> I don't care too much what it looks like on the outside, cause I'll be inside for much more time than i spend looking at the outside.
But if your'e in a development of McMansions your view outside will be onto a bunch of ugly houses.
Buildings like this are disrespectful to posterity.
When someone builds a house like this, they are building something that will be around for years, being an eyesore the whole time, and not even functioning well on the inside either most of the time.[1]
[1] Or maybe that's the point, nothing in north america is built to last. Probably they will be torn down in 40 years anyway.
> Probably they will be torn down in 40 years anyway.
You say that like that's a bad thing. IMO, the ability to tear down and rebuild on a 40 year timescale is a feature, not a bug. We get better design, more energy efficient, safer, easier to maintain, etc. etc. homes for each new generation. That's a good thing.
If the materials in a house can be easily recycled, sure, but I suspect that most of the timber, drywall, and plywood will eventually end up in a landfill somewhere. Environmentally, its usually a better deal to upgrade rather than rebuild.
Your note has it right. These are all piles of pine sticks and drywall. (I've lived in several of them.) They aren't designed, built, or purchased for posterity.
But if your'e in a development of McMansions your view outside will be onto a bunch of ugly houses.
Buildings like this are disrespectful to posterity.
When someone builds a house like this, they are building something that will be around for years, being an eyesore the whole time, and not even functioning well on the inside either most of the time.[1]
[1] Or maybe that's the point, nothing in north america is built to last. Probably they will be torn down in 40 years anyway.