clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Pitting Pre-War Buildings Against New Construction

New, 10 comments

The age-old debate over new vs. antique rears its head over on Streeteasy this week, with a forum pitting contemporary buildings against yesteryear's counterparts. Brick Underground sums up the debate at present with a few salient points: if you're choosy and don't mind dropping a ton of cash, new buildings can yield "tomb-like quiet, lower energy bills, and finishes that don't fall apart after two years," plus perks like washer/dryers and open-kitchen layouts that are scarce in pre-war counterparts. Prewar structures may higher ceiling heights and better room proportions, "but their reputation for quiet is a bit of an overstatement; tenements and brownstones (originally designed for occupancy by a single family rather than being diced up into apartments) tend to be among the least quiet buildings to live in."

Since the Curbediverse is an opinionated bunch, we put it to you: which era of building reigns supreme?
Poll results

· Prewar versus new: Which is better? [Brick Underground]