As an architect myself i have to disappoint you, 18-19th century residential buildings will never qualify with current energetics standards, at least those in Central and Eastern Europe definitely won't. First, you can't insulate the facade without destroying it. You can replace the windows, but then you need to install extra ventilation to remove the excess moisture that comes with tightly sealing new windows, otherwise mould will grow. Heat bridges at the slabs will remain, no matter what you do. Plus some of these buildings have wooden slab structure that bends. Forget your stylish microcement floor. These apartments come with 1.5-2x ceiling height, that is extra air you need to heat in the winter or cool in the summer. Forget cental heating and central AC, the roof was not designed to support your fan-coil. Some partition walls participate in the loadbearing system and cannot be removed, or only at an unreasonable cost. Floorplan layout reflects an outdated way of living that adobts awkwardly to current needs. Rooms are spatious but often too dark. Kitchens are small and often at an awkward spot. (Back in the day you had servants, kitchen belonged to their territory.) Air shafts and light courts are small. Acoustic requirements were low back in the days, so you can hear anytime one of the neighbors flush their toilet, or take a shower. If you are lucky enough to be able to install an elevator in the staircase shaft, you can only pick one from a limited selection (mostly hydraulic operated ones). Needless to say those are not the cheapest. Shall I countinue?
Yes everything is possible, but the more comfort you want to add to these old buildings, the more you will loose from their historic value. And there comes a point when keeping the old building is just unreasonable.
Texas, or the US for that matter is a different thing. Excuse my saying so, but the historic property stock is marginal there. Also, housing market is quite different from that of Europe, due to the urban sprawl, and the consequent recent downtown rehabilitation programs, centrally located properties units have become attractive again. Therefore, and due to being even more expensive in the US than in most parts of Europe, the scarse historic renovations there are, have been targeted at a wealthy niche.
Well I knew you would make excuses about the fact the study is located in Texas and so is irrelevant, apparently, when you haven't provided any studies to counter it. Also, side point but the stereotype that America has little history is completely false, major east coast US cities have more heritage properties than majority of european cities, Boston, San Fran and Toronto boast some of the largest preserved neighbourhoods of victorian buildings in the world , New york Chicago and Philly were among the largest cities on earth in the period mid 1800s- mid 20th C. Also not every city in USA is experiencing urban regeneration nor is it popular to live in the downtown area than suburbs everywhere in USA even today.
Okay a study somewhere closer to home to appease you, in England.
New research to be published next week by English Heritage confirms that there is a quantifiable property value inherent in prized Conservation Areas, and yet more value to be unlocked in areas that are not being properly cared for. It has carried out a nationwide survey of estate agents that shows 82 per cent believe period architecture boosts the value of property. More than a quarter think it increases the sale price by 15 per cent, and 78 per cent find it makes property sell quicker.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/5551762/Period-architecture-boosts-property-prices.html
Study in Savannah, Georgia (population only 150,000, so you can't use the sprawl excuse here)
The results empirically verify our original hypothesis: there is a point where age positively affects value and that point is 119 years. Buyers are willing to pay a premium for right to claim ownership of the oldest or one of the oldest homes in an area where age and history is revered, the “antique effect.”
Another
There are hundreds of these studies with new ones coming out every year showing the same exact thing- historic preservation is good for property values.
In fact, in years of research, I have only found one very specific case where property values were conclusively harmed by historic designation and that was in Manhattan. The conclusions of the study were clear that there was a decrease in value and the conclusion was that due to the rare situation of actual land value (the dirt the building sits upon) being astronomically higher than anywhere else in the country, the properties did not appreciate as much because developers who would normally build dozens of stories high were forbidden due to the districting.
So, New York City is, as always, an anomaly when it comes to real estate.
https://thecraftsmanblog.com/is-preservation-good-for-property-values/
Again things like higher room heights , which you call an energy disadvantage, are a very sought after characteristic in my country at least that people clearly consider to be worth the cost. Room layout, again totally subjective, maybe not ideal but clearly a lot of people find some little inconveniences worth it for the heritage character.
Also you are totally stereotyping heritage properties, thousands of heritage properties across europe belonged to poor people not just rich burgeouise townhouses and had no workers quarters or tall rooms for instance and may have had very simple layouts.
The most valid argument I recognise is the heat and energy efficiency. And again, pre 20th C are stereotyped as being energy inefficient and its very over dramatised. And even if it were true, I still don't think it would be worth the loss of heritage. It is an especially poor excuse when we are in a society which doesnt give a shit about environment in any other context anyway and continues to pollute the world with cars and plastic guilt free
Also, I would like to know whether these new buildings even are all extremely efficient energy rating that beats the old building . Do you even know if they are? Plenty of modern buildings have shit energy ratings you know, modern is no promise that it'll be envonrmentally friendly. Again you are hugely generalising both modern and historical construction. Many old buildings have decent energy ratings even by todays standards.
https://www.igs.ie/uploads/Energy_Efficiency_in_Historic_Houses.pdf- Study by Irish Georgian Society.
A common misconception is that historic buildings are energy hogs; this is contrary to the facts. A systematic tracking of the energy use intensity (EUI) of all commercial buildings in the U.S. and Canada finds that those constructed before 1920 actually have a lower EUI than those in any other decade until the 21st century11 (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada 2009, Figure 7, Geared for Change, Energy Efficiency in CanadaÂ’s Commercial Building Sector,
www.nrtee-trnee.ca,
www.sdtc.ca; and U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Consumption of Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings” 2003).
Closer to home, there is another piece of research11 which was carried out in 2007 by Jon Wallsgrove of Her MajestyÂ’s Courts Service which also vindicated historic buildings in terms of energy consumption.Walsgrove looked at actual energy usage in the two hundred and fifty or so courts buildings in his care. The survey indicated that, by a number of different measures, courts buildings of the 19th century are at least as efficient as the most recent structures built to the latest low energy standards.12 (Of course, the older buildings will have had some upgrading, new boilers etc).
Bare in mind this is
before the historical buildings have received any kind of proper renovation to improve energy ratings of the scale we are discussing . Clearly they can be brought up to average 21st C standard relatively easily, or you think they all have to perfect rating? You want to justify demolishing old buildings for not meeting a standard that even most modern buildings don meet , its just crazy
hno:
I still remain highly unconvinced that these demolitions are justified. Do you seriously think its a bad thing that amsterdam or paris look the way that they do today through good quality and strongly enforced heritage conservation? I would have to think you have some kind of personal dislike for historical architecture if you think the way paris and amsterdam have maintained their historical fabric is in any way a bad thing
Also wakka, i'd love to hear how "maintaining a historic urban fabric is more environmentally sustainable" with growing population.
The explanation, if stands, would worth a PhD for sure.
(Btw. these Vienna projects that initiated the conversation do not in any way corrupt the historic fabric, the streetview maybe, but regardless, I am eager to hear it)
+1: in Budapest, where real market is currently booming, oldfashioned apartments in historic buildings are still quite affordable, while for some crazy reason prices of same size apartments at 80's commie blocks are skyrocketing...
'''Contrary to popular belief, the benefits of reusing and renovating buildings outweighed the benefits of constructing new energy-efficient structures. According to the study, a new building that is 30% more efficient than the average building takes 10 to 80 years to overcome the negative climate change impacts resulting from construction.''
Luckily plenty of other studies and thesis done on the topic to prove it correct!
https://www.buildings.com/article-d...-construction-vs-renovation-which-is-greener-
Another Irish study on renovation of historical buildings.
The studies show that constructing new buildings on brown-field sites is more expensive than retaining and re-using existing buildings except in situations where the extent of building repair and refurbishment required is extremely high. As the repair costs decrease, the re-use option becomes progressively more economic to a point where reduced costs of as much as 50% can be achieved. This study has shown that the re-use of buildings has greater value for the environment and cost savings over the future life of the buildings. Existing buildings can also have greater aesthetic and heritage values. The study findings support the acknowledged international view that the re-use of buildings can minimise the depletion of non-renewable resources and is therefore essential to sustainable development.
hear that?
ESSENTIAL to sustainable development.
https://passivehouseplus.ie/articles/case-studies/new-build-vs-old-build
Thought it was common knowledge tbh, that renovating historic buildings is more environmentally friendly than new builds, its surprising that an apparently experienced architect is unaware. And what about increasing population? How is this anyway relevant when the buildings in question that are being demolished are being replaced with modern buildings of same density?This destruction is doing close to nothing to counteract housing needs for population growth.
And saying that demolishing the historical buildings that make up a city's historical fabric just doesnt make any sense , I don't even get what you mean.
And about commie blocks, whats your point? Apart from the fact you don't have any statistics to prove that anecdotal report, lets say you're correct. Im guessing the commie blocks have more modern layout or better services to make them popular, if thats even true. Again my point is, do you think if the old townhouses were upgraded to same standard of service, that they would be less popular than the commie blocks? Of course the answer is they wouldn't, as heritage is an important factor to people once more important needs have been met first. And seeing as we are giving anecdotal reports on our own cities, Ill raise you one and say all the most sought after properties in dublin are georgian and victorian, the most wealthy and exclusive areas of the city are the most historically intact areas of the city and its hardly a co incidence, its because they're beautiful and comfortable places to live.
So ,you appear to be completely wrong in every single respect.Sorry about the wall of text, it just makes me upset seeing this horrific destruction occurring, and even sadder to see it being justified by somebody (and an architect no less!
hno:
hno
Your views sound more in line with an architect working in 1968 than 2018 tbh.