Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
On 08 Jan 2008 23:01:14 GMT Andrew Gabriel wrote :
Yes -- until about 1970, houses in the UK were built with a
life expectancy of about 200 years.
A bit optimistic, I think: without any evidence I would have
thought that the majority of pre-1880s properties have long since
been demolished.

Yes, but mostly through social engineering, not contruction
failures (although there are some I'm sure).


Virtually all pre 1900 timber buildings eventually rotted or burnt down.
Survivors are the exception, not the rule.

Again,if you look at brick or stone houses, this was the structural
material of the affluent. You think houses were better build in 1775?
think again. Your average timber framed cow dung and parsley cottage
lasted maybe only a few years, ..which is why there aren't any left.
Even the best of thatch has only a 25 year life..fail to do labour
intensive maintenance, and thats the roof timbers gone, and then the
wall timbers..and then the house..

Victorain terraces build on the cheap for workers, all smell of rot.
Unless they have been extensively treated and restored. They are vile.
There is nowhere to park a car, they are right on the road, and only by
dint of using what used to be a backyard full of coal to put extensions
on, do they even manage to have a decent kitchen, or bathroom, by and large.

If they weren't all glued togther, everyone would have demolished them
as beyond ecomonic repair years ago.

They have with most other victorian properties in the 'below upper
middle class' category.


The only difference today, is that the carp that is being put up hasn't
fallen down or been demolished to build something better - yet.

I doubt that half of 20th century houses will be in existence by 2050.

Any more than half of 19th century houses were in existence in 1950.


From that point, a wide
diversity of construction changes has appeared, which is
likely to lead to a number of shorter lived houses. As a
surveyor pointed out to me, this isn't something the public
have taken on board yet when considering the value of a
property, which means many houses are built using cheaper
shorter life materials in the knowledge they will still
sell for the full price.
What's happened since 1970 is the price of land has escalated
dramatically as has the cost of repairs and maintenance, new build
- which has been deskilled - less so. Thus knocking down a 1930s
house and building a new one to modern tastes and needs may make
economic sense, which would not have been the case a few decades
back. If the house is listed or in a Conservation Area it may well
sell for less than the cleared site value - IOW the building has a
negative value.

That's an argument for not bothering to design houses to
last 200 years, as other factors will render them obsolete
before then.



Which in terms of low cost mass housing a la Barratt SuperHutch, is
precisely the correct attitude.