The optimum

We apply criteria from neighboring disciplines to a change of apartments.

One of our consultants is moving from one apartment to another this month, both in Alexandria.  It’s not a great time to do it, in the midst of a pandemic and with the threat of a bit of snow (and ice), but it needs to be done.  His present dwelling is due to be demolished in 2021, and he’s been looking for a place to go since summer.  He’d rather spend some time in research and jump when the right one becomes available, than take what he can get when forced out.

His new place has character.  The hardwood floors are uneven and have been patched in places.  There are fireplaces that have been blocked up.  Assigning a room to a particular use, like “bedroom” and “living room” is difficult, because the house was originally built as a single home, and only later divided into four apartments.  He understands it was constructed about 1760, and rebuilt (at least inside) in the mid-1800s.

His old place, he concedes, does need work.  It is a large complex built in the 1990s.  It has been renovated at least once, as evidenced by the fact that the hall closet will not close if clothes are hung in it, and the blinds and windows do not quite match the window frames.  The holes in the floor in the laundry room are becoming difficult to get around.  Redevelopment is not a bad idea.

So which is the better piece of engineering, the house still sturdy after 260 years, or the complex falling apart after 30?  Of course it’s a trick question.  An engineer will ask, “How long did you want it to last?” and point out that any life after that (with a suitable margin) is wasted effort.  There is a cartoon running around somewhere on the internet with the proverbial half-filled glass.  The pessimist says, “The glass is half-empty.”  The optimist says, “The glass is half-full.”  The engineer says, “The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.”

An economist will try to answer the engineer’s question.  Suppose the buyer of the house has children, and intends that they inherit it.  The house should then last two lifetimes.  Longer than that is not really something one can plan for.  There may not be grandchildren; they might want to live elsewhere; they might not be able to pay the increased property taxes; that part of town might turn into a crime-ridden slum.  Or the house might just burn down.  So it makes no economic sense to build a house that will last more than two generations, and anyway something that could be guaranteed that long would be hugely expensive.  We leave aside considerations that more modern houses could be far more efficient, and that the fourth generation is free-riding on the expenditures of the first.

So our consultant is moving into an uneconomic, badly-engineered home.  He is willing.  It has a much faster internet.