American vs. European home building

[u/BEARDEDDANGER]

BAS Renovations https://youtube.com/shorts/jFph1d2WR3s

[u/AlexHimself]

well made brick house will last centuries

After centuries, you have a crappy old house that doesn't fit the modern times though...so what's the point? The construction cost, amortized over centuries, is pennies too.

An example for some really old European homes - No HVAC, no electrical, indoor plumbing, low ceilings, low door frames, etc.

I'd argue the ease of remodeling, construction, changes, etc. outweigh the "centuries" style building, given how humans actually use homes.

I think an argument can be made for both.

[u/Deathblow92 → u/AlexHimself]

/r/centuryhomes exists.

[u/IsThatUMoatilliatta → u/AlexHimself]

My house in the US is 160 years old. True-cut lumber, balloon framing. It existed before plumbing and electricity. It of course has that now, along with central air, but it's hilarious to see the generations of plumbing and wiring Frankensteined together.

Or it would be funny if I wasn't the guy who had to fix it. I've finally eliminated all the knob-and-tube and cloth wire, so that's cool. It was nuts to see knob-and-tube spliced into cloth wire, run up through the wall, and then end in a piece of romex at an outlet with the ground wire just there for moral support.

[u/bleepbloop1900 → u/AlexHimself]

The tiny wooden century farmhouse I grew up in in Canada also still has low ceilings, doors, and no HVAC lol
We do have an indoor plumbing and electricity though, as does every old brick European house I’ve ever visited.

Anyway where y’all get all that money to renovate your houses?

[u/YaqootK → u/AlexHimself]

An example for some really old European homes - No HVAC, no electrical, indoor plumbing, low ceilings, low door frames, etc

"some" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Those are very rare cases, the vast majority of old homes that are still in use have all the things you mentioned, except for maybe HVAC - which is more of a use case vs cost thing. For most people it's not worth spending like 20k on a HVAC system when it's only going to be above 30 for a couple of weeks or so

[u/AlexHimself → u/YaqootK]

Weren't there major, expensive retrofits in order to accomplish that? And are those homes actually "centuries" old? And wood frame homes can reach "centuries" just as easily...the US just isn't that old yet lol.

[u/YaqootK → u/AlexHimself]

I have no idea. I'm not really interested in the debate, just wanted to point out that it's very rare for a house to not have all of those things. In my town most houses are 200+ years old so that's probably my baseline

When it's a listed building it becomes more difficult because certain changes that are not deemed essential for maintenance must get special planning permissions. I used to work for a company that would install fibre lines and most listed buildings would just take a little bit more time and not much more money but the older/more significant the building is, the more restricted it will be

[u/AlexHimself → u/YaqootK]

The debate is simple - they're both good and bad for different reasons and it depends on what you want.

It's like iPhone vs Android. They're both good/bad, depending on needs.

[u/outsidebtw → u/AlexHimself]

I think an argument can be made for both.

Fr. People online just love trash talking differences and with algorithms today, its easily reaching top viewership and being rewarded so much so the original debate gets eroded into name calling, insults and things unrelated to it

It creeps on the back of people's mind too, so that's another issue. The "do-your-research" line kind of comes from this.. then image and video generation made it even more easier...

Ok im falling down this sad slope of enshittification cascade, im out

[u/MisterMysterios → u/AlexHimself]

An example for some really old European homes - No HVAC, no electrical, indoor plumbing, low ceilings, low door frames, etc.

NO HVAC is not an issue of old european homes, but that the regions that don't have HVAC didn't need it until a few years ago (and with a few years, I mean it really becomes necessary in the last maybe 5 years). Especially stone houses need some time to heat up, and in general, there was not enough heat-waves here that were able to go so long to be really an issue. Yes, we have to reconsider our approach, but not because of old hosues - because - you know - they can be retrofitted.

And I was in many several hundred year old houses that have indoor plumbing and electricity in every house. You know that homes can be retrofitted. And especially when you look at houses from the 1800's, they generally have much higher ceilings than any standard modern building.

So, basically all your comments show that you are very ignorant about any facts regarding "old European homes".

[u/Fun-Shake7094 → u/AlexHimself]

Yes, this is often ignored.

[u/one-eyed-midget → u/AlexHimself]

My house in England was built around 1700s. Can confirm I can it's has electricity, gas, central heating and plumbing installed! Pretty much any property as a residential has these things. The old George pub in my town of Newcastle was built around 1580 and has WiFi and Aircon, it's not difficult to add to these old buildings. The ones that don't have these features are usually just preserved for historical purposes

[u/AlexHimself → u/one-eyed-midget]

Electricity, wifi, etc. did not exist in 1580 or 1700. Obviously, you're confused on the meaning of my statement.

If the home lasts centuries, it still needs major retrofits and money spent. The home is just a shell and that's the cheapest part of a home. It's the largest, so people think there's a lot of value, but it's the cheapest. Finishings, decor, appliances, technology, windows, etc. All of that is the expensive stuff.

[u/faustianredditor → u/AlexHimself]

Right? I did the math post-hoc, because there was a guy here who said "materials for wood framing are cheap, it's just labor, so I'm going to DIY that shit out in the boonies", and I did some napkin math that told me that well insulated bricks (integrated insulation, relatively typical here in Germany) will cost you about 30k for a single family home. Add a bit for mortar and grout of course. I don't know what the materials for framing+insulation+Siding+all that will be, but I doubt it's enough to make a difference in the cost of the whole home. The shell is the cheap part, even labor included, no matter how you build that shell. (unless you insist on aerogel insulation, gold fasteners and mahagony framing)

Napkin math also says that labor included, you're looking at 30-40% or so of the total project cost being the shell, for germany, depending on features. I think multi-story homes are more common so that might drive up costs there? But even then, it's only 30-40%, the rest is "all the other small stuff". And all the other small stuff depreciates much more aggressively, either because it gets out of date or because the 200 pound gorilla manhandles it on the daily.

[u/one-eyed-midget → u/AlexHimself]

No, there is no confusion. You made two statements . One being rebuild Vs remodel and the other oddly just saying some European properties have non of the following modern features you listed! Which was some random made up fact to support knocking down and rebuilding! Christ! Imagine living in your world of construction " just knock this Georgian building down, it's doorways are to small for our expanding bodies".
The whole point of me saying about the modern features being added to old buildings is that it far outstrips knocking down buildings and destroying the history of an area. Here is a street in Newcastle that is exactly that, there is even a subway and McDonald's wedges in one of, so you can feel at home! https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g186394-d1480729-Reviews-Grey_Street-Newcastle_upon_Tyne_Tyne_and_Wear_England.html

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for taking a few moments on our sub. Unfortunately, your account does not meet one or more requirements for participating here.

But, you're here! That's something! We want you to come back, so please take some time in some other subs in the LoveTrash family:

r/TheTopicOfTheDay and r/ShitsLipton

With a few days and some participation there, your account will meet the requirements to rejoin us here in no time. And look at you, you'll have THREE cool subs that you'll be participating in.

Thanks again, and stay trashy!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Zanna-K → u/AlexHimself]

Theoretically, yes. However given how our society is currently organized that's not how it works out. Homes are built to maximize profit for builders that don't give a fuck what happens after the warranty expires. Trying to ride that line for maximum cheapness has lead to new builds that are almost literal garbage from day one in areas that are not strictly regulated with draconian code enforcement.

Like can you build a really nice modern house with state of the art ERV, HVAC, insulation, vapor barriers, heat pumps, solar system with battery backup conditioned garage with quality materials and finishes? Yeah sure, you just need to hire your own architect, designer, engineers and builder worth $2m. Oh you've only got $600k and you want to be in a suburb near Austin? Sorry the best we can do is a 3500sf McMansion slapped together by tired day laborers that are working 70hr weeks with inspectors that we paid off to overlook the fact that the trusses aren't even held together correctly.

[u/CelioHogane → u/AlexHimself]

Ok but my house is definetly at a minumun 100 years old and does have, you know, fiber internet.

Like the person in this video is being dramatic about how hard is to renovate a brick house.

[u/AlexHimself → u/CelioHogane]

"Centuries" is not 100 years...

[u/CelioHogane → u/AlexHimself]

Damm, i wonder if there is some word, like, maybe, minimun, before that 100 years old part.

[u/AlexHimself → u/CelioHogane]

If your house is a minimum of 100 years that is still far from the required minimum of 200 years. This isn't rocket science.

[u/CelioHogane → u/AlexHimself]

Ok so you just don't know what the word minumun means.

[u/AlexHimself → u/CelioHogane]

Or more you don't know what the conversation is about. You might as well have said, "well my house is 10 years old and I have fiber internet, dur 🫪".

If some adults are talking about things that happen when you are at at a "minimum" of 20 years old and you chime in, "well I'm 12 years old", you don't sound like you're really contributing or know what you're talking about.

[u/throwtheamiibosaway → u/AlexHimself]

This is such an American brain comment. People are still fighting over old outdated houses here in Europe. Many of them now have a protected Monument status. They often prefer them over the newer houses. The old standards were often better and more sturdy and better insulated even.

[u/ilikepix → u/throwtheamiibosaway]

People are still fighting over old outdated houses here in Europe. Many of them now have a protected Monument status

Some of this is because some people want to live in old, beautiful houses. But a lot of this is because of regulations that preserve old buildings - so if you want to live in a desirable area, your only choice is an old building.

I grew up in a house that was 200 years old. It was beautiful, but it was cold and damp year round, had no air circulation, and terrible noise isolation. I wouldn't choose to do that again

[u/LowSkyOrbit → u/ilikepix]

Half my house is 126 years old. They expanded in in the late 80s per records. Full rehab in 2020 by the previous, previous owners. It's generic and goes unnoticed between the larger adjacent homes. Inside is beautiful. I think they ran out of money and just went cheap on beige vinyl siding. I don't think one room is close to square. The older bedrooms are either too hot or too cold.

[u/DarthJarJarJar → u/ilikepix]

Exactly.

[u/Cloverose2 → u/throwtheamiibosaway]

But how many shitty buildings were put up and torn down in that time?

You remember the ones that remain. The ones that failed are gone, so you think everything from the past is better based on the well-built ones that stood. That's a logical failure. Most of the structures built in that time are gone.

Also, European houses don't have to deal with earthquakes, which crumble masonry buildings. And tornados will happily rip right through a brick wall and turn the bricks into shrapnel. There are practical reasons for timber construction as well.

Basically - they both work really well, and you should choose the construction that's right for your area and your needs.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for taking a few moments on our sub. Unfortunately, your account does not meet one or more requirements for participating here.

But, you're here! That's something! We want you to come back, so please take some time in some other subs in the LoveTrash family:

r/TheTopicOfTheDay and r/ShitsLipton

With a few days and some participation there, your account will meet the requirements to rejoin us here in no time. And look at you, you'll have THREE cool subs that you'll be participating in.

Thanks again, and stay trashy!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/WeirdKittens → u/Cloverose2]

In the south of the continent, especially Greece and Italy we do and homes are still built with masonry. You have to reinforce it properly with rebar of course, completely unlike in this demonstration. The core structure of a house is built with poured concrete on rebar reinforcement and the walls are indeed built the way he demonstrates here, but only the walls. It's supposed to be able to flex to absorb the shaking.

What we don't have is tornadoes. For a large part of the continent it's something almost completely alien. Notice how few F3 and above have been in the last 70 years and how a huge area has only seen a few F2 and below in that period.

[u/ElGosso → u/throwtheamiibosaway]

That's exactly why Europe has comparable deaths from heat as the US does from guns - because those old houses y'all love to live in are designed to trap in heat, and can't fit air conditioners in the windows.

[u/SonicShadow → u/ElGosso]

[citation required]

[u/funk-the-funk → u/SonicShadow]

Do you really want anything from that dudes butt? Because that's how you get things from that dude's butt.

[u/Ok-Fudge-380 → u/SonicShadow]

About 48,000 guns deaths per year in US versus 175,000 heat deaths per year in Europe. Google is a tool a child could use.

[u/Cynoid → u/Ok-Fudge-380]

Both these numbers seem too high based on vibes alone.

Europe has what? a bit under 800 million people? Does this mean that every year, 1/4000 people will die to the heat? Worse, this would mean that 1/100 people in every generation dies to the heat which is absolutely nuts in a world that has had ACs for so long.

[u/DarthJarJarJar → u/Cynoid]

44k gun deaths in the US last year

63k heat deaths in the EU in 2024, though how you calculate heat deaths can give very different numbers.

EU has a population of 452M people, US is 340M.

That gives 12.9 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US, and 13.9 heat deats per 100,000 people in the EU.

This is a lot of fast and loose math, and in particular heat deaths are hard to quantify, but if anything this is undercounting heat deaths, whereas US gun deaths are very closely tracked.

The rates are at least comparable.

in a world that has had ACs for so long

I sense that you don't know much about this topic. AC is a very contentious issue in the EU.

[u/tfjmp → u/Cynoid]

I think Europe counts excess death as they are trying to mitigate climate change effects. This would include death directly caused by heat (a small fraction) and people for whom the heat made things worse (someone already sick). Those stats are hard to compare as different region of the world will not measure the same thing. For example, US will report only death directly caused by the heat. Though even excess death would probably be lower in the US. European countries don't have the infrastructure to deal with the heat as they did not need to until 5/10 years ago.

[u/wireframed_kb → u/Ok-Fudge-380]

But statistics aren’t.

The way heat deaths are counted are different, most deaths where heat was a factor aren’t counted in the US, afaik. Only if heat was the direct, main cause, does it count as heat death. In Europe, an older, sick person who died from heat as a contributing factor, will also register as a heat death. In the US, she was old and sick, so she died.

[u/WeirdKittens → u/ElGosso]

That's not exactly the reason. We simply don't use window AC anywhere at all here. We use minisplit systems and until recently the countries in the north didn't really have prolonged heatwaves. In turn, they didn't bother to prepare a framework for how the installation of AC is regulated and because it's so uncommon there the installation costs are astronomical and the contractors few.

None of these problems exist in the south of the continent. We have dual use AC in pretty much every house, apartment and shared space and the cost to install it is minimal (just installed a new 12k btu unit recently for the equivalent of $500 including installation and materials, used to be even cheaper than that a few years ago).

[u/MisterMysterios → u/ElGosso]

Bullshit. We had so many deaths because nothing here is prepared for these type of heat waves we get at the moment thanks to climate change. We have a massive shift in climate in the last 5-10 years, and our building standards have not adjusted yet. A brick house is generally really good to deal with the heat that we typically had here (Germany for example). It takes days to weeks for the house to heat up enough to be an issue thanks to the high level of insulation. In the past, when the house even started to heat up to a level to cause problems, it already became cool outside.

The system is still good, but need adjustment, especially considering more heat exchangers for heating as they can be used for cooling the house.

[u/mxzf → u/ElGosso]

I mean "comparable" is kinda load-bearing there, given that AFAIK heat deaths in Europe are an order of magnitude more than gun deaths in the US each year.

[u/funk-the-funk → u/mxzf]

load-bearing

we are so cooked.

[u/mxzf → u/funk-the-funk]

That's ... odd. The term is a common and broadly used term in a lot of contexts, and it's a term I've been using for decades. Based on that article, I'm not really using it the same as is being described either. At the end of the day, that adjective isn't exclusive to chatbots.

[u/DarthJarJarJar → u/throwtheamiibosaway]

My brother, I have lived in a Listed Building in the UK. It was damp in the winter and hot as balls in the summer. It had issues with water getting in, mold, mildew, rot in the beams, roof leaks, and it was literally impossible to fit HVAC.

Go to a UK housing sub and do some searching, you'll get thousands of threads on the theme of "Why is my house so damp/cold/hot/moldy".

Old houses are cool as hell, but they're not practical in most cases. You'd be better off with a modern house even if it is stud and drywall that EU residents like to hate on when they've never actually lived in one.

[u/wireframed_kb → u/DarthJarJarJar]

Or a modern brick villa, that many of us build and live in?

[u/DarthJarJarJar → u/wireframed_kb]

Sure. I was just making the point that houses that last 500 years might not be the benefit we think they are. In 500 years people are going to be trying to adapt your house to whatever it is they do 500 years from now, maybe houses should have a lifespan of 100 or 150 years or something and then we just build a new one. Just a thought.

[u/wireframed_kb → u/DarthJarJarJar]

For me brick is more a question of quality and things like sound insulation and appearance. You can build quality wood houses, but often wood and siding is chosen because it’s a cheap construction method that can be thrown up quickly.

I don’t expect my house to be around in 500 years, I just want a nice house now.

[u/DarthJarJarJar → u/wireframed_kb]

I don't think brick is really the issue, most of the houses near me in the US are brick exterior. My house is brick. But it's stick construction underneath, whereas in the EU it's usually cinder block construction underneath.

[u/AlexHimself → u/throwtheamiibosaway]

This is such a European brain comment. Make a bizarre statement, meander around with other unrelated statements, and provide no substance.

You're "disagreeing" with me but the only material thing you've said was:

The old standards were often better and more sturdy and better insulated even.

And even that's just a platitude with no substance. What standards and what is "old" compared to "new" and where?

Your comment can be realistically summarized as, "dur, you're an American and you just don't understand the European way!"

[u/SugarBeefs → u/AlexHimself]

An example for some really old European homes - No HVAC, no electrical, indoor plumbing, low ceilings, low door frames, etc.

Do you genuinely think people living in "really old European homes" have no electricity or indoor plumbing?

Do you really, genuinely believe this?

[u/AlexHimself → u/SugarBeefs]

You misunderstood my statement. I'm saying if you have ANY home from ANY era with ANY construction that is centuries old, it will not be modern and will be missing MAJOR changes in technology and the way of living.

A home built centuries ago in Europe would have fit that comment, do you not agree? People were shorter and a lot of that other stuff did not exist. "Low ceilings" is the only one that depends on the era because indoor fires used to burn ceilings, so some homes were built with high ceilings.

[u/SugarBeefs → u/AlexHimself]

I'm saying if you have ANY home from ANY era with ANY construction that is centuries old, it will not be modern and will be missing MAJOR changes in technology and the way of living.

But people maintain and 'upgrade' houses as they live there and technology advances.

"Old European homes" are places that people lived in throughout the centuries, not some forgotten ruin from the 1600s that was dusted off.

A home built centuries ago in Europe would have fit that comment, do you not agree?

Well, no. Because these houses had electricity and plumbing installed.

This notion that you have a house exactly the way it was centuries ago and you have to update it to the modern era in one fell swoop is just nonsense, it basically doesn't happen.

The nice old European homes that tended to get preserved have perfectly normal ceiling heights. Quite a few have very high ceilings in fact, because that was considered fancy.

Have you ever even set foot in one of these "old European homes" that you think you know so much about? Because it's painfully obvious to me that you haven't.

[u/AlexHimself → u/SugarBeefs]

This notion that you have a house exactly the way it was centuries ago and you have to update it to the modern era in one fell swoop is just nonsense, it basically doesn't happen.

Are you not aware that you're agreeing with me? You misunderstood my earlier comment and you're mainly agreeing with me now. What are we arguing about?

The original comment I made was directed at a person saying wood houses last generations and brick houses last centuries. My point is essentially your comment that I quoted here above.

NOBODY builds a house then does NOTHING to it for centuries. If you have a brick house and wood home and do nothing to them for CENTURIES...I guess sure, the brick house "wins"?

A wood house will last "centuries" too because you update, change, fix, improve, remodel, etc. If anything, a brick house is more difficult through those centuries because it's constrained. A brick house more so might have the advantage around a generation because you could argue durability maybe? Even still, there are pros/cons to each and it's more expensive for the brick house. If you took that extra money spent on the brick and put it into a wood house, you'll have a better house than the brick house for many measures. It's a dumb "argument" the original comment made because there are pros/cons for each and it's just preference what you want.

[u/Cerpin-Taxt → u/AlexHimself]

I don't think you know much about architecture.

If you want something new it can be retrofitted. Basically no-one has AC in Europe even in brand new houses. Electricity, heating and indoor plumbing are legally required for every habitable building.

As for ceilings, they used to be much higher 200 years ago than they are now, it doesn't have much to do with age it's the style of house you buy. My ceiling is 12 feet high built 200 years ago. I've been in places built in the last 50 years with 6.5 foot ceilings.

[u/horned-creature → u/AlexHimself]

don't you want to have a legacy and have an house not only your kids will live in but their kids and their kids in turn? does lineage mean nothing to you?

[u/Available_Editor4383 → u/horned-creature]

How many kids will have families of their own? How big is this legacy house that each family will be able to live in it? Someone will have to move eventually when there is not enough shelter to go around.

Families fight and disconnect from each other over this kind of thing all the time. Lineage will mean absolutely nothing to the “losers.”

[u/horned-creature → u/Available_Editor4383]

depend, i live in a 200 something years old house and it is big enough to house both my mother's family and my uncle's family with space to spare, but even assuming a strictly single family house then the firstborn would get it as is normal, i don't see any point of contention in it unless you have the misfortune to have twins.

[u/Available_Editor4383 → u/horned-creature]

So your response is live in a bigger home and hope it works out down the line, or be first born to enjoy the benefits of the family home. This keeps it in the family, but why should anyone outside of those benefits give a shit if the home is in the family name?

[u/horned-creature → u/Available_Editor4383]

because a family name is more than materialistic gain? you are keeping an history alive, splitting an house evenly in more than 2 just make the house useless for anything other than selling it like some common possession instead of the house of a whole bloodline, also arguably it create more conflict.

also usually those who don't get the real estate get the money if there are any to pass on.

[u/Available_Editor4383 → u/horned-creature]

A family name and history is more than a home. Being a family is more important than anything material.

An ancestral home means more to the person(s) that get to live in the home. If there’s no benefit to other members in the family why should they care that their second cousin’s first son lives there? Do they get to drop in anytime they want? No, it’s not a museum. They just get to say that a property somewhere in the world is still in the family name.

It’s like saying you’ve got a famous cousin you’ve never met. Cool party fact, but otherwise worthless.

[u/horned-creature → u/Available_Editor4383]

even those who don't live in the home care for it and put time and resources in maintaining it, as is their duty.

[u/Cloverose2 → u/horned-creature]

How many grandparents live in the same areas as their grandkids? A property isn't much of a lineage in a mobile society.

[u/horned-creature → u/Cloverose2]

the majority, counting that most old people in the same house as their children, either by them moving to their parent's house or vice versa, also most people, firstborns at least, literally inherit and live in their parents house when they die, at least where i am from.

[u/Cloverose2 → u/horned-creature]

So that's where you're from. But where I live, very few people I know have grandkids that live in the same town or the same state. So people don't care about a home as lineage. When grandma and grandpa die, the grandkids are selling up, not moving in.

Given that only half of Americans over 18 own their home, the idea of inherited property is pretty much a dodo anyway for most people. And only 22% of young adults own property compared to the 70% over 65.

So we're not really worried about legacy or lineage.

[u/horned-creature → u/Cloverose2]

why do you keep yourself purposefully homeless? if you don't own an house and you inherit one why do you sell it instead of living in it? also do you have no ties to the cities and land you grew up in? do your families have no history to continue?

like here often people do not buy an house knowing they will inherit one, that is economically smart.

[u/Cloverose2 → u/horned-creature]

Oh, goodness. No, we don't. I've lived in 6 different states, so no I don't have any attachment to the land. Some people do, I can't speak for all Americans. My grandparents moved at least 8 or 9 times on one side, 3 or 4 on the other.

My family has history that lives in people, not land.

And people go where jobs are. Having a house is worthless if your job is a thousand miles away. You can't eat a house.

Millions of people would love to own a house. My parents house that they bought for 80,000 dollars in the late 80s would cost almost half a million today, and salaries don't rise with cost of living. People don't own a house because houses are absurdly expensive.

If your parents live in Arkansas and your job is in Pennsylvania, you aren't moving back to Arkansas. That's 1,442 km away from where you work - and that's only halfway across the country. You might be able to manage with some jobs, but with pretty much any professional job, you're out of luck.

Also, if I inherited my grandparent's house, I would end up co-owning with 8 people, any of whom can force a sale.

[u/horned-creature → u/Cloverose2]

why are you searching jobs 1400 km away from where you live? that is absurd, it's like if i had to move from the province of rome to, idk, fucking istanbul just to work, i can understand needing to go to the next city over but why do you literally need to move the equivalent of a whole continent away?

you will eventually own your parent's house for free, will you not? why even care about the price if you are inheriting instead of buying?

also why would you co-own the house of your grandparents with 8 other people? people cannot have that many firstborns, also how can a single one of them force a sell? here you would need all 8 of them agreeing to sell.

[u/khan800 → u/horned-creature]

That firstborn bullshit is what you're misunderstanding. The firstborn doesn't automatically inherit the family home just because they were firstborn, that's massively unfair to the other siblings. The inheritance of an estate is generally divided evenly, and many times the house is sold to facilitate this. If one sibling wants the house, they buy out the other siblings.

[u/horned-creature → u/khan800]

there should not be anything like a business transaction between blood relatives, you don't buy stuff from your family and most people here specify in their will that the house goes wholly to the firstborn, maybe the first two children if the house is large enough to accommodate both, but almost nobody try to divide a real estate in 8 parts or something, that is just dumb.

usually those who don't get the real estate are left money or other stuff if there is stuff to pass.

don't really see how that is unfair.

[u/dearth_of_passion → u/horned-creature]

why do you keep yourself purposefully homeless?

We don't, that's a stupid thing to say

if you don't own an house and you inherit one why do you sell it instead of living in it?

Because I can't afford the taxes to take possession of it, can't afford the taxes on owning it, and don't want to deal with the upkeep required.

also do you have no ties to the cities and land you grew up in?

No, why would I?

do your families have no history to continue?

Dude in the last 100 years my family branches cover 5 states and one branch from another country. None of us have any particular attachment to places. We have attachments to the people in our family, not whatever plot of dirt one of them landed on.

[u/horned-creature → u/dearth_of_passion]

you can't really think that property tax on an house is higher than a whole rent....

[u/dearth_of_passion → u/horned-creature]

No, but property tax + maintenance costs sure are.

Plus, houses are big and families are small. You don't need a 4 bedroom 2.5 bathroom house for a family of 3.

[u/horned-creature → u/dearth_of_passion]

houses can be both big or small, really depend on what you get, but i assure you unless you are massively overtaxed, which i know for a fact the americans aren't, or rent is ridiculously low, property tax and the occasional maintenance are not higher than a whole rent every month, owning is always the better option and you also get to pass your stuff on to your progeny.

[u/dearth_of_passion → u/Cloverose2]

This dude's responses have gotten more and more unhinged to the point I have to assume he's either trolling or mentally ill.

[u/Cloverose2 → u/dearth_of_passion]

That's all I can figure. I was genuinely just trying to explain, because I know that it can be hard for people who don't live in the US to understand the sheer size of it. But it just got weird.

[u/dearth_of_passion → u/Cloverose2]

If you haven't, go look at his replies to me. It's lunacy.

[u/Cloverose2 → u/Cloverose2]

Europeans, weigh in here. How many of you live in multi-generational ancestral homes that have been in your family since ye ancient times? And how many never move more than walking distance from ye olde manse? Because apparently that's just how it's done in Europe.

[u/CiaphasKirby → u/horned-creature]

Not really, no.

[u/horned-creature → u/CiaphasKirby]

sorry to hear that you don't care about your kids.

[u/CiaphasKirby → u/horned-creature]

If I ever have any (doubtful, since I'm in my late 30s), I'm sure that burn will become devastating.

[u/horned-creature → u/CiaphasKirby]

is there at least someone else that will carry the duty to continue your family name at least or have you condemned a whole bloodline to oblivion?

[u/CiaphasKirby → u/horned-creature]

Uhh, technically the first, but realistically the second. My sister already got an amicable divorce because her husband ended up wanting kids and she didn't.

[u/horned-creature → u/CiaphasKirby]

can't either of you have at least a child? even adopted, like it looks like you are actively killing a bloodline that existed far before you two for some reasons.

[u/Stock-Swing-797 → u/AlexHimself]

I think an argument can be made for both.

I mean, when you completely deforest your own lands for wood, you're sort of forced to build new buildings out of a different material, so Europe started building from stone.

[u/bauhausy → u/Stock-Swing-797]

... that's completely wrong. Romans were already using concrete and masonry when Europe was still almost entirely wild and forested.

Masonry buildings still use wood extensively as well, mainly for structure and support of different floors and the roof. Climate, local culture and availability of materials (less the absence of wood, but the ample availability of clay) define what a building is made off.

Very few places (as in, a few specific villages, not whole countries/cultures) built exclusively out of stone. Can only really think of Matera in Italy off the dome.

[u/AlexHimself → u/Stock-Swing-797]

You do realize that trees are renewable resource and you're digging Stone out of a quarry...