Population and Housing

[plam]

This is U.S. centric, but applies just about anywhere. I know that many here would agree with this point of view. 

Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
"Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

Mostly true. I was in some housing in NZ that had seen the previous pandemic a century ago and, well, visiting my friend's very modern build in Quebec City last month was a definite step up in terms of housing quality. I feel like the author only pays lip service to location though. Living close to central Wellington was a lot nicer than living close to uptown Waterloo (though downtown Kitchener is admittedly getting much better than it was 10 years ago). Like, the inside of my place in Waterloo is nice, but the location is... not the best in terms of urbanity. Location trumps a lot.

Maybe the point is that the lots with good location should be redeveloped with new construction. Which is supposed to be coming to central Wellington. I think Waterloo in particular is still a bit too committed to Nodes & Corridors like Toronto?

I think it's also true that a lot of 1970s construction was terrible. 2020s construction is going to be highly value engineered, but like 2020s cars, it doesn't actually break down that often, I think. It's kind of crappy sometimes and looks better than it is, but it's not truly crappy in a way that the mouldy 1970s condos were.

I will also say the level of detail and finishes in the older homes is way above anything you would find in a new tract home builds. I work closely with some Ontario housing developers and seeing how the sausage is made I would never buy a new build. The pride in workmanship just is not there anymore.  Trim, cabinets, countertops, appliances, plumbing features, doors, and floors are all the cheapest possible option. You are paying for the land not the house when you purchase one of these homes. An old home can be renovated to meet the same level of comfort you find in the new homes. Also open floor plans are overrated and make homes feel small, another personal opinion. 

I suspect there's also a bunch of survivor bias there. The really crappy 1940s house just doesn't exist anymore. Maybe it burned down. (It's also not necessarily pride in workmanship; drywall has existed since 1916 but wasn't widely used until the 40s. So it was necessarily more labour intensive in a bunch of places. And, reinforcing the Atlantic post, I'll take crappy modern wiring over knob-and-tube wiring built with pride, thanks.)

I theorize that almost all development is now done by professionals who fundamentally are in the development business; whereas previously a significant amount was done by existing property owners who actually cared about their property. For example, the home owner who builds a house next to them, or rents out their main floor as a store and moves upstairs, or builds a store right in front of the house, or whatever. Now an owner who wants to do something interesting or creative is probably prevented from doing so by the zoning code. As a result they just sell to a developer who is in it for the money.

Not that I have a problem with people who are in it for the money; I buy most of my stuff from such people. But I think it makes a difference in their attitude towards what they are doing.

ac3r wrote quite a bit in another thread on that topic which is apropos here about incentives for building. Lines up well with what you're saying. But in the residential space, I think it's also that it was more feasible for people to build their own in 1906, for a bunch of reasons.

I think also that there's something about concentration vs independence. Like, not so great if the same developer builds the entire subdivision, in a way that maybe didn't exist so much in 1906 in cities? It did in company towns.