• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        in fairness, the materials were cheaper then compared to now only because they were practically raw materials.

        if you look at 17th century European construction and compare domiciles constructed for nobles vs commoners the only difference other than scale, is the quality of the post processing.

        example; walls in a manor were stone bricks and plasterwork. commoners used the stone laying around(free) and had no plaster. lords had slate roofs, commoners had thatched (free).

        as time marched on, the consumer market grew throughout the 19th and 20th century where homes were developed with manufactured/engineered materials. the cost of materials dropped due to supply and demand. lowest home development peaked in the 1990s.

        after 2008 and then 2020, building a new home is far out of reach of most due to costs of materials and land.

        one could say our ancestors had cheaper homes, but our ancestors would think we’re royalty if they saw the amenities we live with inside out homes today.

        either way, we peaked in the 90s and will never be as prosperous in our lives again.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Totally agree on the cheaper materials. There are newly built “luxury” homes near me that bend so much in the wind the windows crack.

        But Victorian homes also had weird layouts because they didn’t live like us. I don’t need a parlor and a sitting room and a living room. Today we prefer larger multi-functional spaces. Those luxury homes I mentioned before basically have one huge room at the back of the house with the kitchen in one corner, a small eating area, and a massive space for couches and a TV. As someone whose kitchen is totally cut off from the rest of the house I know I’d prefer that open floor plan.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      related to another comment I made, the materials they used just don’t exist.

      the wood they used to build a house in 1900 were from trees that were at or over 100 years old much of that time was never around humans or pollution. this means the growth rings were tight and dense. very sturdy. in California they were cutting down the great Sequoia red woods to build homes. much of San Fransisco still has redwood framing to this day. those trees are multiple hundreds of years old.

      compared to the white pine we used in framing today, the tree is anywhere from 5-7 years old and are bred to grow tall, and fast. this makes the growth rings loose and soft. sturdy enough.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Somebody take all the people who “renovate” old homes by removing literally any and all charm and likability out of a home and shove them in the next rocket to the moon. It’s grey, so their absolutely bland souls and static filled brains would have a blast there.

  • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    18 hours ago

    covering the fireplace with drywall

    I hate those two more than words can describe.

  • Fosheze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 day ago

    Everyone loves the idea of living in an old house until they realize that there’s only 3 electrical outlets in the whole place, everything is insulated with asbestos, and everything is painted with lead.

    • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Either that or I live in a new house thats already subsiding, outer walls made of cardboard, drafty, and the roof is not aligned correctly.

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Upgrading an old house isn’t much more difficult or expensive compared to doing a full renovation, the problem is that the two groups that tend to do these kinds of renovations - flippers and real estate corporations - are incentivized to target the “lowest common denominator” which means boring modernist minimalism.

    • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I live in an opulent old Victorian with all the associated trappings you’d expect from the era

      It’s glorious

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I’d love a modern house, with the detailed craftsmanship of old. Who wants a bland white wall? Give me some fancy wood details and comfy furniture with a bit of character.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Who wants a bland white wall?

        Hang some shit on that wall. Paintings. Photographs. Random yard sale taxidermy.

        Modern styles can still have plenty of personality. Yes, one of the modern trends is minimalism, but that’s not the only modern trend, and there are plenty of ways to explore your own sense of style within a modern sensibility.

        I like having a house with really, really good insulation, with good plumbing and electrical up to 21st century fire/safety standards. I like having ducts for my central heat pump and air conditioning.

        I can fill in the appearance and style stuff after that on my own.

        • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 minutes ago

          You make a fair point, but there’s still sometime to be said about fancy parts that are a part of the house.

          Instead of covering up the house with personality, I want the house itself to have personality.

          (Of course, there’ll be some empty walls for whatever, gotta leave enough space for the family photos, but conveniently nowhere to hang that ulgy 5ft painting your great-aunt-in-law insited you take (she’ll admit, but she didn’t want it either))

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I stayed in an old house in the UK where the owner had to get the windows and doors adjusted every year because the house was moving so much all the opening size would change.

    • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It is widely believed that ghosts follows the paths they were taking when they were alive. So if someone sees a ghost walking thru a wall, chances are the wall wasn’t there when that person was still alive.

  • lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Everyone says this house is haunted but I live here for 300 years and never saw a ghost

    • sundray@lemmus.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s a shame too, because fewer walls means fewer places to hang creepy portraits whose eyes follow you around the room.

      • SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 day ago

        I had a coworker who joked that you could tell if a post is load bearing because the saw gets stuck when you are cutting through it.

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Oh yea. I just LOVE being able to hear EVERYTHING going on in the house. All the different TVs people are watching.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Nope, not gonna do it - I’m not going to say it the third time to summon him, not again!

        but...

        he will!

        Beetlejuice

      • Frog@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Just saw this. I was surprised I really liked it. Story was more interesting than I imagined. I figured it was just another cash grab.

        Michael Keaton is 73 and he fucking killed it.