Thread replies: 109
Thread images: 14
Thread images: 14
File: 77eaa9138137bacde613524243ea4c85.jpg (67KB, 736x552px) Image search:
[Google]
67KB, 736x552px
Are European houses built in the 70s still worth something, or should they all be demolished?
>>
>>1152026
>European
is a big place, you need to be specific
>70s
50 years is when buildings start to get demolished so maybe
>>
>>1152026
As in they're somehow worse than both houses built before and after them, or that they're the next on the list to be demolished after the ones built before them?
>>
>>
>>1152035
>should x be demolished?
what is the condition?
where is it located?
is it worth it?
etc
>>
>>1152035
>As in "they're going to fall apart little by little".
Well all houses do eventually, lest they're made from shipping containers. If everyone started demolishing their 60's era houses 10 or more years ago, or 70's era houses are particularly delicate, then you might want to keep it in mind, but until they actually start to fall apart, it's not worth doing. Unless you can profit from building something better on the land. I personally love the look of the OP pic.
>>
>>1152037
This is a villa from 1977.
The dude who had it built was loaded and didn't spare a dime, and he was very strict about following up on construction.
He also stacked the house with high-grade materials (marble etc.), was a stickler for upkeep (paint jobs inside&out), and modernized to a decent extent as well.
BUT: the roof tiles are slightly sagging in two or three small corner areas, and I've seen two damp spots on interior walls (one at bottom corner of a window).
So I was wondering if it was still worth it.
For the same money I could get a brand new smaller house on a smaller plot of land with mediocre materials. But it would be new.
>>
>>1152043
it is impossible to tell you "is it still worth it" over the internet because you need to inspect the condition of the structure and also figure out why there is damp spots, it could be a simple leak or if there is insulation problem or if something else
you can't ask 4chan to magic you an answer, you need a surveyor or inspector to walk through the thing to figure out
>for the same money
if you want to sell the place, you will need to get it inspected and priced anyway
>>
>>1152048
You should post your actual house, make sure to include your address and social security number.
>>
>>1152047
Not asking for a magic answer; just if 40 y-o houses are still worth it in general.
>if you want to sell the place
Thinking of buying it instead of building a new house.
>>
>>1152050
>if 40yo houses are worth it
the price should reflect the age and condition, so it will always "worth it"
it seems you are clueless about inspection, then 4chan can't really help you, you need to hire professional if you are serious about the place, posting zero picture and asking "is x worth it" is rather meaningless
>>
>>1152055
So your answer is "yes they can be worth something" and "no they should not all be demolished".
>>
>>1152057
no, my answer is there is not sufficient information for an answer, and that there is no general rule because every building is different
>>
>>1152058
My question was about 40 y-o houses in general, and you're saying "it depends".
Therefore, you're saying 40 y-o houses are not worthless in general.
>>
>>1152059
you are asking 4chan to price a house for you because you are thinking about buying it, my answer was it is usually better to build a new one
>>
>>1152061
>you are asking 4chan to price a house for you
Wrong thread?
>my answer was it is usually better to build a new one
That's the trade-off I'm looking into.
New means smaller land and house + inferior materials for the same price, but no (or fewer) headaches about repairs and upkeep.
>>
>>1152026
Most houses that are over 1MEur in my area are all over 150 years old. So yeah, totally worth it.
Other houses nearby that are 10 years old, are not worth their weight in manure.
lrn2ask questions man...
>>
>>1152062
You are asking 4chan if there is a general rule about something, 4chan said there is no general rule, and there is not enough information to comment on your specific case. You keep asking the same questions over and over again hoping 4chan can give you an answer, but 4chan is not a merciful god, 4chan gave you the truth, and the truth is, there is no answer to your question, you must figure it out by yourself. Is it worth it, or is it better to do something else? The answer is in you, and you alone, and nobody can answer that except you.
tldr: fuck off
>>
>>1152064
>4chan said there is no general rule
Thereby answering my question.
I have no idea what the fuck your problem is.
>>
>>1152065
>I have no idea what the fuck your problem is.
If I had a problem I would have made a thread about it and posted some pictures for an answer, but since I did not, I guess I don't have a problem, I don't live in Belgium either.
>>
>>1152026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvEkc8cvNzY
>>
german here, my parent live in a house from the 50th, the parents of my GF do aswell.
People built for themselves back then, so they used good materials and if you modernize it regularly, you can have everything as good as a new house, but cheaper for the size. But it's better if you are a practical man.
The only reason to demolish a house is: the walls crumbling or if you need it to be way bigger or you have two left faggot hands.
>roof tiles sagging
nothing dramatic, when time comes to save energy, renew parts of the wood and put insulation there. Otherwise make the roof higher to get extra room up there. Then it's not just repaired but also mroe valuable.
> damp spots
get it dry asap, see if the roof leaks, replace the window if necessary.
All of that doesn't sound too dramatic (coming from a guy, whos parents work a lot with houses in their free time, and earned themselves a few milions with repairing and renting out old houses)
>>
1970s? There's buildings in NYC that were build before WW2 that people still live in..
>>
>>1152043
>two damp spots on interior walls (one at bottom corner of a window).
That can be a big problem to fix depending on whats causing the damp. You'd want to get a building inspector in before you bought it.
>>
>>1152091
I'm pretty sure this type of thing is caused by a thermal bridge at that location.
Maybe even bricks running across the cavity wall to support the window structure.
>>
>>1152026
>should they all be demolished?
What sort of retarded question is this? Buildings can be maintained/renovated pretty much indefinitely admittedly at a cost. If they have a good design, there were some good architects in the 70s, it might be worth it.
>>
>>1152026
My faggotfuck burgerland shithole was made in the 1800's so i dont know. I wired up a fan last night praying the house would burn me to death tho...
>>
>>1152119
Stay safe anon.
>>
File: IMG_2199.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 275x183px
FUCK the house, buy whichever one has the most land. You can always upgrade the house, hell you can even add on a room etc. if you want. But you can NEVER get more land. What piece of property has the most room for a trailer, boat, kayak, jet ski, camper, a workshop, room to play croquet, horseshoe, bean bag toss, install a pool, etc. This is all stuff that you may want in your future, and if you ever decide that you do, you'll need room for it. FUCK the house either way. Focus on the LAND.
>>
>>1152582
That's what I was thinking too.
Houses actually lose value over time unless you fix them up, which costs more than you'll ever make back.
It takes a while before the land appreciation offsets the house depreciation in money though.
I bought the house I'm currently living in for the price of the land, but the house I'm about to buy costs a pretty penny on top of the price of the land it's on.
Upside is that a bank appraiser valued it higher than my buying price.
>>
>>1152035
I live in Belgium too and bought a house built in 1960.
Search google for "Sarking dak" and "Buitengevelisolatie". Can be quite expensive unless you diy. Like I'm doing my roof sarking style and now it's only half the price.
>>
>>1152604
Are you planning on doing your own roof tiles as well?
>now it's only half the price
How much per m2?
>Buitengevelisolatie
I was considering filling up the cavity wall with insulation instead. Probably a lot cheaper.
>>
File: remove-croissant.jpg (252KB, 999x944px) Image search:
[Google]
252KB, 999x944px
>>1152604
>>1152607
>pls respond
>>
File: 2017-03-21 16.19.40.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 3264x1836px
>>1152607
Yes, doing "leien", not easy but much lighter then "pannen".
> How much per m2?
Ugh, hard to say, but overall price was at least €30 000 using(2 schouwen, 2 kielgoten, 3 dakkapellen en asbest verwijdering) and now I did it for €15 000. I think the surface area is about 140m2.
Although I don't recommend doing this onless you have a very simple roof because holy fuck what a clusterfuck it has become. It's still not finished but it is waterproof already because of the "onderdak"(subroofing? idk...).
> I was considering filling up the cavity wall with insulation instead. Probably a lot cheaper.
Yes that was the first thing I had done here and it helps a bit but ot's not nearly as good as insulation on the ouside of the wall. You have no idea if they filled up your wall properly and if they even used enough glue. In some houses when they break up a wall it all falls out so ....
Pic related. Yes some slates aren't perfect but from street level it looks great though.
Also, the €15000 that we saved went into a brand new car. We really needed a new one and we dind't want a 2nd hand one so this was a huge pay off
But do your research on a roof construction. It can be more complex then you think sometimes
>>
File: 2016-10-12 10.35.02.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 3264x1836px
Also it just takes up a lot of time, you need a scaffolding and I'm lucky my roof is very low so I just used "schragen" 2 layer up to make one.
But it can be time consuming if you've never done anything like it before. But what's more precious, your time or your money?
If I had the money I would have just had a house built but oh well.
At least something like this keep you off 4chan.
And now I'm off to work, those slates wont place themselves.
If you have any more questions I'll be back in a couple of hours.
Pic related.
>>
>>1152612
>>1152617
Looks nice anon.
Don't beat yourself up over small misalignments, that's just you being too focused and perfectionist. It goes away.
>onless you have a very simple roof
My roof has two chimneys and is about 350m2, but is otherwise very simple.
Like pic related. Just two flat sloping surfaces, with a cutout at the bottom of each slope.
Thing is, it has these beautiful "tegelpannen", but the roof is sagging a little bit here and there (red circles in pic).
There's also asbestos.
>I did it for €15 000
So the Sarking system + the tiles?
Was installing the Sarking easier than the tiles?
Also it looks like you did woodwork on top of the Sarking, didn't think you had to do that based on this website I found:
http://www.sarkingdaken.be/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwtu3GBRDY6ZLY1erL44EBEiQAAKIcvggo33_CCb2u9FONxDi9dtGbkV5UqmBYsjH070S8GlUaAizO8P8HAQ
>Yes that was the first thing I had done
How much was that?
>>
>>1152026
Depends where. Most houses I see post 1930 are trash.
>>
File: 2017-03-29 12.01.20.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 3264x1836px
>>1152620
Your roof doesn't seem too bad.
> So the Sarking system + the tiles?
€15000 is:
- Wood (panlatten, tengels, nokken, zijkanten, ....)
- Vapor barrier(tear resistant because I used it on the outside) + tape
- Insulation 18cm
- Subroof cloth + silicone + tape
- Slates
- Lead replacement(basically alumium+sticky rubber)
- PUR foam cans
- misc
I saved money by buying some slates from private person who had too many(gave 70% discount on store price lmao, he had so much regret and I was lucky to be the first) and I bought B-choice insulation wich is basically new but with some chipped corners, dents, badly cut sides.
When you do your caclulations taker a 30% reserve on your total because you're gonna forget a lot of things or underestimate them.
I had an excel file that stated every single cost but I lost it unfortunately.
Might make a new one some day.
> Was installing the Sarking easier than the tiles?
Yes because the sarking itself are insulation plates 1.2*2.4m big. Couple of big ass screws and they're set The tiles/slates need to wood to be correctly place
and all the weird joints on chimneys and dormers can be a bit difficult at the start.
Eternit has an instructional manual somewhere on their site with lots of info on how to place them and WTCB website also has some nice info. Also check youtube.
> Also it looks like you did woodwork on top of the Sarking, didn't think you had to do that based on this website I found:
Their system has metal bars incorporated in the insulation panels. Not all systems have it, check for example
http://www.recticelinsulation.be/product/powerroof-maxx
no wood/metal on these but
http://www.recticelinsulation.be/product/l-ments
these have vertical wood.
The ones you posted aren't capable of carrying slates I think because I don't see how you can punch in de hooks to carry them. Could be wrong.
This is what I'm working on now, if you don't hear from anymore me I've fallen from the roof probably.
>>
>>1152659
Looks like a really nice place anon, I'd get rid of those hedges at the back or shorten them to get that view.
Does that line of trees in the distance run along a river or canal?
I'm sure I have many more questions, but maybe I'll post them tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>1152050
Over here in America, 40 year old houses Te better built Than the new one.
>>
File: 2016-01-31 13.28.47.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 3264x1836px
>>1152876
Hedges belong to the neighbours, , their land goes in behind my piece of land. So it does give me some privacy and no maintenance.
The trees are quite far way, halfway in between them and my house is a road where we always walk our dogs, surrounded by fields(corn, strawberries, pear trees, ...). Not sure if there's a river at the trees but doubt it.
>>1152888
They're slates(fibrecement), not panels.
Because the old roof cover were also slates(full of delicious asbestos) we didn't need a permit to do this or anything else paper related. And we also really like how these slates look. We could have used simple roof tiles, they'd be laid much faster but they're also heavier(on average double the weight) and it's an old house so this way we play it safe, even though the wood that carries the roof still looks good.
> Stainless Steel roof
I doubt the city would permit it unless it was a factory. Also I doubt it would look as good as what I'm doing.
It is complicated at times yes but to actually get this done is quite pleasing. :)
Pic is old roof
>>
>>1152029
>>>1152026 (OP)
>>European
>is a big place, you need to be specific
You American? We had a war here. 1950s was reconstruction, my country was flattened and burned, and early days were spartan. &0's were better. 1970's saw massive inflation and dramatically lowered quality over much of Europe. Also Asbestos was about to be banned so what do? Of course the builders used every last bit of asbestos they had in store for the new buildings. Also much PCB was used to prevent fires.
New building methods were introduced, basically making house buyers into unwitting Guinea pigs. Of course this didn't go well. Like use of iron piping instead of copper.
>>70s
>50 years is when buildings start to get demolished so maybe
No maybe. 1970's buildings are generally rotten but should be demolished with care due to asbestos and PCB.
>>
>>1152026
My house was built in 1900, moved from its original location in 1995. It was remodeled with new windows, insulation, and drywall and a master bedroom added on to it. Not a single structural problem. Single story 1,700 sqft
>>
>>1153179
I lived in a house built around 1870 and it was rock solid. The problems started around 1970.
>>
>>1152062
depends on how long you plan to live in the house too. a new house made out of shitty materials will need just as much if not more upkeep as an older, more well-built house. it won't need it right away, but it will in 10-15 years or so when shit starts breaking and getting rundown. old houses do tend to have problems, but new houses that are built with substandard materials will develop just as many problems fairly quickly.
40-50 years old is not that old for a house honestly. there are tons of old houses that are just fine. don't they have 100-200 year old houses in belgium? I'd have thought you would have plenty of examples of perfectly good old houses in your area unless it all got razed in WWII or something.
like other anons said, always get it inspected and get a feel for how much it's going to cost you over the next 20 years, not just how much it's going to cost you this year.
>>
In US, around 1940 is when houses started going to shit (template based homes built with cheap materials). Best to buy something built before that, and update if needed.
>>
>>1152620
I forgot to answer this.
€1800 but got €600 back from the state. Not sure if they still do that.
Compare a lot of companies cause they give very different prices.
>>
>>1153690
For filling up the cavity walls?
I'm assuming a professional company came and did this?
>>
>>1153707
Yes off course.
Surface are was 140m2 I think, 1 company measured it 110m2, another measured 160m2, most were around 140m2 though.
Used this company:
http://www.eco-max.be/
>>
Got a house that was built in the 1940s so i'm gonna say - depends on the house?
>>
>>1152659
lintbebouwing/10
>>
>>1153808
I had to google it but basically every Belgian village.
lol
>>
File: URPOORS.jpg (506KB, 867x1280px) Image search:
[Google]
506KB, 867x1280px
>>1152029
>>European
>is a big place, you need to be specific
Yet you don't mind lumping all of the USA together when you decide we're doing it wrong.
>>
>>1154193
He's right, though. Even with EU, Eurofagistan isn't nowhere as integrated as the US.
>>
>>1154193
>thinks USA is a whole continent
They say Americans are dumb and I tend to see why
>>
>>1154205
>Talks about people in the USA being dumb
>Turns around and insults the entire population of two continents, the majority of which are not from the USA
>>
>>1152035
I'd say it depends on the actual condition of the house, as long as is it's made out of concrete i'd say it's safe, if it's out of bricks, you can reinforce the walls with some interventions, like wrapping them with some sort of steel net that would hold the bricks toghether in case of an earthquake.
I admit i keked hard when a friend of my mother renovated her holiday home without any kind of structural reinforcement, only aesthetic interventions.
That home was in amatrice, now it's a pile of fucking rubble, some peoples fixet their home with some foresight and those houses are still abitable.
>>
>>1153166
If there is abestos run the fuck away of that place, leave it there don't bother to touch any of that, you'll have to pay thousands of dollars just to remove the abestos.
>>
File: 1386582887101.jpg (141KB, 803x688px) Image search:
[Google]
141KB, 803x688px
>>1154193
>le amerilard states are as diverse as different countries maymay
>>
>>1152062
You ask a general question, you get my general answer: Buy new. Old houses are a big pain in the ass!
>newer house is made of shittier stuff
Resell it before that's obvious and buy another new house. Make the whole "old house" thing someone else's problem whenever possible.
>>
>>1153094
Modern metal roofing can look quite good. The kind for houses is often made to imitate some other kind of roofing. Here in Florida, USA, the nicest-looking stuff looks like ceramic tiles.
They'd probably fork over a permit if they saw a picture of it and that it wouldn't be that corrugated ugly stuff, but granted: What you're doing does look better. The residential-style metal is pretty sweet, but like almost any imitation, doesn't quite match the good looks of the real thing.
Can't beat steel panels for quickie installation, though. A few dozen of those = hundreds of tiles or shingles.
>>
>>1154463
with that mindset you couldnt buy any house in germany that was build before the bann
its everywhere
>>
Britbong here, my house was built in 1936, still solid as a rock, i bought it in a very good postcode area for about 50K less than market value because the old owner had died in the house and she had been living here for 50 plus years without doing anything to it (still has roll top cast iron bath, lead plumbing etc) I am a plumber by trade but can turn my hand to anything (apart from plastering, tried realised that it is a skill i do not have the time or patience to aquire)
My point being that 1970 does not seem that old for a house, even if there is asbestos in there if you are not going to disturb it then its a really good building material.
>>
>>1154748
>I am a plumber
you must have come across some of the shit 'mass housebuilders' like Wimpey, Barrat / Co. started knocking out in the 70s then, no?.. at some point, commercial housebuilders realised, aint much profit (or sense) in houses still standing 100 years after they been paid.
Conventional building, 'trad.' wood +masonry, etc - lifesapan prob. 100 years plus, Concrete + glass, 'modern', maybe 50-75 years. And a brand-new retail development, be lucky to make 20 now - is admittedly all more applicable to commercial building, but, its a depreciation curve quicker downwards that housebuilding is following.
>>
File: aadf531b215bc0701cc29c2445aa2702.jpg (37KB, 500x496px) Image search:
[Google]
37KB, 500x496px
>>1152026
depends. what you're mostly talking about with "pre-80s" housing is the cheap boomer war vet housing. it was never meant to be good. it was just meant to satisfy the demand for housing for returned war veterans in the 50s and then became a style that became acceptable around the world. kind of like the tiny house bullshit of today. not meant to last, just meant to give mom and pop an affordable place to raise the kids. a roof and some walls. no insulation, shittily built, often owner built, with massive gaps and a shitty foundation that's significantly shifted.
there are good houses from that 50s-80s era. but there are also a lot of cheap shit holes which are the ones in your price range. that's an example of a flipper. a shitty house with problems that's had the flooring and windows replaced, maybe "new appliances"(often the cheapest pieces of shit paid for with some government grant) maybe a whitewash inside. bitches love whitewashing timber. then they resell it as "renovated" only for a fucking ancient lead pipe or collapsed roof to flood the house in 6 months and ruin the "renovations."
idk about europe but in australia the copper jew got into the plumbing. all 70s era pipe needs to be replaced because copper prices peaked in the 70s so the copper jew decided it was ok to make the pipe significantly thinner and lower quality. so it bursts, forms pinholes. there's no fixing it. only full replacement.
>>
My house was built in 1910 and is still standing.
>>
Yuropoor living in a 70-ish year old house, there are no issues whatsoever
>>
>>1154925
You have a house built in the 1970s that is about 70 years old? Are you from the future? Either that you have difficulty reading OP's question.
>>
File: 1348250740658.jpg (102KB, 600x600px) Image search:
[Google]
102KB, 600x600px
>>1154967
If a house built before the 70s and in good condition, it's probably safe to assume this also applies to houses built in the 70s and later on
Ours is estimated at €300k+ btw
>also mfw
you should get diagnosed senpai
>>
>>1152082
My house in Minneapolis was built in 1915, there are several around here built in the late 1800's.
It really depends on how well people took care of them over the years.
>>
>>1154541
I second this, if it's a new home you won't have to do major fixing on the electrical system and on the plumbing, that could be made out of iron, that shit rusts badly, i seen the plumbing during my home renovation and it was a freaking mess, pvc pipes are more cleaner.
On top of that a new home in theory should have a better insulation, meaning less heating related bills.
>>
>>1155245
most new houses are still constructed like the walls are screen doors.
>new house
>it has hvac
peasant housing is going to be shit regardless.
>>
>>1154757
I agree with you to a certain extent. The actual exterior build of brickwork/blockwork plus blockwork internally is no different from the build of mine (probably more plumb) the things like studwork walls internally are not too much of an issue either apart from the obvious noise related issues.
The thing i cant quite get my head around is preformed roof trusses and the expected life of them. I know they will have been designed to take the roof loading and wind/snow loading but some of them in 70s era houses seem a little weedy( 3x2) the timbers in my roof are very substantial, maybe it was just a case of pick up some juicy timbers from the timber yard which look substantial/rule of thumb.
The construction of very modern houses from some builders leaves a lot to be desired. Things like metal studwork and drylining in the houses. They all look nice to the sort of people that like new houses, but that gives me more concern than the stuff in the seventies houses.
>>
OP here, i've come to a conclusion.
I'm about to buy a house built in the late 70s that's still in very good shape apart from some minor sagging roof tiles and small damp spots.
The plan is to do minor tweaks and then flip it.
(mostly adding insulation to the roof and maybe even the void wall, and redesigning the yard to have less hardened surface and plants and more open grass)
This will cost next to nothing outside of some elbow grease, and will instantly up the value and sellability of the house.
Only downside is this is already a large, fancy, expensive house, so finding buyers in this price range may be tricky.
The plan is to then build a new house, trouble-free for several decades.
Yay/nay?
>>
>>1155249
moms basement is really nice though
>>
>>1152026
Which part of Europe?
If post-commie with those square-bunker-like things, still with asbestos roof, shoddy woodwork, deformed windows with bad quality glass etc. then no. They aren't worth it. If they are worth it their owners have put some work into making them little bit more worth it during those 40 years.
Western Europe it depends.
>>1152043
>The dude who had it built was loaded and didn't spare a dime, and he was very strict about following up on construction.
Then it's definitely still worth it.
>BUT: the roof tiles are slightly sagging in two or three small corner areas
The wooden elements that hold the roof together have rotten. Depending on the condition of the tiles you can either replace just those wooden parts or the entire roof. I don't know how much that kind of work costs in Belgium, but pay in mind that you'll have to add the cost of it to your calculations(it will hold on for now though).
>I've seen two damp spots on interior walls (one at bottom corner of a window).
The one near the window most likely indicates shit insulation, which isn't exactly hard to fix, now there's the question about the other one
As for general rules, walk around that house and think what you want to change in them, how do you want to organise them. How much it'll cost to change it. How much will repairs cost you(as you can see there are at least two things you'll have to do). Then you'll have rough estimate of how much will it really cost you, for comparison with brand new house
Remember that most new houses have teething issues. Drunk faggot forgets to make enough room for plumbing and cables, stuffs it all inside, cables overheat and you're fucked, gypsy steals something and the crew makes up some contraption made to replace it(so they can move on to another client) and that contraption will fail after a year. With houses that are old, especially when the owners were rich those issues are mostly gone now and instead you get issues related to being worn out
>>
>>1156109
>Remember that most new houses have teething issues.
Ain't that the truth.
Went to a house warming thing over the weekend, a brand new house and apparently they've been having actual leakage.
Then there's this company that builds houses out of concrete.
They used to only make concrete basements for like 50 years before moving onto the above-ground part as well.
Went to an exhibition house they built recently to promote their technique, and apparently the basement is leaking.
>>
Uh we dont build wooden shitschacks like you usa fags do.
>>
>>1152080
>two left faggot hands
Kek
Op really it depends if the structure is solid or not. Drywall, ceilings etc can all be replaced if you're handy, but when it comes to the actual structural wood you're looking at a seriously major project.
>>
>>1152612
>onderdak
dutch is ridiculous
>>
>>1152659
Thanks for sharing anon, looks very cool.
>>
>>1154463
Almost any house build in the 70s or before anywhere is going to have asbestos. Typically you just avoid working with it. Encapsulation is much easier than total removal. Only thing that you really need to get removed is asbestos insulation because that stuff is nasty.
>>
>>
File: Conquests_of_Clovis.jpg (159KB, 678x600px) Image search:
[Google]
159KB, 678x600px
>>1157379
FRANKISH RECONQUISTA WHEN
CLOVIS I DID NOTHING WRONG
>>
>>1152026
1: is it up to modern codes or can it be brought up to modern codes?
2: is it structurally sound or can be fixed if not?
That's pretty much the only real concerns and only #2 is the real concern. I grew up in a 200-year old house. My brother owns it now. It is made of wood and has big cut stone pillars for the foundation. It didn't even have insulation originally. The only thing that's changed is that it has blown-in insulation, new paint, and a metal roof now.
>>
>>1154757
>'trad.' wood +masonry, etc - lifesapan prob. 100 years plus
>Concrete + glass, 'modern', maybe 50-75 years.
Wut.
I thought concrete lasted a whole lot longer than wood + masonry.
With bricks you inevitably get cracks in the joints that quickly get worse, especially with frost/thaw cycles.
>>
>>1159735
>concrete lasted a whole lot longer than wood + masonry.
??
This can be true, look at the Pantheon dome in Rome, but modern concrete structures aren't usually just pure concrete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_degradation
>>
>>1159763
Looking at those pics, I get the impression that they're all from major public places; i.e. places likely to have shitty materials and workmanship.
>>
>>1159735
that's why you repoint brickwork.
>>
>>1160226
>repoint
You mean repaint?
>>
>>1160231
no repoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repointing
you scrape / grind out the old motar and repoint it with fresh, usually do it every couple of years. I live in England, all of our houses are pretty much brick or stone, I'v also done a fair bit of repointing, it's not difficult, relatively cheap, it is however very time consuming going row by row, grinding, then filling, then cleaning the brick surface of cement residue.
>>
>>1160241
This kind of shit is exactly why I want a poured concrete house.
>>
>>1160248
Poured concrete isn't immune from weathering and will still require some form of maintenance, short term you may have less problems but long term you end up with bigger problems that are harder to fix than if you used brick. Bricks can be taken out and replaced, you can do sections at a time while using supports to prop up the rest of the wall while doing so. Very rarely do you need to replace bricks though, i mean there are houses here in UK built in early 1900's and they are made of brick and still standing. Some of the bricks still have the dates printed in them from when they were made so you can see they were geuinly over 100 years old and fairing just fine. If you built a house out of brick today, it would probably outlive you before any serious work would need to be done, so you wont have to worry about it you will be dead, couple that with the cost of a brick vs poured concrete maybe brick is a better option.
>>
File: crete wall.png (54KB, 611x548px) Image search:
[Google]
54KB, 611x548px
>>1160255
They make these pre-fabricated hollow concrete walls that are filled with 'crete on-site.
Since the concrete on the outside surface is pre-fabricated under controlled circumstances, it is incredibly smooth and consistent in its materials.
It would take some shit to harm this kind of surface.
You could put this kind of house at the bottom of the ocean and it would last centuries I bet.
Pretty cheap too, like 650 Euros per m2 of house, with windows and roof included.
Pic related.
>>
>>1160277
how do you repair it if it ever cracks, nothing lasts forever, that would be my concern
>>
>>1160278
If it does crack, it's probably going to be a big if not catastrophic problem.
But man, those things are built like bunkers.
I bet you could lift an entire house by one corner and it would stay together.
>>
>>1160283
Thats what i was saying though, with bricks everything can be replaced relatively easily a peice at a time, thats what i meant by no short term problems but long term difficult ones. If the concrete cracks thats a whole side of the house that is wrecked, would it be unliveable while work was carried out? How much would the damage to the interior be? with bricks you have an external brick wall, then a cavity for ventilation/air flow, then either another brick wall or most modern brick houses use interior breeze block to save on costs and time, then plastered over, so even if you have to do work to the external walls the interior will still be liveable and undamaged.
>>
>>1160287
It would probably take a nucular explosion to dent a house like that.
I don't know if weathering could ever touch such a structure.
I was about to build a house this way, but recently decided to buy an old brick house instead. Might flip that one in a few years after doing some cheap but significant upgrades (adding roof and cavity wall insulation) and build a concrete house anyway.
>>
>>1160291
What about earthquakes? Those crack the shit out of concrete, brick etc. even if very minor
>>
>>1157379
what do you mean?
It sounds funny to you?
>>
>This house was built in the 70s, it must be demolished
What
The
Fuck
>>
I live in a house that is 107 in fucking Canada. It's crappily built but is actually just fine, house doesn't need replacing, crap modern materials need replacing in under 20 years, and all the 100 year old wood and stone is still perfect.
If the wet spots aren't major problems the better materials in the old house are worth it.
Natural materials improve with age (patina)
Artificial materials look best on day one, and rapidly degrade.
So the old house is definitely worth it, unless the damage disqualifies it, which could easily occur depending on severity.
>>
>>1160358
Looks like the preformed parts have fiber or bar reinforcement.
Cracks won't see their pieces shift, so even if it shifts or cracks all to hell it'll hold together.
You could just fill in the cracks with concrete or resin and you'll be good another thousand years.
>>
>>1152026
>European
Americlap detected
>>
>>1152026
a 70s european house is fine it's first getting shitty when we reach 1940s and absolute shit tier house if its 1920s or earlier but that also depends on when it was last renovated
>>
>>1160966
Asbestos is a natural material. Let me tell you the siding of my placed looked fucking awful when we pulled it down. Sure, it was 60 years old but I would have rather they used good old wood instead. It cost a fuckton to get it taken down too. Every contractor in the area knew that the whole neighborhood had been built with asbestos siding so they knew they had me over a barrel on disposal. I couldn't even hire some Mexicans to just rip it off a haul it to the dump. For 2 days my place looked like the X-Files investigating a UFO crash site. Tyvex suits and filter masks and everything.
>>
Well my house is about 250 years old, so would say it depends on how well it's taken care of and how often it's been renovated
Thread posts: 109
Thread images: 14
Thread images: 14