▲ | tocs3 20 hours ago | |||||||
I 55yo. I think any people 40s+ would have meet 90-100 yo family members in their youth. I lived in in a 1870s house in a town in Connecticut and most of the houses on Main St. were of that vintage. It is not so uncommon in New England. Of course percentage wise I imagine most people in the US (and else where) live in structures younger. The house I a in now (my father built) is about 50yo and my grandparents house (that we inherited) is 80yo+. I spoke with an English engineer once who lived in a 400-500yo house in England and he knew an Egyptian who had lived in a house in the 1000s years old range. I suppose the terms "young" and "old" are fairly relative. | ||||||||
▲ | shakna 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
The age of houses in America is actually covered by census data [0]! Which means we can actually discover a bit more, here. It does vary greatly, state to state. The median house age in Nevada is just 26. Whereas the oldest median (New York) is closer to 63. That's still rather shy of 132. I'd say from the data, living in a 100yo house is a huge outlier. [0] https://todayshomeowner.com/home-finances/guides/median-home... | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | bryanrasmussen 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
>I imagine most people in the US (and else where) live in structures younger. my experience living in the U.S is most people live in structures considerably younger, and most places you need to travel to find a house that old (as opposed to a town hall) places lived in U.S - Midwest and West, traveled through South and East. My experience living in Europe is most people have lived in a place that is over 100, yes I think the terms young and old are fairly relative, and in much of the U.S a house that is 100+ is old, the house has history and might be preserved as such, whereas in lots of the world that is pretty new stuff and maybe we should tear it down and build something even newer. |