I have a client whose goal is to build homes that will last 2-3 generations, or about 100 years. That in itself is not a feat as there are plenty of buildings still around that were built 100+ years ago. Where things get interesting is that these buildings are built to be refreshed every 100 years hence to last another century, and so forth. Now we have to think in terms of a building infrastructure that is sturdy enough to last centuries.
The Europeans do it very well. Go to any major old world city and it is not uncommon to find medieval blocks of crooked building that have been maintained, renovated, added to and frankensteined in all sorts of ways. Ways that often do not make sense at all, yet people love them.
Why aren't buildings from the last few decades built with this in mind? After all the climate crisis is being touted as the greatest challenge we have ever faced as a species, yet we rarely consider that the most sustainable building is the one you don't have to build.
But even beyond the sustainability imperative, it's culturally that these old buildings are the most interesting. They embody centuries of culture, history and memories, and that is incredibly valuable, yet we routinely ignore these intangibles in favour of financial considerations and short-term ROI. Yet, all the buildings that are 200+ years where they can be found are at least as valuable as newer ones, if not more, but almost never, less.
What does that say about our priorities? Let us know what you think in the comments!
Meadowcrest house also by Dewson Architects. ©2019 by Revelateur Studio
If you landed here by chance or accident, don’t leave yet! We have tons of great content, such as blogs, podcasts and other experiments coming out daily. Click “>>subscribe” at the top left of this page, we’d love to have you as part of our tribe.
If you have questions about this piece, rvltr or want to chat about your strategy and communications, you can leave a comment, share with a friend, or reach us at hello{at}rvltr.studio.