Rents are like to spiral going on this.

BikingBud

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Yes. The surviving Victorian houses of today were the best of all the Victorian houses built. Thrug doesn't like the assumption for reasons unknown.

In 100 years time only the best of today's houses will survive too.

So what would be your guess?

20%

50%

5%?

Malthusian

BikingBud wrote: »

So what would be your guess?

10%, and it's not a guess, it's Sturgeon's Law, the only immutable, unbreakable law in the universe.

The 11th percentile of Elizabethan houses will be demolished at some point in the medium-long term as they will be considered crap. And not worth improving. Like the Victorian "slums" with nowhere to build an indoor toilet.

*edit* Correction (vague use of the scientific term "crap"): They will be considered not just crap, but uninhabitable because they lack an amenity that a future society deems essential. Like an indoor toilet or central heating wasn't in the Victorian era, but is now. As they are crap they will not be worth making habitable, and will be demolished to make way for habitable Carolingian or Williamite houses, most of which will be crap. And so the world turns.

phillw

Malthusian wrote: »

There is a taboo about cutting into a conversation about babies by saying "Everyone shut up and change the subject, I'm single and don't want anyone to talk about babies". Quite correctly this is considered rude, self-obsessed and pathetic.

Asking about babies constantly is rude, self obsessed and pathetic.

edgex

Don't forget that the Victorian period was >60 years, with massive technological, manufacturing & social changes.
A late-Victorian house will be considerably different to an early-Vic, & even the cheapest of the late-Vic would have been better built than the older stuff they replaced.

BikingBud

Malthusian wrote: »

10%, and it's not a guess, it's Sturgeon's Law, the only immutable, unbreakable law in the universe.

What's Jimmy Krankie got to do with it?