> But this cycle of replacement is relatively modern - medieval houses would often last for centuries,
Most people in medieval times lived much cheaper structures made of fast degrading materials like wood, mud, and thatch, not stone houses. Therefore most medieval houses did not last centuries.
People reused the much rarer stone structures for centuries because without the aid of machines, it was extremely labor intensive to build stone structures. Obviously, they were more valuable since they were more durable.
Populations and technological advancement exploded during the centuries afterward - especially after the industrial revolution - so it's not a useful comparison.
> and there are examples from around the world of buildings that have lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years while remaining in use - The Pantheon, Aula Palatina, Brihadeeswarar Temple, Verona Area, Chartres Cathedral are a few examples.
Those are mostly houses for god[s], not people. Their function is primarily ritual, not to enable the functions of human life.
Then as now, for human existence, you need facilities to heat and cool, provide water, prepare food, and remove waste for a large number of people per square meter of building.
Modern buildings perform better at those things due to the quantum leap in precision manufactured materials, which are able to keep the elements at bay - but time and nature are constantly attacking man-made square corners and tight fitting joints and seams. Caulk fails. At some point that stuff all needs to be replaced and it represents the majority (materials and labor) of building/maintaining a house.
What might be original after 1000 years of the author's house (assuming it survives cultural change, which the author addresses), is only the structure. And a house structure that lasts 1000 years is interesting in the same way that a fossilized dinosaur skeleton is interesting - but the dinosaur's actual plumbing was lost eons ago.
The author seems to understand this because they discuss that a goal is for it to survive until the point where people want to maintain it just because it is old.
That's great, but it's not a kind of prescription for building housing at scale sustainably today.
Most people in medieval times lived much cheaper structures made of fast degrading materials like wood, mud, and thatch, not stone houses. Therefore most medieval houses did not last centuries.
People reused the much rarer stone structures for centuries because without the aid of machines, it was extremely labor intensive to build stone structures. Obviously, they were more valuable since they were more durable.
Populations and technological advancement exploded during the centuries afterward - especially after the industrial revolution - so it's not a useful comparison.
> and there are examples from around the world of buildings that have lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years while remaining in use - The Pantheon, Aula Palatina, Brihadeeswarar Temple, Verona Area, Chartres Cathedral are a few examples.
Those are mostly houses for god[s], not people. Their function is primarily ritual, not to enable the functions of human life.
Then as now, for human existence, you need facilities to heat and cool, provide water, prepare food, and remove waste for a large number of people per square meter of building.
Modern buildings perform better at those things due to the quantum leap in precision manufactured materials, which are able to keep the elements at bay - but time and nature are constantly attacking man-made square corners and tight fitting joints and seams. Caulk fails. At some point that stuff all needs to be replaced and it represents the majority (materials and labor) of building/maintaining a house.
What might be original after 1000 years of the author's house (assuming it survives cultural change, which the author addresses), is only the structure. And a house structure that lasts 1000 years is interesting in the same way that a fossilized dinosaur skeleton is interesting - but the dinosaur's actual plumbing was lost eons ago.
The author seems to understand this because they discuss that a goal is for it to survive until the point where people want to maintain it just because it is old.
That's great, but it's not a kind of prescription for building housing at scale sustainably today.