This is a very odd design document and it makes me think this author has <i>thought</i> a lot about materials and buildings but not <i>actually built anything</i>.<p>The steel moment frame, to someone with shallow knowledge, <i>sounds so strong and resilient</i>. But in fact, a rigid steel structure is more vulnerable to seismic (and even wind) loads than wooden framing which can flex and move and dampen those loads naturally.<p>The <i>stainless</i> spec for the frame is just pure silliness. Looking at my notes now, for steel beams <i>buried in the ground</i>:<p><pre><code> 200 microns of rust per year in very aggressive soils, but it rusts on both sides, so make that 400 microns.
</code></pre>
... which means that it takes ~25 years to rust through <i>naked</i> 3/8 steel <i>buried in the most aggressive soils</i>.<p>... which also means that unburied steel, protected from elements, up in the air, is going to last more than 1000 years.<p>Oh, and also, the SS is more brittle so you've made your seismic issues <i>even worse</i>.<p>...<p>If I had an unlimited budget and was aiming for >1000 years I would pour the piles to bedrock with stainless rebar inside fly-ash concrete and top those pilings with plate connectors into which you could socket large wooden columns (perhaps 8x8) and build the structure with large wooden members connected with steel connectors and column caps, etc.<p>I would only use steel members if the span called for wood that was too big (like a 24' span needing a 8x14 or whatever).
I expected something much simpler : bricks, stones, and wood. It's not like we are running low on examples of 1000+ years buildings (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_century_in_architecture</a>). These castles, cathedrals, farms, were built to last, so it's appropriate to use them as examples.<p>We can, however, apply modern technics and materials when they make sense : insulation, windows, waterways... Prefer wood, wool and steel over plastics or composite materials and you're good to go.<p>On a side note, I'm currently buying a house (old farm) with over 200 years old plain oak carpentry. The thing is absolutely massive and would be unimaginably expensive to build today. With the proper care, it might last another 200 years without issue. Remember, Notre-Dame de Paris used 300 years old trees cut in ~1150 for its roof -before the 2019 fire-. With the proper care it would have still be standing today. I find that to be deeply humbling.
If I were to design a house with the idea that it should serve future generations, I'd design it to be reconfigured, recycled, or torn down easily.<p>After reading some of Stewart Brand's writing, I've learned to love ugly buildings.
Stainless steel rebar is an often overlooked option. In theory, solid SS rebar should outlast the concrete, but it is a difficult thing to accurately study. In favorable conditions, regular rebar reinforced concrete starts to need major repairs after ~40 years due to corrosion.<p>The Progresso Pier in Mexico was build over 80 years ago with SS rebar, and reportedly has not needed any renovations. A pier built 20 years later using mild steel rebar has been almost completely destroyed by the ocean.<p>I wish more large infrastructure projects would use it. The up-front costs can be 2x higher, but the lifetime savings win out in many situations.<p><a href="https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/10/progreso-pier-worlds-longest.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/10/progreso-pier-worlds-l...</a>
I stayed at a farm in South Tyrol, Italy this fall. (South Tyrol is actually in northern Italy, near the Austrian border.)<p>The oldest property record for the place dated it back to the year 1200. It's a large, normal looking house, and the walls are made out of irregular stone blocks mortared together.<p>For what it's worth, buildings like this aren't that uncommon in Italy.
They forgot the most important part about making a structure last 1000 years: it cannot be made of materials that people would conceivably want to repurpose in times of duress <i>or</i> those materials should be in such a form that it is extremely difficult to remove them from the structure. This is how many historical buildings were lost, they were mined for stone to use in other structures. It's also how many modern buildings get ruined by people looking to sell the copper wiring or pipe, and that's in a politically stable era.<p>A better strategy would be to build the house from massive blocks of the most common stone in the area. The blocks should be large enough that they would require significant effort to move or demolish. I wouldn't recommend using any metal in the structure of the house at all. Even wood could be conceivably stripped in times of need.
Judging from the old towns where I grew up in in Europe, the problem isn't building a house that won't collapse for a 1000 years (a classic half-timbered house [0] will get you through most of the earthquakes to expect here for centuries). The problem is getting it through town fires [1], floods [2], and wars [3, 4].<p>[0] <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Markgroeningen-rathaus2.jpg/800px-Markgroeningen-rathaus2.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Ma...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg</a><p>[4] <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Luftbild_Freiburg_1944.jpg/800px-Luftbild_Freiburg_1944.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Lu...</a>
Stainless steel girders? I see this is a no costs spared build.<p>At one point the author even considered Inconel girders, but practical considerations on builder experience with exotic alloys made that a bridge too far.<p>Even so he is planning to have builders come in an brick up the entire frame before the rest of the house is built.<p>I did like that he realized one of the most important aspects of keeping a house around is to make people want to keep it around. Make sure it doesn't age poorly because then even if the structure is sound people will tear it down because "it is an eyesore".
This might work in a universe with spherical cows but they seem to hand wave away all human elements. My eyes rolled a loop in my head when they advised an urban location. That's a great way to ensure it gets demolished when a marginally better use for the land comes along.<p>If it were me I'd just build some monstrosity of a palace in somewhere that nobody wants such a thing and I'd build it out of stuff that's highly inefficient to repurpose, not steel beams. The best way to keep something around is to make its continued use better than any other option so that people take care of it and give it the capacity to withstand a couple generations of neglect without falling in on itself. A castle (metaphorical or literal) on some cheap land along the highway in North Dakota should suffice.
You should still use reinforcement in the concrete:
Use basalt rebar instead of steel; it will not corrode.
Use a nylon fiber in the mix to protect against impact and spalling from fire.
Use 5000 psi concrete instead of 2500. This is much stronger and will be less likely to break down under any environment.
Use a vapor barrier underneath to help prevent moisture and gas from coming up into the house.
Put the foundation on 8 to 10 inches of 1" rock. This will help protect against soil expansion and allow water to quickly flow underneath or out of underneath the house. It will also prevent critters from digging into any possible underground utilities, etc.
Any cracks after the concrete sets, fill and then seal the entire pad.
Be sure to keep the concrete wet and covered for 30 days to aid in maximum strength.<p>Instead of a steel frame, use insulated concrete forms, again using basalt rebar. This makes a concrete walled house. Use stainless steel trusses (or onsite galvanized steel) for the roof or build a concrete roof with similar construction methods as the insulated concrete forms.<p>The siding of the house should be concrete board or other non combustible material (brick or stone)..or both where it makes sense. But be careful on the mortar used..seal it at least if you expose any of it to the weather.<p>Make sure the eaves are at least two feet out and the eaves over doors more than that. This keeps water away from those areas and the house as a whole.<p>Make sure you have gutters...good ones.<p>Make sure your land around the house moves water around it - even in flash flood events.<p>Have real shutters for your windows.<p>Where it makes sense, especially those areas exposed to weather, do not use wood.<p>Instead of slate..use aluminum shingles.<p>Forget the fireplace...too many potential issues with fire, leaking, etc. They are hard to build for 20 years let alone 1000.<p>Use Fiberglass windows. The best ones will outlast any hardwood.
My parents house in Lincolnshire England was built in the early 1500s, so about 500 years old. Have no doubt it will still be there in another 500. Obviously many changes have been made over the years but the core of the house is the same.<p>Solid, 3ft thick, limestone walls. Lime mortar. Probably no foundations, there has been quite a bit of movement previously but none recently. In one room upstairs the floor slopes by nearly a foot from one end to the other.<p>As far as we know the majority of the roofing/floor timbers are original.<p>Limestone slate roof, this needs replacing about every 70years.<p>Stays cool in the summer and relatively easy to keep warm in the winter. Not efficient in the modern sense though.<p>The way we live changes, trying to build a house for how people will live in the future is impossible. All we can do is build something that’s maintainable, solid and hope for the best.<p>I think the danger is that if you aim to design something that will last 1000 years you will over engineer it and it will be difficult to maintain and modify.
I hate to be a stuck in the mud, but a concrete pad, with unreinforced piles is not going to last a 1000 years. those piles are going to be impossible to repair without breaking the slab, or undermining, which means it's expensive to maintain. (yes Roman concrete has lasted 1k years, but thats a different type to the cement they use now.)<p>The other thing that they've not managed to control is moisture. You can't mix and match steel with lime mortar (I mean you can, but its not wise) You can just put a moisture barrier in there, but you need a way to maintain that (its not like a damp proof course, its far more extensive).<p>Personally if you want to make a house last 1k years, just make a clay lump house. It'll be far cheaper to build, look more realistic and much more well understood how to repair it.
Why have the chimney outside? It's very inefficient...<p><a href="https://www.quora.com/Why-do-American-houses-often-have-the-chimney-outside-and-not-in-the-middle-where-it-would-help-to-keep-the-house-warm?share=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/Why-do-American-houses-often-have-the-...</a>
1 meter wide stone walls, mortar, no foundations and wooden beams is what my family house in Spain is made of. It has been there for several hundred years with absolutely 0 structural remodeling, some cosmetic work has been done. Seeing the house will be there for few more years, not sure 1000 though.<p>If I am correct some of the Romanesque constructions don’t need wood and those have been there for 1000 years.<p>The seismic activity in Spain is almost null, which I guess matters for this structures.
One thing he didn't mention in the location section: Make sure your spot is at least 20 meters above sea level. Not only do you need to account for the ground subsisting, but you also need to account for sea level rise. I wouldn't put it near moving water larger than a creek at all, riverbanks can shift over time and so can coastlines.<p>His suggestion to build in New York City is a bit dubious in a future where we may be forced to abandon the city due to flooding.
As someone who is living in a generational home this article brings several questions to mind. (But it’s a fun thought experiment)<p>1) presumably this home isn’t going to be built by someone in their 20s and will likely be built by someone who has accumulated some wealth. That puts them at 30-60 years old. Is the 1000 year benchmark because you want to pass the home down to your kids?
2) if so, do you think they will like your design choices? Will your kids kids?
3) since this is likely to be built by someone who is affluent it will likely be built somewhere with a high land value. Do you think that there is a good chance that the land won’t be cleared and something else built in its place in the next 100 years?
This being the case it seems that the target of 1000 years is probably 10x too long. A home built to last 100 years is likely to be the better investment. You’re bound to save big on material cost and building codes are likely going to dictate the correct wind/seismic strength anyway. If you pass it down to your kids they will be able to level and rebuild or refurbish the home to meet their needs more easily as well.<p>I live in a home that was passed down to us and we are going to remodel it as it was built for very different circumstances. Having to do this with some overbuilt fortress would likely triple the cost to remodel and severely limit the labor pool to artisans and craftsmen. I could see a building that wasn’t a home shooting for 1000 year lifespans (say a library or school or maybe high rise) but even that seems overkill to me.
> But this cycle of replacement is relatively modern - medieval houses would often last for centuries,<p>Most people in medieval times lived much cheaper structures made of fast degrading materials like wood, mud, and thatch, not stone houses. Therefore most medieval houses did not last centuries.<p>People reused the much rarer stone structures for centuries because without the aid of machines, it was extremely labor intensive to build stone structures. Obviously, they were more valuable since they were more durable.<p>Populations and technological advancement exploded during the centuries afterward - especially after the industrial revolution - so it's not a useful comparison.<p>> and there are examples from around the world of buildings that have lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years while remaining in use - The Pantheon, Aula Palatina, Brihadeeswarar Temple, Verona Area, Chartres Cathedral are a few examples.<p>Those are mostly houses for god[s], not people. Their function is primarily ritual, not to enable the functions of human life.<p>Then as now, for human existence, you need facilities to heat and cool, provide water, prepare food, and remove waste for a large number of people per square meter of building.<p>Modern buildings perform better at those things due to the quantum leap in precision manufactured materials, which are able to keep the elements at bay - but time and nature are constantly attacking man-made square corners and tight fitting joints and seams. Caulk fails. At some point that stuff all needs to be replaced and it represents the majority (materials and labor) of building/maintaining a house.<p>What might be original after 1000 years of the author's house (assuming it survives cultural change, which the author addresses), is only the structure. And a house structure that lasts 1000 years is interesting in the same way that a fossilized dinosaur skeleton is interesting - but the dinosaur's actual plumbing was lost eons ago.<p>The author seems to understand this because they discuss that a goal is for it to survive until the point where people want to maintain it just because it is old.<p>That's great, but it's not a kind of prescription for building housing at scale sustainably today.
Build with stone blocks. Even if it gets knocked over the blocks just need to be reassembled to be useful whether as a wall, a tower, a road, or another house.
I'm sceptical about the slate roof too. Houses with slate roofs routinely lose slates in high winds which is dangerous. I narrowly missed being decapitated waking around Brighton in a big storm in '90. I assume that this is a maintenance issue, the fixtures use to hold the slate tend to have a shorter lifespan than the slate itself. Many buildings in the UK that were originally slate roofed been converted to conventional ceramic or concrete tile.<p>I'm surprised that there wasn't any discussion about thatch for the roof. It has a multi-thousand year history in the UK. So while it goes in and out of fashion, there's always someone around who knows how to do it.<p>I had friends who lived in 500 year old cottage with an oak frame and a thatched roof. It has several very long maintenance cycles, annual, decennial, and semicentennial, but even those can be occasionally missed. It's a flexible form of construction in more ways than one
The moment I saw the diagram text "Seismic moment connection with Fuses", I knew it was not meant to last 1000 year. The moment you introduce seismic fuses, you need active Repair post a large earthquake. This is like expecting to keep repairing every few years and claim Life.<p>My first though reading the title was, you need to build it with STONE. So was "Taj Mahal" and many other religious structure lasting LONG years.
I doubt this house would make it to 50 years in places with a moderate climate. The lack of insulation makes it way too expensive to use as a dwelling or office (ignoring that you could not get a building permit in many places because it would not be able to meet energy efficiency guidelines). It is mentioned as a detail to be worked out but it is a critical detail. Around here not being able to be made energy efficient in a cost effective way is one of the main reasons old houses are torn down.
It will be torn down long before it has a chance to become historical.
Having built my own house, I can definitely say this article is for intellectual stimulation only, and won't result in the construction of an actual home. Not only will you never find contractors and subs that give a shit about this level of detail, but you will struggle explaining these things to permit approvers, county bureaucrats and other people who want to make your life hell because you know more than they do, have more money than them, and are doing something different. Fun article, great information, but won't result in an adobe as planned.
My only issue with this was the steel potentially rusting over 1000 years. There is a lot of water vapor that moves in and out of a house and mitigation of that water is important. Stainless steel will rust given enough time/water too.<p>Anti-corrosion coating on the steel and waterproofing of the foundation slab with a self adhered membrane are two overlooked points imo. Easy enough to tie in waterproofing of the slab with a water/vapor barrier on the walls and the roofing underlayments too.<p>Unsealed brick is also relatively weak if there is a significant amount of water vapor and prolonged years of freeze/thaw will eat away at the brick/mortar and reduce structural integrity of the facade.<p>I may be biased since waterproofing product development is my day job.<p>As for the other comments on the cost of steel being obscene, I'd counter that volumetric steel modular construction is a growing market. Steel is also more easily recycled than wood and lumber costs in 2021 were really high. Probably part of the reason Katerra went bankrupt too (mismanagement played a role too I'm sure).<p>I agree on the steel in the ground with corrosion, I'm guessing the author implies there is an anti-corrosion coating on there already (since not having one seems idiotic), but I suspect it wouldn't last that long and honestly it seems a little excessive since slab on grade is pretty common and I've seen 200+ year old homes sitting on big rocks that are sitting on compacted soil.<p>Fun article though.
Centuries-old wooden buildings have the advantage of being made from old-growth wood, which isn't available to modern builders.<p>My current house is made out of logs. We'll see how long it lasts, though I suppose I won't be around to see it in 1000 years.
Constructing a building that would last 1000 years is not particularly hard with modern engineering and materials.<p>The hard part is, first and foremost, getting someone to pay for it. I'm not going to live 1000 years. My great grandkids likely won't even live to see the year 3022. Why would I spend orders of magnitude more for a house if a structure meant to last ~100 years serves my needs perfectly?<p>My friend just needed to redo the foundation on his house. He could have spent 10-100x what he needed to and installed a reinforced concrete foundation with deep steel pylons. But that would have been a waste of his money when wooden peirs works just as well for all his intents & purposes.<p>The second problem is making sure people want to maintain the structure for 1000 years, or at least not tear it down. I don't think this is as hard as the other comentors are saying, though. Just don't build the house in a city. The house will be torn down if it's in a city. The house has a good chance of staying a house if it's built out in the countryside on a decent plot of land. Nobody will ever want anything from that structure but to live in it, so it will be maintained.
> but reinforced concrete is a poor choice for a long lifespan building due to its susceptibility to corrosion<p>You can reinforce concrete with materials other than rebar. The theory behind reinforcement is a great idea, we shouldn't abandon it. If you don't reinforce it, it needs to be much much thicker and the ground needs to be much more resistant to uneven settling.<p>The most durable construction is solid stone, period. Go to a quarry, quarry some gigantic boulders, carve them into giant walls and pillars. It will be very difficult to install but it's been done before by ancient peoples. It will be a very <i>cold</i> house, but it will last thousands of years. Some rich dudes in Egypt made some pretty big ones a while back, but I imagine we could make them more efficient today.<p>Barring that, just pour the entire house out of a slow-cure concrete. The foundation doesn't actually have to last 1,000 years, it just needs to be modifiable with jackscrews into the main load-bearing members of the house.
The construction presented uses modern design elements that are barely 50 years old. While surely sturdy, it's still speculative. Europe has loads of original construction from the 11th and 12th century, offering valid and proven examples to study.
Apologies if someone already made this comment, but if you want your house to last 1000 years I think you ought to start with giving your fellow humans a reason to want that too.<p>Your future self, revived from a frozen brain in your Auckland compound, is unlikely to find the house still available regardless of how you built it. Because laws, incentives, needs and desires change. This could work to your advantage, with future generations valuing your project-house for reasons you can’t predict, but it’s more likely to go the other way. Even if your sarcophagus is good for eternity, you need folks to leave it alone.<p>Maybe start by founding a religion.
For people interested in construction I really recommend checking out Passive House Accelerator on youtube (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFsq1de6hTZOuwQd46pRUQg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFsq1de6hTZOuwQd46pRUQg</a>).<p>Building energy efficient homes from regenerative and recyclable materials makes more sense than a stone and steel bunker.<p>A good intro to Passive House Design: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxeuRByPpeM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxeuRByPpeM</a>
This is interesting. About to do a major reno on an old home (early 1900s) and definitely had questions about making upgrades that would last a long time. One of the greenest things that you can do to a home is not build a new one as I understand it. Another one would be to build it so it lasts ... not like this throwaway society we live in. That said I don't think I can do steel girders to extend the life of the house -- that would be tough ask. Any thoughts anyone? Thanks.<p>Other green benefits -- electrify as much as reasonable, thermal regulate, insulate etc.
Living in a coastal area and having lived through a couple of big earthquakes, what you want is housing that can be recycled or composted after a lifetime of around 60 years. Long enough for a generation or two and probably 3-4 renovation cycles.<p>Hurricane Katrina and the Christchurch earthquakes created a lot of green spaces afterwards. It was amazing to see a house disappear and be replaced by grass before long. Or sometimes just an empty section with a letterbox.<p>In my experience it's better to work with entropy when it comes down to it.
Wow - when I got to the comment about brick and moisture... it's a solved problem. In fact there are even better solutions like<p><a href="https://youtu.be/WuYvDuOQ-5M?t=375" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/WuYvDuOQ-5M?t=375</a><p>Indeed if the author would just follow Matt Risinger's channel they would get quite a few far more practical ways to address their concerns.<p>Expert in a vacuum vs. experience in the field. Also a prime example of "no plan survives contact with the enemy".
Somehow I find it weird that it doesn't reference previous art which has shown that it really could survive 1000 years like the Bamberg Cathedral for example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamberg_Cathedral" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamberg_Cathedral</a> which was founded 1002 and has been used since then on a daily basis.
The 1800s era core buildings at MIT (1906) and Stanford (1892) are made out of bulk sandstone/limestone and are still standing. Post WWII concrete crap are crumbling and being replaced by fake-stone cladding buildings. One gem ironically called the Terman Engineering Building had to be torn down after only 30 years because of severe deterioration.<p>The core buildings might last a half millennium.
One problem is that stainless is valuable. So is aluminum. Even regular steel has scrap value. The Great Pyramid lost its nice smooth exterior simply because the rock it was made of was nice and not easily available in that area.<p>Build it out of basalt blocks in an area with lots of basalt. Low seismic activity, ideally no freeze/thaw cycle, little to no water, and no humans.
For those interested this project has been built with longevity in mind.<p>The MiniCO2 Houses: The Maintenance-Free House
<a href="https://www.realdaniabyogbyg.org/projects/the-minico2-houses-the-maintenance-free-house-tradition" rel="nofollow">https://www.realdaniabyogbyg.org/projects/the-minico2-houses...</a>
Given the danger of a nuclear war, you might want to design your house like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex</a><p>"The complex was built under 2,000 feet (610 m) of granite on 2 hectares (5 acres). Fifteen three-story buildings are protected from movement, e.g. earthquake or explosion, by a system of giant springs that the buildings sit on and flexible pipe connectors to limit the operational effect of movement....<p>The bunker is built to deflect a 30 megaton nuclear explosion as close as 2 kilometers. Within a mountain tunnel are sets of 25-ton blast doors and another for the civil engineering department...The complex has its own power plant, heating and cooling system, and water supply"
On a similar note, I've wondered at construction of a million year time capsule. Layered I imagine, with the artifact cargo in some neutral gel, inside a gold envelope, inside a steel envelope, inside a ceramic shell, buried in an ablative material like cement or resin, sunk in a deep oceanic trench?
Not sure about 1000 years but I've been following Dylan Iwakuni (Instagram and Youtube) in his process of relocating an entire Kominka (a traditional Japanese house) which will turn into a chairs-museum.<p>The beams that make the structure are held together using some clever wooden joints that I've never seen before, some of which only reveal their secrets when taken apart and reassembled, all of which is done almost exclusively using hand tools:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_geUQSlnbQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_geUQSlnbQ</a><p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/dylaniwakuni/" rel="nofollow">https://www.instagram.com/dylaniwakuni/</a>
If you really want to build a house that will last, you need to build with decay not against it. The reason Japanese architectures are some of the oldest in the world is because they're built to be modular. The prioritize form over material. If one part breaks, you can replace it without having to destroy the entire building. This is also true with Kath Kuni architecture in India. Not only are these building forms extremely resistant to earthquakes and other disasters, but they can also be continuously rebuilt piecemeal<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58O7SRy46DM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58O7SRy46DM</a>
Building Science Fight Club (I follow on IG. There's also a website.) has made me skeptical about these kinds of articles. There's a ton of nuance to doing construction correctly for the particular environment one is building in.
Step 1. Build it on solid bedrock in a location not prone to earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, rising ocean levels, volcanoes, etc. Build it in a location unlikely to be bombed or otherwise involved in human conflict.
I live in Florida. That factors substantially in how I'd build for longevity. No concern for earthquakes, or snow, great concern for termites, hurricanes, flooding. Pick land near Winter Haven, Lake Wales.<p>I'd build a wood frame style house with steel studs, and steel roof trusses, aluminum roofing. Pour a concrete slab on grade, be excessive with the dimensions, perhaps 10"-12" thick (25-30cm). Bedrock is limerock 40' down (12m), brutally porous, lots of sinkholes.<p>Would it last one thousand years? I don't know, it might, but it would last for centuries at least, or until the next developer decided to bulldoze it.
The biggest risk to a house built today for the next 1000 years is regulatory.<p>Eg. The government coming round and saying "this isn't up to spec for [energy efficiency, fire safety, future housing requirements], it needs to be torn down and rebuilt".<p>The way to <i>defend</i> against that is to make it a building of historical importance, so that rules or exceptions are written specifically for it.<p>So my 1000 year building will be a massive artpiece, cathedral, or something along those lines.<p>As soon as you get famous enough, it doesn't matter what materials your building is made of, it will end up being maintained.
If you want a house to be able to exist for 1000 years without human contact, you should look at neolithic burial chambers, e.g. long barrows[0], and copy their construction.<p>If you want a house to be able to exist for 1000 years <i>with</i> human contact, then the only thing you need is for the humans to care and to proactively fix problems as they happen.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow#/media/File:Wayland_Smithy_Long_barrow.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow#/media/File:Waylan...</a>
Slate roofs are a solid choice. Our 1875 house in Denmark still has the original roof with Port Madoc slates. It's in good condition, and the few slates that have broken can easily be replaced.<p>Slate has a higher upfront cost than other roofing materials, but it's a shame that so many houses are built with concrete roof tiles or fibercement roofing which only last 25-35 years before needing a complete replacement. In comparison, the typical life span for roofs with clay tiles are 75+ years and slate roofs 100+ years.
The author cites London as being a desirable city given the historical lack of disasters, steady government, and cultural preference for preservation etc. London was also my first thought as a safe haven for a long lasting build.<p>On the other hand, I can't help but feel London would be an obvious target for nuclear annihilation in some future conflict; UK commerce / industry / power / wealth is deeply centralised in London.<p>A better option would be to stick to the UK, but maybe a 100 miles outside of London proper.
Pressure treated wood: I see this as an essential material in modern building. Our own house used non-pressure-treated, regular boards for the sill (the walls attach to these sill boards, which are directly on top of the poured foundation, which had moisture seeping in). We got ants and termites who loved this damp wood, and they turned it to shreds in just 40 years. Will pressure treated wood last for 1000 years? I have no idea, but regular ole' wood didn't last 50 in our case.
1000 years, huh?<p>Where is the grav-drone delivery pad?<p>You know the satelite microwave energy beam receiver needs to be aligned, and have at least an 8m opening to the sky right?<p>And are all other openings properly sealed or filtered? You don't want any of the radioactive atmosphere seeping in.<p>Speaking of which, you do have at least 1m double walls to house water radidion shielding, or are you using lead?<p>Only kidding, but it's impossible to know what needs will be in 1000 years, so it's much better to make something modular, reconfigurable, etc.
Very few people here construct buildings, yet the majority of posts aim to critique the article-- which itself seems a bit theoretical.<p>I hope that's not a microcosm for our industry.
I would build my house with carbon ceramic blocks. Those will last for at least 100 billion years and will even survive when earth gets swallowed by a swollen sun.
Lets see, Bill Gate's 1990s house had ethernet ports and a 512K screen on every wall. Perhaps he should have consulted Gordon Moore (still alive) first.
Nice but no cigar. You start bij looking at structures that lasted thousands of years.<p>So you start with a giant blob of rock (mountain) then carve your cave out of it.<p>Have a reliable source of water nearby and carve out a trompe for compressed air. You cant beat a solid state megalithic generator.<p>For heating you carve out a chicken coop with a thin wall bordering the living room.<p>Use finger paint on the walls to explain how everything works and for decoration.
Venice has been around for ages and it is just brick houses build on top of a lot of tree trunks driven into a lake and wooden platforms with stone on top - no complex engineering here.<p>I think the biggest issue having a house lasting is doing constant preventative maintenance or swapping out bits with more modern longer lasting bits e.g replaced all wooden window frames with aluminum.
It is fun to think about how you could build something to last for 10 generations or 1000 years.<p>I personal would look to the subsurface. In the right location unground dwellings could last longer that human civilization the earth. <a href="https://www.atlassurvivalshelters.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.atlassurvivalshelters.com/</a>
A building to last a thousand years, but it has no eaves at all?<p>Good luck with that. The building might last, but only if each successive owners can afford all the maintenance costs of replacing windows, flashings, sidings, sealants, etc, and all the other exterior materials that will rot quickly due to no eaves to protect them.
Key issues with longevity is property rights, land use, and architectural quality. If you build on a parcel that is purchasable,someone will buy it and redevelop. If you choose a spot that is suitable for many uses, one of them will trump residential. If it is ugly or costly to maintain , it will be torn down.
There's an entire field and organizations that study and develop contstruction technologies...<p><a href="https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-the-perfect-wall" rel="nofollow">https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...</a>
If you're gonna use stainless steel frame, might as well use reinforced concrete with stainless steel rebar too, no?<p>Of course, if you want true longevity, carve out a cave in a hard rocky hillside. That'll last thousands of years.
Tbh just look at houses in e.g. Luebeck, Germany or other old european cities. Some houses still in use have their foundation over 700 years ago and even survived 2 WWs. So, there you go -> thats how to build.
There is a lot of discussion about how to do it, but not why to do it? Why would you want to overbuild a house like this? Why would one think this structure would even be desired that far in to the future?
Roman concrete isn't around cus it was unreinfoced. It's a different mix than what is used in modern times (portland cement usually). Modern concrete wont last 1000 years reinforcing or no.
Buckingham Slate shingles are currently not available.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.buckinghamslate.com/roofing/" rel="nofollow">https://www.buckinghamslate.com/roofing/</a>
For a house to last 1000 years, it has to be lived in for 1000 years. As anyone has seen, any structure left uninhabited for a number of years just degrades.
> It should be legible - it should be easy to understand what it is and how it works in the absence of drawings or other information<p>I like this use of "legible"
he bangs on about earthquakes and then builds a two-storey house..<p>also, a hollow cuboid doesn't strike me as being the strongest shape<p>show me a thick hexagonal prism bungalow!
Yuck, colonial.<p>Here’s the best way to build a 1000 year house or a 10,000 year house: build a giant in-place concrete form with the following features: deep waffle grid foundation slab, rounded corners and arches everywhere, thick walls and of course tasteful layout of rooms and embossings. Lay out tons of carbon-fiber reinforcement and then fill the entire form in one monolithic pour with ultra high performance concrete. Attach a thick layer of rock wool to the outside with masonry screws.