Got a blog tip? Contact us

« The Wall Street Journal on Planned Obsolescence (2002) | Main | The Curious Tale of the Advertising Illness »

Are old houses really built to last?

This is the second of two interviews about obsolescence. Part one focuses on planned obsolescence and consumer products.

While it's often said that consumer products—from electronic devices to Ikea furniture—are "made to break," a little over a year ago I started wondering about buildings. Do real estate interests, I wondered, plan for obsolescence in the same way product designers do?

At the time, I was partaking of the great American dream: buying a house. In Brooklyn, there was very little my sweetie and I could afford. We knew we were going to be an as-of-yet-ungentrified neighborhood, but we had a choice between old "fixer-upper" brownstones or new construction. While new construction appeared to be the most economical route, I wasn't so sure. Though I know next to nothing about construction, the new places I visited struck me as the architectural equivalent of Ikea bookshelves. I saw sheetrocked walls that looked like they'd been left out in the rain, poorly aligned doors, and uneven floorboards—really shoddy work. On the other hand, the old brownstones had sloped floors, cracked plaster, and decades of dirt and grime.

Ultimately, we got lucky and snagged a 100 year-old limestone that was heads and shoulders above everything else in our price range. But in the year that we've spent working on the house, I keep coming back to the question: are old houses really built better than new ones, or is there just a lot of nostalgic thinking going around?

To find out, I talked to Robert Zagaroli, associate professor of architectural technology at New York City College of Technology. Born and bred in Brookyn, Mr. Zagaroli—a working architect—knows more than a thing or two about brownstone restoration.

STAY FREE! (CARRIE McLAREN): You often hear people say that old houses are built better than new ones, but is that true?

ROBERT ZAGAROLI: It's a cliché, but brownstones truly were built to last. New construction tends to be cheaper in two senses: it costs less and is lower quality. Today, it's perfectly legal to build with half-inch gypsum board, but most people can put their fist through it. If the house gets wet or moldy, the walls can't handle the wear and tear.

The standard in brownstones was plaster. You still have plaster walls in 200-year-old houses because plaster is very durable. The materials used in 18th and 19th century construction lasted longer: plaster, brick, and wood from old-growth forests. Today, the labor doesn't exist to install those products. The technology has changed. All wood now is farmed. There is no old-growth forest to tear down, so the wood industry has harvested trees for the last 30 years. It plants fast-growing trees, but the wood shrinks and therefore it's not as reliable, not as durable, not as sturdy, accurate, or dimensionally accurate. Newer wood has a shorter shelf life.

STAY FREE!: Why isn't the labor there?

ZAGAROLI: Economics. A mason can't afford to live in New York City. The economy doesn't support it. It's like the problem that New York City has with police and firemen. Many of the police and firemen don't live in the city boundaries because they don't earn enough. It would be incredibly expensive to build a brownstone today. We don't lay brick walls anymore. We only use brick for facing or re-surfacing. Today, it's concrete block or metal stud. Metal stud is very economical --  it's lighter than concrete, so the shipping, trucking, and manufacturing costs are less. And it's very green, because aluminum and other metals can be recycled or reused.

STAY FREE!: Do buildings have shorter lifespans now than they had in the 1940s or 1950s?

ZAGAROLI: New York buildings have a shorter shelf life in retail and office spaces. Office spaces don't have the same tenant for more than five or 10 years. But, yes, there's also a lower expectation for construction materials; they simply have to meet the building code. The New York City building code, which is going to be revised again shortly, is really minimal.
    You know the polyester stucco that you see on the lot line walls of buildings? That's a brand new building material, but it has a very short shelf life. Within 10 years you're going to need to rebuild that surface. If you build with brick, it'll be 50 years before you even need to touch it.

STAY FREE!: Is the building code still mostly geared to safety issues? Does it include any environmental concerns?

ZAGAROLI: The building code is concerned with the health and life-safety of the residents, not environmental matters. The LEED certification program [a rating system for green building] is intended to fill that gap, but LEED is voluntary.

STAY FREE!: Are buildings designed with a lifespan in mind, like consumer products?

ZAGAROLI: That's something manufacturers deal with more than builders. Whoever makes the materials for your roof determines the lifespan and warranty. A flat roof is traditionally a tar-paper roof, which is quite durable: it lasts about 15 years. There's a newer technology, a rubber membrane, that a typical manufacturer will guarantee for 25 years.

STAY FREE!: I read that big box stores are designed to last no more than 25 years . . .

ZAGAROLI: I believe that. Retail stores are never designed to last more than 20 years, and even 20 years is a long time. The Fisher Family built all the stores for the Gap and Banana Republic stores on a 7- or 10-year plan, because the company never wants a Gap to look old. If Home Depot is building stores on a 20-year lifespan, does that mean they're going to get out of the business in 20 years? It's possible. I think Blockbuster has that strategy. “We'll be in business 20 years, make our money, plan an exit strategy, and sell our properties." Other institutions sneak into real estate that way. McDonald's has done that.

STAY FREE!: Steel or brick should last longer than wood construction, but a study of non-residential buildings in Minneapolis found the opposite was true: buildings made of wood survived longer than brick. It turned out that the building materials were largely irrelevant. Places were destroyed because the neighborhood changed or they needed to serve a different purpose—not because of failing construction.

ZAGAROLI: In New York City, where I come from, zoning trumps everything. If a neighborhood gets rezoned, the stock of buildings is up for grabs. You can see that in New York City. The structure of a building becomes irrelevant if planners don't value it. Buildings in SOHO or DUMBO are made of steel or concrete, which have incredibly long lifespans. There, zoning boards and city planners have rezoned manufacturing districts into residential, and it's cost-effective to keep those old structures because it's a less-invasive use: there is less wear-and-tear in residential. In a city that values keeping populations where they are, those structures are going to be more valuable. But in a city like Minneapolis, which is trying to reinvent itself, planners may want to wipe the slate clean and create low-income housing.

STAY FREE!: I've read that people will sometimes buy a house and then demolish it to create something more suited to their taste. Is there any architectural fashion that stands out for you as being a financial sinkhole?

ZAGAROLI: I think, as a trend: stainless steel kitchens. Already we're hearing from consumers who see a 10-year-old renovation and groan, "urgh! I can't clean stainless steel. I don't want that kitchen; it's so 90s!" Stainless steel is the new avocado green. What smarter people are saying now is, "Let me build a neutral kitchen. This way the next person can buy what they want."

STAY FREE!: I tend to go for vintage looks, not because I don't like modern stuff, but because I don't want to have to redo my bathroom in 10 years.

ZAGAROLI: Newer developers that want to do buildings with a timeless look are going with an Art Deco style. It's clean, it's geometric, people like it. I like to build modernist; most of my architecture friends do too. But people don't like living in modernist buildings. They say there's too much glass. It's too harsh, too cold.

STAY FREE!: Hell, who wants to clean all of those windows?! I can see why Deco would be popular because it has some of the advantages of modern design and yet still has a kind of retro appeal. I think one reason people like a “vintage" look is because, unconsciously, they associate it with durability, with something that lasts and maintains value. It's not so throwaway. Even modern fixtures and furniture often have faux finishes to make them look antique.

STAY FREE!: Do you have any thoughts about the future of building in Brooklyn?

ZAGAROLI: In New York, I see a growth pattern that centers on the World Trade Center site. So imagine concentric circles radiating out and you get an idea of how development is expanding. There are more people coming here now; there's a lot of growth. There's been rezoning throughout Brooklyn; downtown Brooklyn is the third business district in New York City, after midtown Manhattan and downtown Manhattan. In downtown Brooklyn there's going to be six to eight 60-story buildings in the next 10 to 20 years. It's the next skyscraper district.