Over on Stay Free! magazine’s blog, there’s a great interview with Robert Zagaroli by editor (and limestone owner) Carrie McLaren, associate professor of architectural technology at New York City College of Technology and life-long Brooklynite. The Topic: Were older buildings in general (and brownstones in particular) really built better than today’s new construction? Here’s what Mr. Z had to say:

It’s a cliché, but brownstones truly were built to last. New construction tends to be cheaper in two senses: it costs less and is lower quality. Today, it’s perfectly legal to build with half-inch gypsum board, but most people can put their fist through it. If the house gets wet or moldy, the walls can’t handle the wear and tear. The standard in brownstones was plaster. You still have plaster walls in 200-year-old houses because plaster is very durable. The materials used in 18th and 19th century construction lasted longer: plaster, brick, and wood from old-growth forests. Today, the labor doesn’t exist to install those products. The technology has changed. All wood now is farmed. There is no old-growth forest to tear down, so the wood industry has harvested trees for the last 30 years. It plants fast-growing trees, but the wood shrinks and therefore it’s not as reliable, not as durable, not as sturdy, accurate, or dimensionally accurate. Newer wood has a shorter shelf life.

More on planned obsolescence, the NYC building code and why stainless steel kitchen are so ‘nineties on the link.
Are Old Houses Really Built to Last? [Stay Free! via Curbed]