The life span of a barratt house?

[robgil]

Ive been thinking about this tonight , briefly , while I made a cup of tea in fact so for all of 30 seconds or so.
What do you think the life span of a Barratt house is? Your average detached town house type block and brick skinned Barratt home.
I spent a while doing the plumbing for Barrett Homes and ive seen how they go up, I could tell you some story's about Barrett that would make your wee wee boil but what do you think? will these houses still be standing in 100 years? 200 years? 10 years?
I'm gonna have my cuppa now.

 

[ChrisD]

I think that a modern house will last just as long as any previously built house as long as the occupier has the desire to keep up with the required maintenance. This will not depend on the construction materials or methods but more on the design, location, etc. I'm sure that many of us understand that our precious, meticulously crafted old homes will crumble to dust if not maintained correctly and the same will be true for a modern build. In 500 years time SPAB will probably be running courses on restoring cement block partitions and PVCu window restoration.

 

[Feltwell]

The modern timber frame houses I do wonder about - the quality when new is generally high as many are factory built, but come 50, 100 years time if the maintenance is not kept up then that softwood frame won't be liking any damp. I guess with the old timber frames, most that are still here now were over-engineered when built. The modern construction method will have the timber content kept to a minimum to keep cost down, so how much rot & failure of the timber members will it tolerate? And if a part does fail, will the rest of the structure tolerate movement as well as many old buildings have?

Of course poor initial construction & maintenance must have always happened, but I presume the older stuff has gone or had serious remedial work to keep it standing by now.

 

[MdB]

Block built houses should last. It is the timber framed ones that I don't trust. If the wood is kept dry then fine but if it doesn't then I can see expensive problems to fix. Old timber houses are better as their breathability helps keep the timber dry but modern build relies on keeping the moisture out. Once this fails, it is a recipe for trapped moisture. Having said that, it is just a gut feeling and I've no evidence to back it up.

 

[Feltwell]

Plus, I bet you that most modern timber frame house owners have no idea that they are timber frame. With the brick skin on the outside, which is not load bearing, they look exactly the same as a brick & block house.

 

[Penners]

Let's be honest - the build-quality of a modern, mass-built house is probably no lower than the quality of many houses built 100, 200, 300... etc. years ago. In fact, it's probably better than many.

The reason that we tend to regard historic houses as having been well built is because the ones that we see are the ones that have survived - so were probably the very best-maintained examples of their kind.

I reckon a modern house will last just as well as a properly maintained historic house - provided it's properly maintained.

Old joke (but a truism): my grandad's old spade has lasted 150 years. It's had four new handles and two new blades, but it's still going strong.

 

[Lime]

I think that modern homes looked after and maintained should last as long as any other IF they were built correctly.

However, I don't think "we" mean that, do we?
The average older home has been neglected from the moment it was first put up.

Nothing was done about leaks, woodworm, rot, dilapidation and damage until it became a major can't-ignore-it-any-longer neccessity or was bought by someone who cared for the property.
All the care older homes ever received was layer after layer of paint and wallpaper made far worse by post-war rip-out-all-the-old-features modernisations.

If a modern home was treated the same way it would be uninhabitable.
Wherever there was a water leak in the house (and there are always leaks of some sort) floors and ceilings would have degraded until they collapsed in a sodden mess of chipboard and plaster.
(I've seen it happen)
The same can be said of the roof too.

If you want to see how long modern houses will last look inside a modern social housing estate to see it can be a matter of months before ceilings are down and doors irrepairably broken off their hinges.

 

[Gervase]

The principal elements of modern timber-framed houses have a life expectancy of between 40 and 60 years. After that you're on your own, and good luck with the period properties of tomorrow!

 

[MatthewC]

I'm not so optimistic as most of the comments above.

I think that modern homes looked after and maintained should last as long as any other IF they were built correctly.

I think this is the nub of the problem: the 10 year old rented house in which we are living temporarily (until early July, hopefully) is very poorly designed and built. I don't know (or care) whether it is block or timber. The uPVC double glazing is VERY cheap and nasty, being draughty, cold and noisy, and the back step of the French door is unsupported(!). We had hot water pipes freeze overnight when it snowed - there must be a pipe somewhere which goes too close to the exterior. It is quite small - every internal wall should be at least half a block longer and I do not see how a family of four or more would survive in it. I don't think that I'm the only person who does not like the modern trend for the soil pipe to be boxed inside, which makes it very noisy in the lounge when the upstairs toilet is flushed. Dry-lined walls might be cheap but it is difficult to attach cupboards or shelves to them. I could go on...

It's designed to be cheap, and it is. It's low on maintenance and can probably survive neglect better than an older house, but I certainly could never fall in love with it, as one can with a period property!

Matthew
http://houseintheenchantedforest.blogspot.com/

 

[Penners]

The principal elements of modern timber-framed houses have a life expectancy of between 40 and 60 years.

Similar, in fact, to the expected life of a decent thatch. After which - if you're looking after your place properly - you renew it.

So it will be with a well-maintained Barrett home, in 200 years time. It'll have replacement frame components, claddings, roof, floors, ceilings, windows, doors...

...and everyone will marvel at the durability of 21st century buildings.

:|

 

[AMc]

Many will fail or need major work - but the point where it becomes uneconomic to repair and maintain vs. replace is pretty high for domestic dwellings - less so with commercial buildings. However as said above - the reason our old houses are 'well built' is because the ones that weren't originally or weren't repaired and improved have been replaced.
Some will survive because they're cared for - look at WWII prefabs which were intended to be temporary but have remained in occupation despite their inherent original, disposable construction.

A great many will be extended & rebuilt because they don't fit the demands of the occupants but will remain broadly the same. If you drive around a 10 year old modern development you see lots of garage conversions, conservatories, loft conversions and extensions.
Likewise if you drive around a 60s estate you'll see plenty of garden gobbling and plot splitting - I doubt this is because the original houses were unsound, but the economic benefit of demolishing a reasonable house with a reasonable garden and replacing it with two similar houses and much smaller plots were too tempting to the owner.
My parents seriously considered demolishing their 4 bed 60's bungalow because the plot could have accommodated 4x3 bed detached houses according to the local housing policy.

I suspect that some 'modern estates' will reach a point where the quality of the building is so poor its worth buying, bulldozing and rebuilding the whole lot. That's certainly a trend in social housing but I think it will be more rare in private ownership because the owners will be forced to maintain before the point of uneconomic repair is reached.

When we lived in Hackney I saw the reissues of the 19thC maps of the area and I was a bit surprised to see the in the first maps there were streets of large houses with grand gardens mid construction, some of which survived to our time - a later version showed many of these replaced with smaller terraced houses at much higher densities. It was a genuine surprise to see 'garden gobbling' wasn't a modern thing or indeed that the move from high to lower status was quite so quick - within 100 years of the original green field development.

When I was reading up a lot on the Green Building Forum, Green Building Bible & Magazine a fair amount of discussion related to the disposal of buildings that had reached the end of their useful life in their current configuration - building in details on how to dismantle and recycle what was there rather than entombing everything so it all goes to landfill. It was a bit uncomfortable to me as the owner of a house that had lasted generations to consider that longevity in construction wasn't necessarily a desirable thing, but if you consider who different lifestyles were 100 years ago (e.g. patterns of smaller households and greater physical mobility) and how different they may be in 50 years time it makes some sense.

Again in Hackney I watched them blow up and cart off a complete tower block that was considered beyond economic repair - the block behind them had been refurbed. The space was infilled with low rise smaller units which required less maintenance - for the time being...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amcuk/5078095379/