https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
Even before reading the caption, that picture -- absent any obvious tourist landmarks -- immediately made me think of the same location rendered in one of the Assassin's Creed games... I can't tell whether that's funny, sad, or bizarrely positive. Maybe all three.
Our house (in Buffalo, NY area) turned 100 this year, and there are thousands of houses just like it in the Buffalo area. In fact, most of the housing that was built in the late 1800s and early 1900s is still standing:
https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/06/28/oldhomes...
I think our house could easily go another 100 years with the proper maintenance.
I don't think that the linked article actually says that.
What it does say is that Buffalo has the oldest housing stock in the country with a median construction year of 1954. I would guess that to be mostly an artifact of the declining population of the area, which peaked between 1960 and 1970.
As for population, you have to be careful with the statistics on this because, while the area did lose population since the 70s, there was also a lot of flight from the city to the suburbs over the same time period. So, it is often more instructive to look at the total population of western NY instead of just the city of Buffalo.
The key is that these old homes have very good "bones", so even a gut job can use the original structure intact. Combine that with the fact that Buffalo's real estate is relatively inexpensive still (it's starting to get up there, though), and extensive renovations aren't too bad on the wallet.
Well sure, but at least some houses used to be beautiful and long-lasting; nowadays, even large, expensive mansions are typically built in a cheap, slapdash manner, using techniques and materials that are not nearly as long-lasting or durable as the ones that would've been used to build a nice house a century ago.
For a really obvious example, just look at roofing materials; a good slate roof can last over a century with minimal maintenance, but nobody builds houses with slate roofs anymore. Instead, even high-end homes use asphalt shingles that last 20-30 years tops.
Also, most normal housing was of dubious quality all throughout history, there is a reason many european cities decided to level vast parts of their working class housing districts after ww2. Mainly because it was far easier to start over (thanks to ww2 damage) and because most of these housing where simply to cheap to be worth restoring.
The frames are built from really thick wooden beams that can take a beating. I had a large tree fall on my house earlier this year, and the trunk bounced/slid off, doing only superficial damage to the roof and siding; I talked to multiple contractors and insurance people who said a newer house built using modern construction standards would've been flattened, or at least suffered serious structural damage.
Things like windows are built to last too. The original wooden sash cord designs are still functioning 100+ years after they were built, with the exception of a couple windows that needed the cords replaced, but that's relatively cheap and easy. I expect the same windows will continue to work another 100 years as long as they're cared for and maintained.
This isn't about "the democratization of luxury", as another commenter suggested. Cheap construction costs more in the long term. This is about a cultural shift toward favoring short-term over long-term thinking. Long-lasting wood sash cord windows would not be expensive to build in this day and age, and they could be quite energy efficient too with modern glass and weather stripping, but people don't think or care about the long term the way they used to, and so they'd would rather settle for cheap, shiny vinyl windows that yellow and crack and fall apart in a matter of decades.
They'd be relatively expensive because they require more labor to install, and these days labor is the biggest cost. Older homes had better craftsmanship because labor was much cheaper back then, even highly skilled labor.
Engineered, cookie-cutter building materials are a substitute for labor. They're also a substitute for the fact that high-quality, old-growth lumber is gone, so if you want dimensional stability and moisture resistance you have to rely on engineered solutions.
I have 90-year-old sash windows in my house. I think they're great aesthetically and mechanically but previous owners didn't properly maintain them (because labor is expensive!) so they're nearing their useful life. Equivalent replacements will be quiet expensive, not to mention the labor to make sure they're installed properly, modern or not.
Well, yea slate roofs cost 7X as much. No wonder people don't.
It makes shoveling a path adjacent to the house kind of a pain because you have to shovel it after snow falls and then again after the snow falls from the roof. Shoveling snow is also a lot more interesting when you have to listen for the sliding sound and GTFO or hug the house if you hear it.
Overall 10/10.
What I mean by it in this case is, we are able to support economically many more people having mansions than we used to. The trade-off is they rightfully earn the prefix of Mc.
I don't think that's true... the environmental cost of supporting this is huge and already unsustainable. Air conditioning is a great example of this.
Ultimately, like certificates of authenticity on diamonds, the upper class will settle on some easily identified but hard to fake styles for expensive homes, and the cycle will repeat.
Yes, but when older homes were built labor (even highly skilled labor) was comparatively much cheaper and lumber came from old-growth trees.
Most homes built today (cheap or not) will literally begin to fall apart in months if they're not kept temperature and humidity controlled.
To build a house today using a mix of modern technology (electrical, plumbing, foundation, etc) with the quality of wood and finishing used in older homes would be very expensive compared to typical construction, even in high-end developments.
The last paragraph starts with "For centuries the quality of their buildings and a certain permanence set cities apart". That's a really good joke. The author even points to this earlier with "The sameness [of 1+5s] isn't like East Berlin's "Plattenbauten" (precast concrete buildings) around Alexanderplatz, nor has it the uniformity of some of Baltimore's rowhouse neighborhoods." I'm legitimately not sure whether those cheaply constructed neighborhoods are supposed to be positive examples or not.