. | | The key is that the structure is basically self standing | with nothing but the outer walls, and if it's a tower, the | center core instead. | | Add a vertical chase way too to bottom for easy | reconfiguring of cables and pipes and you can basically do | anything you want until the structure fails. | | Modern residential doesn't build like this because it would | be expensive and probably pretty ugly. It's a lot cheaper | to get your structure in bits and pieces by stacking walls | on walls on the foundation then have just an outside | structure and then have the floors and roof spanning | outside to outside. | | But it could easily be done with the materials we have. | | Another major thing is the drop ceiling. It's designed to | make access easy so that you can run cables and new | plumbing anywhere you want. | | It's ugly so you'd want to find a way to have a modular | ceiling that isn't a drop ceiling, but maybe that works for | you. | | Last, for residential, you may butt up against height | issues as to be modular like that you're want to have a | couple feet extra between floors so you have room to move | things around without opening things up. | dpark wrote: | > _Another major thing is the drop ceiling. It 's | designed to make access easy so that you can run cables | and new plumbing anywhere you want._ > _It 's ugly so | you'd want to find a way to have a modular ceiling that | isn't a drop ceiling, but maybe that works for you._ | | If you build with trusses for floors instead of joists, | you can get a lot of the same benefits as a drop ceiling | without the ugliness. You can run plumbing/vents/whatever | though the trusses without destroying the whole ceiling | to get access. You might not need to cut into the ceiling | at all depending on what you're doing and what existing | access you have (e.g. an unfinished utility space may | allow access to supply new power cables). | | Of course patching the ceiling is hardly a big concern if | you're talking about a structure surviving for 1000 | years. | jethro_tell wrote: | The 1000 years is a separate conversation I think than | the modular concept. One could lead to another, but | depending on how modular you wanted to be, access to the | ceiling is a must. | | On the other hand, if you make the trusses large enough | and give an /attic/crawl access you could go up there and | do the thing without needing to renovate. Then all center | walls are non structural and you can move them as you | please. | | Come to think of it, I might build a house like this. | | You can also leave the mechanical on the outside and not | cover it too. I guess there's a certain beauty to me in | the robot parts but I don't think many would like that. | dpark wrote: | How often you expect to reconfigure is a huge factor. | Drop ceilings make complete sense in many commercial | buildings, where access to change/move cables and whatnot | probably happens every year. For residences, that sort of | work happens a lot less frequently. | | You can also get away with ugly ceilings more easily when | they are higher. A drop ceiling 8 feet or less from the | floor is an eyesore. At 12 feet up it's a lot less | noticeable. Of course if you have very high ceilings you | can often just leave them uncovered and have a more | industrial aesthetic. You have to be more intentional | about routing all the utilities then. | criddell wrote: | The cost may be high, but it doesn't have to be. That's why I | mentioned Brand. | | 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. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20 | austinl wrote: | This is what things are like in many parts of Japan (see | https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan- | reusabl...). | | Oddly enough, the value of houses in Japan depreciate over time | (like cars). It's kind of a cultural thing. People want to live | in a new house of their own, so many houses are built in a pre- | fab way, with the intent that they'll be torn down and recycled | in 20-30 years. | kuhewa wrote: | > torn down | | Hmmmm. I think that doesn't count on ship of Theseus type | grounds. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | The author basically agrees with you, lots of good commentary | in the Conclusion section of the article: | | > Designing a building for an extremely long lifespan is in | some sense a bet on a certain kind of future - one where | tomorrow's physical infrastructure needs aren't all that | different from todays. And because physical infrastructure is | hard to change once it's in place, it's also an attempt to | bring that kind of future into existence. But if you think | agglomeration effects should push cities to get larger and | denser, or if you think we're likely to see some cities | shrinking as the nature of the economy changes, or if you think | building technology is likely to change significantly, an | extremely durable, an extremely long-lived house is perhaps | less desirable. | HPsquared wrote: | Be wary of making it too ugly though - people will look after | it much better if it's beautiful. | NortySpock wrote: | The parent poster is probably referring to "How Buildings | Learn", a book by Stewart Brand with lots of architectural | pictures and commentary about how various buildings have been | (re)used over the decades or centuries. | | Brand posits (a) human needs change faster than buildings age, | and thus buildings must adapt to that change over the lifespan | of the building | | (b) there are two reasons a building lives to be more than 100 | years old: either the building is historic / well loved enough | that we live with a building's warts even though it doesn't | meet our needs perfectly (a Parliament building, a church, a | house that cannot be modified) OR it is so flexible or easy | (cheap) to modify that it can suit many purposes. (A small | commercial building that can hold a dentist office or a | restaurant or a law office or a nail salon, a house with an | extension, a warehouse that can be converted to a modest | factory floor, etc) | | Buildings that cannot be adapted are torn down and replaced. | | The book is excellent, and beautiful, and I recommend a | physical copy to everyone. | austinl wrote: | It's fascinating how culture has effects on architecture. So | many older American homes have small kitchens that are | separate from a formal dining room. Historically, a family | member or cook would be making food separately, out of the | way, and then it was presented in the dining room. | | Today, everyone wants a kitchen that's integrated with the | dining area. Cooking has been culturally elevated - people | don't feel like they need to do it out of the way. But | unfortunately, many of these older homes cannot be easily | modified. Walls are often load-bearing instead of being | reconfigurable. | meristem wrote: | This seems cultural for sure. I grew up in an apartment | built in early 1970s with separate kitchen. To this day | most apartments in my country are planned w/o open | kitchens. | | It is actually an ongoing joke with my partner, who has | lived an open-kitchen life until meeting me. | | PS: would be interesting to correlate enclosed kitchen with | cost and availability of home labourers (slaves, maids, | cooks, etc) | rootusrootus wrote: | What I see a lot of in my region (US PNW) is open kitchens | integrating with informal dining areas (breakfast nook, or | seating at a kitchen island) and living rooms. But most | houses are still built with a separate _dining room_. Heck, | my house was even built with a butler 's pantry to connect | them. That's pretty common. | ramraj07 wrote: | You have a separate dining room if you're building a 6 | room or larger MANSION. Calling a building with a | separate dining room on top of a kitchen plus informal | dining room as a Regular home seems to be a stretch. | rootusrootus wrote: | That's regional, of course. I'm talking bog-standard | everyday houses in the 2500-3500sf range, no mansions. | distances wrote: | 2500sf is 232 square meters. That's three normal family | city apartments by European standards. I guess houses | just run bigger there but sounds quite excessive | nonetheless. | rootusrootus wrote: | "Excessive" is a moral judgement. City apartments aren't | typically 2500sf in the US, either. I was referring to | single family detached homes, which are by far the | dominant type of dwelling in my region. Land is cheap, | wood is cheap. A 2500sf house will be a good bit cheaper | than a little flat in most western European cities, I | bet. | jppope wrote: | This is super funny to me. I just bought a house where the | kitchen is separate. My parents, and my mother-in-law were | all like... "you can knock down the wall and bring the | rooms together"... and I was like: "hell no. As if I want a | bunch of kids playing tag while I'm chopping things with | sharp knives and running around with burning oil." | | ...Leave me alone to cook an awesome meal in peace. I'm | working in there not messing around. | kgran wrote: | Not just American homes. In Europe all the new flats and | houses are designed with kitchens merged with the dining | room. Even the old flats are often redesigned by owners or | developers by tearing down the wall(s), separating the | kitchen from the other room(s). I personally hate this | trend because I don't like getting cooking odors all over | the place. I'll probably just build a wall whenever I'd be | forced to buy such a place. | _Adam wrote: | With proper ventilation this isn't an issue. My kitchen | is centrally located, so I installed a range hood made by | a Chinese company (Fotile, approximately $1300 on | Amazon). It works exceptionally well. Even the | smokiest/smelliest cooking odors don't escape. | wintermutestwin wrote: | The solution to cooking odors is to have adequate | ventilation that exits the structure. It blows me away | that this is not code in every kitchen and bathroom. I | live in rules-heavy CA and my kitchen vent "exhausts" | back into the kitchen. | | Every time there are people gathering at someone's house, | they tend to congregate in the kitchen as that's where | the food action is all at. Give me one big open space | with kitchen, dining space and a living room all in one. | Open concept is highly desirable in modern housing. | contingencies wrote: | Use a cave. You get shelter and a water supply. Costs nothing, | zero effort up front. Great view. 10k years guaranteed: a million | potentially! | jandrese wrote: | 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 around is to make people want to keep it around. | Make sure it doesn't age poorly because then even if the | structure is sound people will tear it down because "it is an | eyesore". | rootsudo wrote: | "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. | michaelt wrote: | Sure, but over the course of 1000 years presumably the | property will be brought and sold many times. So you need a | building at least desirable enough that the subsequent owners | won't opt to demolish it. | | Of course, designing widely beloved buildings is easier said | than done. | HWR_14 wrote: | > Lots of places will keep an eyesore place gladly because | they can't infringe on the property owners rights. | | This is some fun new meaning of the word "gladly" | tomthe wrote: | Stainless steel is also much more brittle than construction | steel. And this matters a lot. Not only in case of earthquakes | but also just in construction where you have large tolerances. | Construction steel will bend plastically, while a more brittle | steel can just crack. Welding stainless steel is also inviting | issues, but possible in principle. | jacquesm wrote: | That, and using both steel and stone in the same structure | brings its own class of problems due to the different | expansion coefficients which needs to be dealt with in a very | ingenious way if that is supposed to last for a millenium (or | more). | masklinn wrote: | Seems to me like, given the expense and duration goals, | you'd be much better off forgoing steel entirely and | creating a stone gravity-bound structure, and making the | places where you can't go with stone easy to repair or | replace, something for which I'm not sure structural steel | is ideal. | | > Our other option is slate. Slate roofs have extremely | long lifespans and are extremely attractive. But, like | copper, they're more expensive upfront, and require more | specialized skills to install (since they're less common). | A slate roof is also extremely heavy, putting more weight | on our framing and increasing the risk of damage during an | earthquake. | | OP apparently doesn't know that slate roof have to be | repaired _all the time_. Slates will age and break, | especially if they 're nailed (because the metal expands | and cracks the slate). | | I've spent 10 years with a slate roof, and it has to | regularly be fully checked, and missing or breaking slates | replaced (because they'll leak). | | Screw slate, give me terracota tiles any day of the week. | Lighter, way more flexible, and easier to replace when they | invariably break. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, another way to spell Slate roof = work. The reason | is simple: Slate, layers of fossilized leaves, has a | rough surface and frost and the weather in general will | work on it and split the layers apart, seeds will find | enough purchase to germinate (the handy supply of water | certainly helps) and lichen and moss just love to grow on | slate. | | This whole article to me reads: "I'm planning on an | overpriced construction for my house and need a plausible | excuse'. It's a status thing and a discussion piece, not | a serious project. If you want to build for a millenium: | copy the Romans. Done. And even then you're going to have | to re-do _all_ the trimmings every so many years because | they 'll all give out with use. Even staircases made out | of solid stone will wear over such time spans. | scatters wrote: | Slate is not made of fossilized leaves; its foliate | structure arises from the metamorphic process as flakes | of clay (aluminium silicates) align and merge into sheets | under transverse pressure. Any organic material present | in the original sedimentary deposit will typically result | in a graphite inclusion. | jacquesm wrote: | Hm, ok! I totally bought this when it was related to me | but you are absolutely correct. It always makes me wonder | if there is a faster way to cross check everything in | your head to fish out the false stuff other than people | taking the time to point these things out. Thank you. | arethuza wrote: | I don't think slate roofs are _that_ bad - our house is | an exceptionally exposed spot and has a slate roof and we | lose maybe one or two slates a year to storms. Our wooden | windows and doors are a far bigger maintenance headache | than our roof. | hyperbovine wrote: | When I got to the part about wood windows it dawned on me | that the author is less clued in than he lets on. Wood | windows are a maintenance nightmare. You can't open them | half the year in a humid climate, or all of the year in | an old house that has settled. No window is going to last | 1000 years so might as well pick one that will make you | hate your house less in the interim. | jacquesm wrote: | Count yourself lucky :) | | And one or two slates per year is indeed manageable, | assuming they are in an accessible spot. If you're | unlucky they are not and then you have to get to the spot | to apply your fix without breaking more slates, which can | be quite a bit of work (remove slates to make a path to | the spot, fix, then rehang all the others, and hopefully | they were uniform). | | I've had one storm bad enough in NL that we lost some | rooftiles, which were fairly easily replaced. Since in | the rest of the country people had lost whole roofs and | other houses in the same street were in much worse shape | and comparing with the few houses that had slate I'm | pretty happy with my good old 'dakpannen', which are | almost maintenance free (due to the angle of the roof). | | The worst is thatched roofs. Those require pretty much | bi-annual upkeep and tend to become rodent infested. They | look pretty in the first 10 years, a bit garish in the | second and depending on their state of maintenance horror | shows in the last 10. I'll never live in a house with one | of those, people like them for status but they tend to be | people that can afford to pay others to do their work for | them. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > Slate, layers of fossilized leaves, has a rough surface | and frost and the weather in general will work on it and | split the layers apart, seeds will find enough purchase | to germinate (the handy supply of water certainly helps) | and lichen and moss just love to grow on slate. | | 25 years ago, when I saw some roofers working to replace | an old slate roof on a church outside Philadelphia with | asphalt (I was horrified), I asked them why they were | taking this (to me) horrible step, since my parents live | and stay in homes in the UK with slate roofs that are | between 300 and 500 years old. | | The roofers laughed and said "yeah, that's probably welsh | slate. The stuff here in PA is so much worse than that. | Freeze-thaw will destroy it in 20-40 years" | | So the observations you're making about slate are true | but only for specific slate quarries. There are slate | sources that can provide slate which could last for | centuries. | | The UK seems not to have much of an issue with moss & | lichens causing problems with slate roofing (it grows but | it isn't much of a problem). | jacquesm wrote: | Interesting, I never realized that there can be such a | huge difference in quality, thank you. | Spooky23 wrote: | That may be more of a typical "newer stuff is garbage". | | I live in upstate NY, arguably a nastier climate, and | it's not atypical to see 19th century buildings with | intact slate roofs. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I think the roofers would have said "oh, and the upstate | NY stuff is pretty good too". The slate I've looked at in | detail in PA really is pretty bad. It just isn't as dense | as the welsh stuff in the UK. | BoxOfRain wrote: | >Make sure it doesn't age poorly because then even if the | structure is sound people will tear it down because "it is an | eyesore". | | 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. | CapitalistCartr wrote: | I live in Florida. That factors substantially in how I'd build | for longevity. No concern for earthquakes, or snow, great concern | for termites, hurricanes, flooding. Pick land near Winter Haven, | Lake Wales. | | I'd build a wood frame style house with steel studs, and steel | roof trusses, aluminum roofing. Pour a concrete slab on grade, be | excessive with the dimensions, perhaps 10"-12" thick (25-30cm). | Bedrock is limerock 40' down (12m), brutally porous, lots of | sinkholes. | | Would it last one thousand years? I don't know, it might, but it | would last for centuries at least, or until the next developer | decided to bulldoze it. | oh_sigh wrote: | If you want a house to be able to exist for 1000 years without | human contact, you should look at neolithic burial chambers, e.g. | long barrows[0], and copy their construction. | | If you want a house to be able to exist for 1000 years _with_ | human contact, then the only thing you need is for the humans to | care and to proactively fix problems as they happen. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow#/media/File:Waylan... | Fiahil wrote: | I expected something much simpler : bricks, stones, and wood. | It's not like we are running low on examples of 1000+ years | buildings | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture). | These castles, cathedrals, farms, were built to last, so it's | appropriate to use them as examples. | | We can, however, apply modern technics and materials when they | make sense : insulation, windows, waterways... Prefer wood, wool | and steel over plastics or composite materials and you're good to | go. | | On a side note, I'm currently buying a house (old farm) with over | 200 years old plain oak carpentry. The thing is absolutely | massive and would be unimaginably expensive to build today. With | the proper care, it might last another 200 years without issue. | Remember, Notre-Dame de Paris used 300 years old trees cut in | ~1150 for its roof -before the 2019 fire-. With the proper care | it would have still be standing today. I find that to be deeply | humbling. | twobitshifter wrote: | What is behind your thinking that plastic won't last? Plastic | is estimated to take 1000 years to decompose in landfills. | Obviously it did not exist millennia ago, but I wouldn't write | it off as not future proof. | | I too have a 200 year old house and the sagging mentioned in | the article seems inevitable in wood. | leoedin wrote: | Plastics break down in sunlight, becoming brittle and easily | broken. They're also basically impossible to repair if they | do break. They can also been eaten by rodents. | | However plastic is a great material for dark, rodent free | places. | ctdonath wrote: | "Decompose" being the tail end of the deterioration process, | with the usable period being far shorter. | ruined wrote: | plastic becomes very brittle very quickly (years), and falls | apart into tiny bits. it's these tiny bits that (we expect) | take forever to decompose. | | even if we understood plastic to retain its original | qualities over time, it is impossible to speculate about a | thousand-year lifetime. it's unusual to come across any | plastic a hundred years old, intact or not. | Fiahil wrote: | Plastic breaks down in tiny pieces and is almost impossible | to repair when broken. It's also very difficult to reuse or | recycle when you want to. If your house is still standing | after a thousand years, it's also because its habitants were | able to remodel it without destroying its materials. | | As a matter of fact, the amazing carpentry I was talking | about previously is made from "fresh" oak, but a significant | part of it was also taken from a previous building (church, | farm, stable or monastery). It's doing just fine, apart from | a few out-of-place mortises. I tried reusing plastic pipes, | once, but that wasn't a great idea. It's fine for a few DIY, | though. | | Stones, bricks, wood are great mostly because they can be | reused, but also because they will continue to look great | afterwards. | | (Note: You might argue that "your" wood is not easy to reuse | as well. This happens because we put nails and screws | everywhere and we prefer less-dense wood over heavier ones | (pines vs oak)) | tinco wrote: | The fact that there's still a lot of buildings still standing | doesn't mean they were built perfect, it just means their | construction has the possibility of lasting a 1000 years. For | each of those buildings I bet there were 10 more with the exact | same building techniques that are no longer standing. | | A 1000 years is a lot of time to go without a fire. I think | just because of the fire risk wood is simply out of the | question. Well unless you can protect the wood against fire | like the OP is doing with the steel. | | Considering modern times, I think you would have to go one step | further and also consider gas explosions and possibly being | bombed as well. Just imagine how many 1000+ yr old buildings | must have been in Germany before WW2. | AlanSE wrote: | There's another bias here that available materials were very | different 1000 years ago. | | Designing with WW2 in mind is preparing for the next conflict | based on the last one. Climate change will have implications, | which tend to come out as fire and flooding. This will impact | siting. | distances wrote: | There are more old buildings left in Germany than one might | first assume. The devastation of WW2 was most concentrated in | the major cities, and minor cities and villages often have | old centers that survived fully intact. This was a bit | surprising at least for me when touring the smaller places. | SkeuomorphicBee wrote: | > We can, however, apply modern technics and materials when | they make sense : insulation, windows, waterways... | | The article raises an important point that could be a problem | when trying to mix old and new build techniques. When talking | about brick walls it says: | | > One tricky thing with this type of assembly is that while it | has performed well historically, it doesn't necessarily play | nice with more modern, energy efficient construction. A solid | brick wall was traditionally designed to be exposed on the | inside, exposing it to interior heat and allowing it to dry. | Adding interior insulation makes the house much more | comfortable, but also changes the thermal dynamics, potentially | causing freeze/thaw damage in the brick, and allowing moisture | to accumulate between the brick and the insulation. This is one | of the many details that would need to be worked out for the | complete design of the home. | | You can't simply build something following the examples of a | castle or a cathedral, but then add modern insulation, because | the insulation won't allow the masonry to breath and dry to | both sides, leading to water damage, mold, rot, ... | | At the end of the day, a badly insulated building can be made | to last for ages passively by just making it breath, so the | temperature and humidity vary with the weather but are kept in | check by passive external factors (e.g. the sun shining on a | external wall dries it from the outside). While a well | insulated building absolutely needs constant mechanical HVAC | with fine tuned control. You can have a well insulated building | or a passive building, you can't have both (by the way, the | "Passive House TM" insulation standard is a complete misnomer, | being that mechanical ventilation is its second biggest tenet). | rebuilder wrote: | Well yes, but the example house doesn't seem to be all that | optimized for energy efficiency. Look at the illustration | showing a fireplace located at the end of the house. That's | going to waste so much heat compared to a centrally located | one. So I'm not sure how much attention was paid to energy | efficiency here. | drewzero1 wrote: | A lesson I've been repeatedly learning since buying an old | house, is that many design decisions that seem dumb now were | actually optimized very well for what was available at the | time. It can be a real challenge to try to retrofit modern | efficiency and comfort into a home that was designed for | constraints and expectations of another time. | | We recently replaced our furnace and found the footprint of | the original coal-fired "octopus" gravity furnace, and | learning about the operation of the old furnace makes the | seemingly inadequate ductwork make more sense. Instead of a | furnace blower (which hadn't been introduced yet at the time | the house was built) the air moved around the house by | convection and relied on a temperature differential between | the center of the house and the outside walls. Hot air came | up a few ducts in the middle of the house, and cold air came | down through return ducts on the outside walls. | | Unfortunately the chimney was also acting as a radiant | heating element, and one of the upstairs bedrooms has become | much colder since switching to the higher-efficiency furnace | (which scavenges much more heat from the exhaust, and vents | out the side of the house). Ultimately I'm sure the much more | efficient furnace will be worth it, but there are trade-offs | that will need to be addressed. | downrightmike wrote: | Mortar holding stones from even Roman times, is still wet in | the middle. | Retric wrote: | Construction seriously depends on location. However, the | simplest solution if you want high insulation factors is to | have a second air tight structure with an air gap to your | brickwork. Just make sure to properly ventilate that air gap. | The same approach can then be used on a slate roof. | | Essentially you end up with a home inside a shell. There are | several advantages to such structures such a potentially | great sound insulation and aesthetics, but it's not cheap. | Having an essentially air tight structure requires a hvac | system to match. A combination of heat exchanger, filter, | humidity control, and temperature control let you have a very | comfortable environment while still benefiting from | significant insulation. | ozim wrote: | My pet peeve is when people claim that heavy old cast iron | radiators are "always better" than new flimsy steel ones. | | Yes those are better for old houses with old insulation or no | insulation because then you wanted radiator to keep warm so | you can sit close to it and get yourself warm. Where with new | thing ones you want to heat up the air so you don't want | radiator to be warm but air in well insulated building. | djrogers wrote: | > It's not like we are running low on examples of 1000+ years | buildings | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture). | These castles, cathedrals, farms, were built to last, so it's | appropriate to use them as examples. | | This is an easy place to run in to a survivorship bias problem | - pick a random 1000 year old farmhouse. How many farmhouses | built exactly the same way _didn 't_ last for various reasons? | Is the fact that one is still standing due to luck, or was it | destined to last 1000 years the day it was built? | tiborsaas wrote: | If you look at that list, almost all of the surviving | buildings are churches or religious places. If the goal is to | build something that lasts 1000 years, then you need to | factor in political and utility questions as well besides | fixating on materials. | | Your home can have perfect architecture, but if a rich person | buys your land after you are gone and decides what you've had | sucks, it will just get demolished and replaced with | something more modern. That rarely happens with churches. | aspaceman wrote: | > That rarely happens with churches. | | I agree. If the church didn't survive, they would just | build a new one. | | I imagine there lie the remains of hundreds of separate | cathedrals under one. But you would never say "the church | fell down". Rather, "there was an accident and renovations | were required". | | I see them as a Ship of Theseus, where the most long- | lasting examples were determined through a lot of trial and | error. | | Isn't this a thing with Notre Dame? It's been a while but I | remember the opening of Hunchback mentions the rebuilding | right? | ashtonkem wrote: | It's not clear how many of the no longer extant old homes and | farms fell down due to design issues, due to neglect, or were | pulled down for economic or aesthetic reasons. Most | architectural styles go through a process where they stop | being made, start getting neglected, most of them get pulled | down, and the few remaining ones get lovingly restored as | they get old and rare enough to become retro rather than just | outdated. This tells us very little about how well they were | built, even with survivorship bias in mind, because very few | buildings will survive an utter lack of maintenance, and less | still if many were torn down for not being stylish enough to | command the level of rent that the owner is hoping for. | JAlexoid wrote: | It doesn't matter that the others fell, we now know what | definitely didn't fall - which is all we need to get to. | sedatk wrote: | It matters if you want 99% of the buildings that you build | last 1000 years, rather than 0.001%. | nashashmi wrote: | Survivorship bias says to look at all the buildings that | failed and why they failed rather than looking at the | building that survived. You might imitate build but you | will not imitate the environment that allowed this one to | survive. | thehappypm wrote: | Wood is flammable, and so it's kind of out of the question. I'd | build out of stone or brick, single story but larger footprint. | Then of course ground source heat pump and all electric | appliances, and solar nearby.. | anchpop wrote: | modern wood construction is more resistant to fire than | steel, steel loses its structural strength when it gets hot | while wood chars on the outside (becoming fire resistant) and | doesn't lose its strength | JAlexoid wrote: | I mean.... Cheap Old Houses had a 1000 year old house for sale | not long ago. | | There's also plenty of timber buildings that last for millenia. | specialist wrote: | Ya. | | I'm very curious about this kind of stuff. And now especially | "activhaus" ideas. Being a software guy, probably from envy. | | Ages ago, I started remodeling while my Belgian coworker | (working from Belgian) started his new home construction. My | house in the USA Pacific Northwest is timber framed with tar | shingle roof. Coworker's house, IIRC, was block walls and | ceramic roof. My house so temporary, their house built for the | centuries. A real home. | | In North America, I now find the homesteading and packed earth | style homes most compelling. Basically, latest tech Arcosanti. | (But with better finances.) | _Adam wrote: | If wood stays dry it will last for centuries. Of course given | the climate here you'll need to maintain and eventually re- | shingle your roof (In the same region and my 34 year old tar | shingle roof sprung a leak a few days ago) but if you do that | your house will likely last just as long as your coworker's. | funcDropShadow wrote: | Ceramic shingles are replaced after 40-50 years as well. At | least in Germany. | hwc wrote: | Arcosanti is a lot of concrete, as I recall. | polymerist wrote: | Rammed earth you definitely need to be careful of the | humidity and mitigation internal humidity is going to be | important. Good technique though for arid/desert climates. | | Timber Frame + external insulation with anairtight building | envelope is a really good construction method that will be | energy efficient and last a long time. | robbedpeter wrote: | With the right clay mixture, rammed earth can be made more | or less waterproof like brick, or you can make actual fired | rammed earth bricks. Adding graphene flakes can | significantly improve the structural qualities, and added | carbon black can increase thermal conductivity (heated | flooring) or provide em shielding. | | There are lots of materials to play with and mix up for | structures. | Baeocystin wrote: | Timber frame and a lightweight roof is superior to block | walls and ceramic in any scenario that includes seismic | activity, which includes the entire American west coast. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | On a similar note, I've wondered at construction of a million | year time capsule. Layered I imagine, with the artifact cargo in | some neutral gel, inside a gold envelope, inside a steel | envelope, inside a ceramic shell, buried in an ablative material | like cement or resin, sunk in a deep oceanic trench? | addaon wrote: | You're at a time frame where you have to worry about | subduction. There's areas of the ocean floor that are | candidates, but I'd seriously consider a high orbit or lunar | placement if you're going for that time period. Also saves a | lot of environmental challenges. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | That's true. I suspect the major risk in such a timeframe | isn't tectonics, corrosion or environmental weathering. It's | likely 'human interference'. Maybe a million-year orbit? So | it's safely out of range of meddling for the duration. | samwillis wrote: | My parents house in Lincolnshire England was built in the early | 1500s, so about 500 years old. Have no doubt it will still be | there in another 500. Obviously many changes have been made over | the years but the core of the house is the same. | | Solid, 3ft thick, limestone walls. Lime mortar. Probably no | foundations, there has been quite a bit of movement previously | but none recently. In one room upstairs the floor slopes by | nearly a foot from one end to the other. | | As far as we know the majority of the roofing/floor timbers are | original. | | Limestone slate roof, this needs replacing about every 70years. | | Stays cool in the summer and relatively easy to keep warm in the | winter. Not efficient in the modern sense though. | | The way we live changes, trying to build a house for how people | will live in the future is impossible. All we can do is build | something that's maintainable, solid and hope for the best. | | I think the danger is that if you aim to design something that | will last 1000 years you will over engineer it and it will be | difficult to maintain and modify. | holoduke wrote: | I would build my house with carbon ceramic blocks. Those will | last for at least 100 billion years and will even survive when | earth gets swallowed by a swollen sun. | micromacrofoot wrote: | The first step to design a house that will last 1,000 years is to | destroy humanity. | daneel_w wrote: | The construction presented uses modern design elements that are | barely 50 years old. While surely sturdy, it's still speculative. | Europe has loads of original construction from the 11th and 12th | century, offering valid and proven examples to study. | peter303 wrote: | The 1800s era core buildings at MIT (1906) and Stanford (1892) | are made out of bulk sandstone/limestone and are still standing. | Post WWII concrete crap are crumbling and being replaced by fake- | stone cladding buildings. One gem ironically called the Terman | Engineering Building had to be torn down after only 30 years | because of severe deterioration. | | The core buildings might last a half millennium. | ramshanker wrote: | The moment I saw the diagram text "Seismic moment connection with | Fuses", I knew it was not meant to last 1000 year. The moment you | introduce seismic fuses, you need active Repair post a large | earthquake. This is like expecting to keep repairing every few | years and claim Life. | | My first though reading the title was, you need to build it with | STONE. So was "Taj Mahal" and many other religious structure | lasting LONG years. | dpark wrote: | Nothing about this design seems intended for 1000 years. It | needs wood fireplaces in case that's the only way of heating | the space, but yeah, in a world where we've reverted to this, | they'll be able to weld stainless steel and source replacement | seismic fuses. | | So many elements of this thing don't make sense together. Clad | the whole thing in a double layer of brick that isn't actually | going to bear load? Why? This is unlikely to last for 1000 | years anyway. It probably won't survive the first major | earthquake and even if it does you'll probably have to tear it | apart to get to those seismic fuses. | | In general structures do not remain standing unless they are | maintained, so plan for that. Assume the cladding can and will | be replaced. The person who needs to do work on this imaginary | house certainly isn't going to reclad in this nonsense at 4x | the cost of the brick veneer it actually needs. Hell, just wrap | the thing in hardiplank and it will probably be fine for the | first 100 years. | robocat wrote: | Stone is heavy: can you design a stone structure to withstand | an earthquake? In my magnitude 6.2 experience, stone structures | without massive steel framing fail in an earthquake. | kansface wrote: | Doesn't Italy have stone masonry construction that has lasted | centuries? Maybe you need a really good foundation to pull it | off? | dpark wrote: | I think you just need a lot more stone than people think. | Ancient structures still standing had massive construction. | 3-4 foot thick walls. If I recall correctly, the Roman | coliseum has arches that are more like 6-8 feet thick. | | But most structures standing for that long have also been | maintained to some degree. Unmaintained millennium-old | structures are generally referred to as ruins. | jccooper wrote: | Rome and its environs are fairly quiet. Italy elsewhere has | quite a lot of masonry construction that was destroyed by | earthquakes. | dpark wrote: | Were there no earthquakes in the ancient world? Lots of | ancient stone buildings are still standing. | robocat wrote: | In locations hit by strong earthquakes, you don't notice | the ancient stone buildings that didn't survive and are not | there. | dpark wrote: | Italy was hit by a series of earthquakes in 2016, | including a 6.6. Certainly there was a lot of damage, | including in Rome, but most stone structures survived. | robocat wrote: | Damage from Earthquakes is usually localised - how close | you are to the fault really really matters (until you get | up to the mega-quakes that can affect much of a small | country). | | Christchurch was hit by a 6.2, but most of the damage | occurred on the suburban south-Eastern half of the city, | and the commercial buildings in the city centre which | were more vulnerable. 10's of kilometres away and no | significant damage to buildings. | | The magnitude 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake in 2016 had an | epicentre 100km away from Christchurch, and there was no | damage here in Christchurch. | | Italy is ~1000km long. | dpark wrote: | Several of the earthquakes Italy has experienced were | reasonably close to Rome. None have had the epicenter | there to my knowledge, though. | | It's perhaps more interesting to ask what non-stone | buildings have survived 1000 years. I don't think there | are any. So even if stone is more susceptible to | earthquakes, it might still be the best choice for a | building to last 1000 years. | dta5003 wrote: | Carve it into the side of a mass of stone that has survived | all the other earthquakes already. | westcort wrote: | I think the only way that is proven is to build a passage tomb, | like Newgrange. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-05 23:00 UTC)