How would you build a house to last 500 years?

I visited an intentional community a while back, and was intrigued by their decision making process which used a 500 year time horizon.  Quite interesting when so many decisions are made on a short time horizon these days.  They did not however, appear to build structures on this horizon, but it did cause me to ask the above question.  So, how would you do it?

I'd start by studying castle and cathedral construction.
And having done said studying before in my life, I'm pretty sure that if that studying was done, rock would be the material used.

Rock. I'd use rock.

I'd also put a lot of thought into the substrate it's placed on. Castles built on bare rock are still standing, castles built by rivers in bottom land are not.

I'd also check the tectonics of an area, castles built where there are lots of earthquakes fall, castles built where there are not, do not.

Thinking on it, If I could do whatever I wanted, money and reality not an issue, I'd find an area that's geologically stable, excavate to solid rock, get the drainage right, then build with rock, and bury at least most of it.

:D

I wonder how many times these 700 year houses in York, England have needed extensive repair?

https://yorkmix.com/yorks-oldest-houses-risk-says-historic-england/

Lots of interesting comments here…


https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/a-house-to-last-for-500-years

Wow. 100 tons of concrete? I hope they put it on a VERY solid substrate.

And from the comments there, someone mentioned

Stewart Brand's great book 'How Buildings Learn.'

I agree, I have a well read copy with lots of writing in it :D  
I highly recommend that book if you are thinking 500 years out.

Pearl Sutton wrote:Rock. I'd use rock.

I'd also put a lot of thought into the substrate it's placed on. Castles built on bare rock are still standing, castles built by rivers in bottom land are not.

    Baldassare Forestiere started an underground house out of hard-pan clay in 1906. Lots of arches.
And wrote:

I'd also check the tectonics of an area, castles built where there are lots of earthquakes fall, castles built where there are not, do not.

I know I read in a book that some really popular state capital building in an earthquake zone, was retrofitted at *huge* expense to cope with earthquakes. The Japanese have a few cool systems as well.

I have to admit I'm not terribly pleased to be living with earthquake danger in a house that will likely not survive, judging by the building standards we've noticed, but I'm hoping it won't happen in my lifetime. If we get to building, that will *absolutely* be a big part of the research.

And wrote:

Thinking on it, If I could do whatever I wanted, money and reality not an issue, I'd find an area that's geologically stable, excavate to solid rock, get the drainage right, then build with rock, and bury at least most of it.

Sounds good to me! That said, some of the aqueducts and classical European buildings from Roman times and even some in Peru, are thought to be either made or put together with ancient forms of "concrete" or "cement". There are researchers trying to decode the recipes if I'm remembering correctly.

Concrete gets a bad rap because humans are using it badly. If you use it to build something to last 500 years or longer, the embodied energy is amortized over a very long time. If you use it to build something that falls down in 50 years, that's a waste.

I *really* liked the comment from Dave Sellers in the link above about building a big space that can be reconfigured easily as needs change. Our house was built relatively long and narrow, with the "support wall" on the long axis as is typical. This means that any serious changes will likely mean renovating with a bull-dozer. Done to be cost-effective in the short term, but I suspect they could have done things in ways to allow much more flexibility.

Jay Angler wrote:
I *really* liked the comment from Dave Sellers in the link above about building a big space that can be reconfigured easily as needs change. Our house was built relatively long and narrow, with the "support wall" on the long axis as is typical. This means that any serious changes will likely mean renovating with a bull-dozer. Done to be cost-effective in the short term, but I suspect they could have done things in ways to allow much more flexibility.

The book I mentioned above, How Buildings Learn, talks a lot about making houses upgradable, expandable as needed.
A lot of the premise of that book is buildings that thrive grow and change over the years, staying exactly the same gets them torn down.

I understood some of it as making sure you leave stub outs for plumbing etc to the areas most likely to be built on, design exterior doors to be in good locations to put additions on, etc.

Think about what may want to be done in 10, 20, or 50 years, and design it to be easy for that sort of thing to be done. Put in wiring conduits, so as tech changes, the wires can too (he talks of miles of useless coax removed from houses) and be aware that the tech you think is awesome will be obsolete VERY quickly. The lovely granite counters and stainless steel fridge you put in are already dated looking, someone will be ripping it all out. What can you do to make it so the house thrives when that happens, not dies? How can you design it to change gracefully?

It's a fascinating book.  :D

Told my wife the other day that people will be ripping out granite countertops before long ;(.  The house I grew up in had a stainless steel 8+ foot long integral sink/countertop.  It would have been awesome for a family that did lots of cooking and food processing.  My parents ripped it out ;(

It's the housing version of "fast fashion" - entice people to spend money so the "economy" looks good, and it makes some people a lot of money, and a lot of people very poor, and the environment trashed -  that granite had to be mined somewhere!
I met a few integral sink/draining rack bases in Europe decades ago and would have loved to have one, but the North American ones I found were all fancy do-dads rather than just a basic deep sink so I could actually wash my big roaster easily, with a nicely sloped spot to sit my draining rack.
Friends of ours that did renos on an old house on one of the islands bought quality old wooden furniture/sideboards/cabinets and built their kitchen out of them. Most of them were stand alone, so they could even rearrange them if they wanted. Way better quality and no off-gassing!

Does being under construction for 500 years count as lasting 500 years?

On a serious note, there are some adobe homes carved into mountains in some parts of the world that are still very usable 1000+ years later though most of those societies collapse due to the gradual loss of a water source. They might only last that long since they're in a desert.

500 years to me seems like thinking too far ahead unless you're containing nuclear waste or something. In some biomes, nothing will last that long considering volcanos, rising sea levels, etc.

T Simpson wrote:500 years to me seems like thinking too far ahead unless you're containing nuclear waste or something. In some biomes, nothing will last that long considering volcanos, rising sea levels, etc.

There are many temples in Japan that are over 1000 years old and they're mostly built of wood. Japan has both volcanos and earthquakes.

There's no guarantee if one aims for 500 years that the building will both survive and still be lived in, but just having the mind-set to aim for it represents a huge saving of resources. Alternatively, you build something that's completely biodegradable so that at least when it does die, it turns into soil.

What's currently happening in North America is a huge number of fossil-fuel based or generated materials are being used for something which is considered to have, in my neck of the woods, a 50 year lifespan. They aren't being renovated at that point, they're being torn down, sent to landfills that are running out of space, and replaced with more materials with if anything, even shorter lifespans.  Both my sisters live in small 1950's homes that are still going strong at 70 years and at least one of them will easily make 100. My best friend lives in a small farmhouse that's over 120 years old. The attitude that houses are disposable is new.

I've read about a fellow whose learned to rehabilitate roofs that are thatched with a salt water plant. Apparently those roofs last 300 years. So the house under them must last that long too!

I think carved into rock like Mesa Verde. But even that could be destroyed by a change in river patterns or a seismic or weather “event”.

Timber framing with a good foundation and roof will easily last 500 years as long as it is maintained. Infill wall materials may last that long, or are renewable if usage changes. Such partitions can be relocated without disturbing the main structure.

Gray Henon wrote:Told my wife the other day that people will be ripping out granite countertops before long ;(.  The house I grew up in had a stainless steel 8+ foot long integral sink/countertop.  It would have been awesome for a family that did lots of cooking and food processing.  My parents ripped it out ;(

They already are. I get commercial homebuilder email newsletters, they are talking renovations to get rid of the granite and stainless steel appliances, and saying they don't recommend putting them into spec houses at this point, they are outdated and people are not interested in them. the style has changed.

People like us need to watch for granite being removed to reuse for things!! A granite waterfall, potting bench, or butchering table?    

And I WANT THAT SINK!!  I hate the sink I deal with currently, useless for anything  but "normal" stuff and I don't do normal often.

Nothing has to be reinvented. There are tens of thousands of examples in the old world - mostly masonry.
Overbuilt thick walls may resist earthquakes. There should be good moisture management and ventilation.
As a material of choice I would pick stone ashlars from fine grained igneous rock and would use anchors to connect them. Good size buttresses. Vaulted ceilings built from bricks or stone. No wood - it burns, quite frequently. Wood was always the weakest element in churches and castles. The enemy set it on fire and the walls built with sedimentary rock material with very weak mortar started to deteriorate.
Cave houses are also good candidates.

Let’s not forget that the many examples of structures that have lasted for hundreds of years were also very uncomfortable by today’s developed world standards. Just a few hundred years ago most people living with cold seasons slept with all of their clothes on, blankets piled high on the bed, a fire burning in an inefficient fireplace and stoked during the night.  

If we want buildings to last for hundreds of years—and we should, because we’re committing valuable and increasing scarce resources to their construction—we need to think about other factors.  

Let’s also design buildings so they are as close to Net-Zero as we can make them, use plant-based building materials wherever possible to help store carbon dioxide and lower embodied energy costs, and also plan for maintenance.  Many kinds of buildings have lasted for centuries, but none without routine maintenance.  In general, “maintenance free” means that when it’s broken it can’t be fixed anymore.

The age-old wisdom of designing and building structures with a good hat, good boots, and a coat that breathes is a great place to start.  Also, anticipate what the future may be like in terms of shifting climate conditions, and that future generations may want to remodel a structure, or adapt it to changing conditions.  There are many ways to build that makes it easier for future generations to maintain and make changes.  For example, while they have some disadvantages, vented roofs with enough attic space allow future owners to inspect the underside of the roof deck for leaks, add insulation, and facilitate re-wiring and plumbing.  

And build well.  Whatever materials we build with must be assembled with care and skill, which usually means going beyond minimum code requirements and lowest cost materials and assembly methods.  The cost difference between a structure built to minimum code requirements at the lowest possible price and the same structure built to much higher standards for energy efficiency, comfort, safety, and longevity isn't that great, in the long run.

Rebecca Tasker (Simple Construct in San Diego) makes the important point that if we make buildings beautiful too, they will be loved, and more well cared for over many generations.

Jim
Many Hands Builders

I had an aunt & uncle that built their own home with concrete blocks, double thick.  That's all I know about it, but one time I stepped into a concrete block little building that was so nice & cool in the summer.

Jay Angler wrote:It's the housing version of "fast fashion" - entice people to spend money so the "economy" looks good, and it makes some people a lot of money, and a lot of people very poor, and the environment trashed -  that granite had to be mined somewhere!
I met a few integral sink/draining rack bases in Europe decades ago and would have loved to have one, but the North American ones I found were all fancy do-dads rather than just a basic deep sink so I could actually wash my big roaster easily, with a nicely sloped spot to sit my draining rack.

Friends of ours that did renos on an old house on one of the islands bought quality old wooden furniture/sideboards/cabinets and built their kitchen out of them. Most of them were stand alone, so they could even rearrange them if they wanted. Way better quality and no off-gassing!

That's how I've done my kitchen, with mostly freestanding cabinets (I have a couple of 1940's Hoosier cabinets, a couple of cabinets that were meant to be freestanding islands -- one is, the other is against the wall -- and a big dresser with a bookcase hutch; I'm slowly adding a few regular cabinets for the sink and right around it).  I did it initially because I could pick up cabinets, and the dresser, one at a time off Craigslist or FB marketplace, saving a huge amount over buying even unfinished kit cabinets.  But I like the end result -- it functions quite well.  

There are cob houses in England that have stood 500 years and are still being lived in, and they aren't in a dry environment, either -- at least some of them are on the wet and very windy west coast of the island.  Given a good roof and foundation, most building materials will last for a long time.  In other words, keep it dry!  And maintain it properly.  That said, if I had the funds to build a new house any way I wanted, it would be concrete.  Concrete floor, walls, and roof.  And there wouldn't be any access for mice, either inside the house, or inside the walls!  

Great question!

I follow a guy named Clay Chapman of “1000 year house”. Website is HopeForArchitecture.com

He makes 3 wythe brick masonry buildings. Old school traditional brick masonry.

"Hope For Architecture" has beautiful designs and good materials, but I would not put them in the category of 500 years lasting buildings. The walls they build are only brick and a half wide which is around 12". I saw many houses in Europe with thin walls like that with wide cracks along entire wall. It would be ok if they used the full wall width bond beam, but I don't think they do it, because they want to have all-around brick look. Also there is no place for insulation. If I wanted to have solid brick and look I  would change the system to 16" brick wall, 4" mineral insulation, 8" of outside brick wall with a bond beam 20" wide hidden between outside and inside bricks.

Pearl Sutton wrote:

Jay Angler wrote:
I *really* liked the comment from Dave Sellers in the link above about building a big space that can be reconfigured easily as needs change.  This means that any serious changes will likely mean renovating with a bull-dozer.

The book I mentioned above, How Buildings Learn, talks a lot about making houses upgradable, expandable as needed.
A lot of the premise of that book is buildings that thrive grow and change over the years, staying exactly the same gets them torn down.

Think about what may want to be done in 10, 20, or 50 years, and design it to be easy for that sort of thing to be done.

Haven't yet read that book but it sounds fascinating...  someone commented on houses being like 'fast fashion', think of the types of rooms that existed around 1900 vs today like a smoking room or how the original purpose of the living room seemed to shift from entertaining guests in posh houses to entertaining just your family in our modern 'pandemic' changed world.

I'd take inspiration from modern office building construction honestly - the idea of having everything overhead behind some easy to remove ceiling tile means no tearing out walls to access something, no finding a hidden plumbing drip has destroyed the wall for years of mold, easy replacing of wiring or fiber optics or various utility lines.  When I bought into a home in 2003 the agent had never even heard of what 'ethernet' was and had no idea why anyone would care about electronics in their homes.  Even if you had it you'd be upgrading it now probably.  In the future perhaps room-scale virtual reality experiences will be common in upscale homes?

Office buildings also tend to have open floor plans with walls that can much more easily be torn down or moved or removed if needed to reconfigure for tenants.  Even if I didn't build with the same materials the philosophy is a good one - some extra room in the ceiling for 'everything' and thats where 'everything' hooks into the rooms, the walls don't matter and can be put nearly anywhere except for some structural posts in the way.  Even exterior glazing and cladding can often be totally replaced without affecting the floor by floor construction.

I'd often thought if someone was to make a 1000 year house you'd have to make things both modular and with the ability to have literally any piece of the house, including structural supports, replaceable without deconstructing or imploding the whole thing.  Individual materials may not last 1000 years but the whole house could - just like the Ship of Theseus where over time every board was replaced, and the masts, the sails, so was it still the same ship?  Would it still be the same house?