Fetishizing Disposability

M. Nolan Gray, a planner and researcher at UCLA, scolds that America needs to Stop Fetishizing Old Homes. He lists several complaints to buttress his point.

For starters, before I go into a critique of Mr. Gray’s points, I do not believe all old homes are better than new homes. Just as I do not believe the opposite. Generalizations, as such, get us nowhere.

Gray makes some broad and overreaching statements to condemn, in general, old housing.

He begins by labeling old housing as “at best, subpar and, at worst, unsafe.” No doubt, some old housing surely is subpar and unsafe. However, so is some new housing.

He next takes a dig at “self-righteous” preservationists. Though some may be pompous or pretentious (which can be the case in many occupations), some older things are worth saving and equally attractive as their newer, supposed, replacements. He fails to mention the craftsmanship and materials in older, quality homes, which many newer (even well-built) homes don’t contain.

Gray claims we “fetishize” old homes. I would like to think some people just like to take care of well-built or well-crafted items. Maybe Gray just fetishizes disposability over maintenance. 

He states, “If we want to ensure universal access to decent housing, we should be building a lot more of it.” First, although a noble goal, I'm not sure Republicans want to ensure universal access to decent housing. Second, new housing and old housing are not mutually exclusive. We can have well-built, well-maintained older housing alongside newer construction.

Here I should point out I am not for saving every building simply because of old age or some sentimentalism. Some buildings are too far-gone and exorbitant investment just does not make sense. But Gray's overarching theme here that everything old stinks and everything new is wonderful is just an extreme oversimplification and wrong.

Gray then lists some regional differences in the age of homes. Some places have more new homes than others do and vice-versa. Rather than condemning, in general, old homes, it seems Gray’s issue is with dilapidated properties and zoning practices. If this is the case, we can agree. Older, dilapidated buildings should be allowed to be razed so that newer, denser construction (whatever the highest and best use of the site is) can replace it.

He then goes on to proclaim that new housing is “just plain nice to live in.” Yet, some newer housing is also cheap, poorly built crap. Gray had previously criticized fetishizing the old, but here he is fetishizing something for simply being new.

Gray then rattles off insulation, HVAC and windows as supposed reasoning for why newer is better. He also discusses room layout and closet sizes. Yet, retrofitting an older home for insulation, HVAC and windows is common. Considering the quality of some older homes, this is also more economical than completely new construction. Moreover, older, quality-built homes have larger closets and functional layouts. Cheap construction is cheap construction whether it is built in 1922 or 2022.

Sure, there are a lot of old crappy buildings out there that aren't worth saving. But that does not de facto conclude that anything newer is better. There is a lot of cheap, new stuff. So how about cities look for ways to build dense housing where needed along with respecting older, quality construction. We are a pretty innovative country (when we want to be), I think we can move forward and accomplish two goals simultaneously.