Ask the Architect

Older isn't necessarily better

Posted

Q. We have an old house that needs a lot of work. Several people have given us ideas and estimates, some so much that it almost seems like we’d be better off starting over, knocking down the old one and rebuilding. We want to save our stairs, banisters, some nice moldings, etc. Do you see this often? The house was built in the 1930s, and it just seems like it should be in better condition.

A. I see this every day. The problem is telling people their beloved home isn’t worth the cost of major work. New technology has produced more durable, less chemically harmful materials that need less maintenance and have greater energy efficiency and better waterproofing capability, so we can spend our time doing other things.

Our predecessors painted the house, changed storm windows, sat by a fireplace after dragging beetle-infested wood through the snow, breathed soot, and smelled oil paint for much of their lives. Computers have enabled us to understand underlying medical causes of illness, and that for centuries homes have been killing us, slowly and painfully. Today we attribute this to the foods we eat, but our homes and lifestyle are also part of the problem. Synthetic carpets and furniture “off-gas” volatile organic compounds for years, and many of us rarely even open the windows.

I remember a college debate about how long a building should last. Our professor stated that homes were meant to last 50 to 60 years. That led to saying, “They don’t build them like they used to” on one side and “Newer is stronger, lighter, more energy-conservative” on the other. That debate has lingered in my mind for 40 years, and I’ve wondered if people could part with belonging-filled homes, start again, and think differently about the built environment. Then Sandy happened, and they did, after the tears of creating canyons of cherished mementos had passed.

Page 1 / 2