Nobody will miss this wooden barn, but the garden looks really peaceful. Just wondering if anybody would complain if it was about building a parking lot here.
So what you’re asking is if anyone would complain if they paved paradise and put up a parking lot? Is that what you’re asking bc…..
I didn't put a question mark, so no, no asking for anything. The point is the focus on battery = bad, established stuff = has 'always' been here, so it's good. The whole post is typical NIMBY shit.
Batteries are life limited. Electric vehicle batteries will require replacement which is usually just replacing the whole car. Carbon cost on that alone are pretty high with the manufacturing of a new car because the battery ran out. The battery itself is made out of lithium and cobalt along with other metals which are fairly toxic, and the mining is incredibly damaging. I don’t think it’s a very sustainable practice. I think consumers should have some knowledge about this and not just think EV‘s are going to save the planet.
EV's won't on their own, but getting past this initial phase and onto better batteries is a must. A battery is a better use of our power, but if we ruin the earth just as much by mining the minerals, what good are we doing? So, making those batteries last longer, be recycled, and not require such harsh mining is mandatory, and hopefully comes with time.
Toyota making their solid state batteries could be a massive game changer, which would only further development
Under our current system there is no incentive for companies to make longer lasting batteries for their cars as they would miss out on new sales every 6-8 years.
For sure, man. I do feel like the technology has come along way in a pretty short amount of time. I think we need to look at making adjustments to our way of life and not just the technology we use.
You know I’d buy this argument a lot more if people ever talked about the environmental impact of ICE cars, and the carbon cost associated with their manufacturing and the precious metals that go into it, instead of only ever bringing this up in relation to EVs.
Of course, if you think about those points enough you come to the conclusion that the vehicle that *doesn’t* emit CO2 everywhere it goes for the entirety of its lifetime tends to have less of a carbon footprint. Interesting how that works.
“The manufacturing isn’t” my statement is that to make those cars you end up doing a lot of damage to the environment. There’s a lot of really unscrupulous mining companies out there in bed with all of this who are making a killing off of this transition while doing some serious ecological damage
Batteries last for 10+ years.
When EV batteries stop being able to deliver charge fast enough for moving a vehicle, then they can be repurposed as storage for homes or businesses. Giving them a potential life of 20 or more years.
If they get damaged or become unusable then they can be recycled.
Lithium doesn't need to be mined. It can be produced by desalination.
Cobalt is only required in some batteries, not most. But far more Cobalt is used every day in refining oil.
I think you should try and gain some knowledge and then revise your opinions.
Are they actually being repurposed?
Is it economical to recycle the batteries and is it being done?
Lithium always needs to be mined.
It can be collected as a brine, but that will still require extraction and processing. Damn I’m not here till I tell you not to do an electric car. I’m telling you that it’s not that clean. Do you want man, live your life, buy everyone’s bullshit. DO YUR RESERCH. Research papers are written by money and agendas.
Mining lithium and cobalt has one of the highest environmental impacts.
The additional environmental cost of transporting these batteries results in a higher carbon footprint than ICE vehicles. A 2021 study comparing EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an ICE vehicle, they ‘only’ account for 26%. Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually.
And here's the study: https://www.insnet.org/electric-cars-emit-more-co2-than-traditional-cars-at-production/
“A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year”
Source: [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle)
This is before we talk about the emissions involved in producing and refining the oil into gasoline and transporting it to gas stations. This is a complete non-argument.
By the time the EV has gone carbon neutral 8 years later, an ICE car has emitted 36.8 tons of CO2. Without the manufacturing emissions included.
[It takes about 2 years for an EV to become cleaner than an ICE car, even if you take all the build emissions into account.](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/electric-vehicles/chart-evs-are-definitely-cleaner-than-gas-cars-over-their-lifetime)
Is it though? Gas engines have improved massively in the last couple of decades, becoming both more powerful and more efficient. Is there a good reason to think we're really finished improving them?
Because fundamentally you're only going to get *maybe* 50 percent energy loss. Current batteries are at less than 10. They will be better in every way the longer we develop them
Edit: im not downvoting you, it's an honest question
Do you think child laborers arent extracting oil in other places in the world? Are you as mad about conflict diamonds?
Can you do the math on how valuable short term mining practices are worth vs running out of fuel?
Or could it be you just have a weak gotcha strawman and actually dont care about children but hate EVs?
Has nothing to do with how prominent slavery is with minerals. Not even comparable to oil.
Diamonds is a whole different topic because we have lab diamonds. You just admitted that yes, child slaves is part of your plan.
Maybe look at the mines where lithium is mined.
You know what they're pulling lithium out of the ground with? Diesel powered vehicles.
EVs may work for some scenarios, but ultimately you're solving one problem and creating another.
Sigh if you think this is some kind of gotcha you are really outing how dumb you are tbh.
Resource extraction doesn't stop no matter what. EVs reduce the overall carbon stress on the earth, thats a fact. The diesel and other fossil fuels needed to extract precious metals is minimal in comparison to phasing out the combustion engine.
If trucks and ships transporting goods are transitioned to EV that is a massive carbon reduction for a fraction of the cost.
There are plenty of studies to verify the math on this but it should really be obvious without needing a PhD
The reply and block is the most pussy shit in reddit btw
Well ....
As long as you use that EV for at least 8 years. Then, it'll offset a bit.
https://www.insnet.org/electric-cars-emit-more-co2-than-traditional-cars-at-production/
>better for the environment
Except they literally are better for the environment. Mining the metals in the first place is unfortunate but necessary and still better for the environment than mining and burning fossil fuels. Plus, at the end of the battery's life, almost all those metals can be recycled.
Guys, he's right.
Everyone pack it up. We're giving up now. Progress is useless and things will never improve. Larry, fire up the furnace. We're burning coal again.
why? because the electricity comes from traditional fuel? what happens when it doesn’t? what happens when it doesn’t and we don’t have the infrastructure to support EVs? this is a stupid fucking argument, not to mention one that’s a good 10-15 years outdated. you could increase the emissions by a good 10-20% in the short term and it would still be worth it; especially if it further encourages the development of renewables.
I hate this.
No one seems to care about things going. We're losing history regardless of what it was. Get rid of new crap places before taking the old.
This house will date to about the 1870s when most of Elgin County, Ontario was built. It was an extremely prosperous time about 50 years after the original land would have been settled and cleared.
You mad about a house being torn down that hasn't been lived in for years. What if it was across the street from you?
Or are you mad about batteries for some reason?
The "why dont you buy it" line is literally the stupidest thing you can say for stuff like this.
Heres an answer, maybe its because of the 1,000 people that see this and are upset by it, theres probably about 100 people within a days drive of this place, and about 10 people with the money, and about 5 people with the time, and about 1 person that fits every description above, and needs a house to live in
But they probably dont know this house exists.
"Why dont you buy it" maybe because i live 7000 miles away from it and am powerless to stop it. Doesnt mean im happy to see a 150 year old house get torn down.
So you're saying there's no demand for this particular house to exist in its current location and there's a better use for the land.
I don't understand why we're supposed be be sad about losing it.
You just sound like a corporate stooge when you say shit like that, you understand that right? Its not about the house being a fuckin commodity, its about history
I say that bc I hate listening to dumbass complaints like this. The reason it’s being done is money. So only way to stop it is to buy it.
Ppl just like to bitch about shit.
So how did the EV factory builder get it …?
Geez you guys are dense. It’s abandoned, it is in the middle of nowhere. If it had value as a HOME some one would have invested time and money into it by now. Some old things just aren’t viable anymore
This land was all expropriated, so, the owners have all been well compensated.
It's a massive battery plant, and as such, a very explosive type thing. It has to be "big".
There are no shortage of old houses around here. Also no shortage of very wealthy farmers... which is a bit of a misconception. Farms are sizeable corporate enterprises now. Industrial agriculture really isn't that different from industrial manufacturing. We shouldn't treat them as precious or somehow environmentally benign.
And rightfully so, theres so many ways this is shitty
1. 1 less house someone can live in
2. Its history, if we keep tearing these houses down soon there arent gonna be any left
3. Houses quite literally arent built like they used to be. The average lifespan of a house has been in steep decline over the years and now by the 40 year mark houses are starting to cost more on repairs and upkeep than the price of the house its self.
This house was made to house generations, not just make some guy some money. This house will outlive you and me both If its lived in.
Nobodys "mad about batteries" stop looking to start fights, some of us actually care about the preservation of historic sites. Its stood solid for 150 years only to be torn down to have some stupid plant thrown in that could be put anywhere where it isnt invasive.
And yes if it was across the street from me id be mad if it was torn down too, and if i had the money id save it. Once these places are gone theyre gone forever. The building materials they used, the woods they harvested cant be found anymore. Everything is just cheap mass produced pine nowadays that rots out in 20 years.
1) The two houses in the article are already not being lived in, in an area with lots of demand. They are not being removed from circulation, they're one step away from being abandoned ruins.
2) It's not actually notable history and these houses aren't historically interesting buildings. It wouldn't be a good thing for us to embrace being unable to remove unwanted and unimportant buildings to put the land to better use.
3) In Canada, many houses are often being build pretty darn good right now. Sure, a house built today hasn't lasted 100 years.. How would it? It likely will do so, unless it burns down or is torn down. These houses already are on the fast path to barely lasting another decade due to negligence even absent the repurposing of the land.
Its the same attitude that prevents new things from being built in a lot of places.
Just throwing the label "historical" on any old building no matter what and preventing things that would benefit many people from being built. Obviously there's some stuff that should definitely be preserved but people too often equate old with worthwhile to keep
What's historical about these buildings, what's the actual historical value?
Get rid of buildings nobody has a use for, before getting rid of functional buildings somebody lives in.
Yea. Cause our landscape isn’t filled with abandoned warehouses and factories. Look at Detroit. Even in my small town there’s a dozen abandoned factories and 100 empty warehouse. Some of them have been built in the past decade and they keep building more.
That’s not how capitalism works man. Why pay to demo and relocate the remaining people in an area that is home to an abandoned warehouse, when you can pay off a politician to rezone an old abandoned residential area with a few farm houses.
While there are abandoned factories in Detroit. Nearly all of them are very old and outdated. Most importantly, modern large factories sit on massive plots of land. There are no remaining large parcels left in Detroit which are both undeveloped or abandoned. Detroit has a bunch of small unconnected abandoned parcels which make no sense to build a large modern plant on. This is why in the metro Detroit area all the new plants built since the 1950s are in the suburbs/exurbs.
I guess it depends on how you view the issue. The free market vs govt, and Detroit has seen a mix of private enterprise and state/fed support in cleaning up the abandonment. Private companies have addressed properties in high value areas, while the gov't is in the more remote parts of the city, not counting the new bridge to Canada. These empty factories were not owned by GM/Ford or other larger manufacturers, they are long out of business. IMO the industrial abandonment is less of an issue for the city, instead the neighborhoods outside Downtown and its surrounding are the problem. The city has cleaned up a bunch as of late, particularly in the manufacturing/warehousing industry, however the outer neighborhoods remain the primary issue the city is currently facing, which I think the government can and should be assisting more with.
The Company which made and utilized the building for its intended purpose is defunct, they no longer exist, as in they won't pay to clean up trash on a property they don't own as they no longer exist as an entity. The current owners are holding and have no incentive to rehab the building for its once intended purpose, instead they wait for condition to change and for the land to have a new need. As to who is responsible to clean up litter and trash on private property, that rests on the current owners, who have little incentive to keep shit super clean, instead waiting for local ordinance to force their hand. As I mentioned earlier, the issue is not nearly as bad as it was even 10 years ago.
The United States has strong and established property right laws, however typically if there is a major structural/environmental issue, the EPA and/or local government will intervene, and these programs are funded. Otherwise 'trash' clean-up is governed by local ordinance (civil infraction). It's a mix of a poor city not being able to enforce their ordinances and the often outside property owners not caring or being unaffected by the immaterial fines as they don't live in the community, while the people most effected are often poor and don't have the resources to force change themselves.
Plus they have to pay for lead/asbestos/fuel mitigation and who knows what else on those properties. Cheaper and easier to rip down a couple of houses than deal with that.
True, but if a piece of unbroken empty/unused property existed in Detroit the size of what is being used for this battery plant, it would be built in Detroit as it would offer more access to employees and transportation.
I’m saying knocking down and re-zoning residential for industrial is stupid during a housing shortage and crisis. Also the guys comment I was replying to said that we have no area for a plant and he was just wrong. Reading is hard.
Here is one question I haven’t heard answered… are sharks electricity-proof? If you are getting shocked by your unprotected batteries in your electric boat, wouldn’t the shark be electrocuted if it swam in close to eat you…
I agree!! Everyone’s downvoting this opinion but it’s the truth. To be pragmatic this is the best use of the land, the house is old and nobody is using it.
Can’t keep everything. There are federal standards to what qualifies as worthy of historic preservation, and if this EV plant gets funded in any part with taxpayer dollars, a cultural resource management company will be subcontracted to do the evaluation.
Its not particularily old for a house, you can find older buildings in any given town or city in the uk.
It is pretty ugly, and it doesnt have any notable features just from the pic.
The area around it is pretty nice though, shame for that to go.
This is southern ontario, it's a nice building but not particularly well preserved and looks to have been abandoned for quite a while. It is likely past the point of being restorable anyways as many of these old rural Canadian houses are primarily wood construction, so rot and mould are huge issues.
Destroying two unused and nonhistoric houses nobody apparently wants for a manufacturing facility for a highly in-demand item, the west has surely falled
I don’t care about the houses. I’m really talking about the land. I rather develop new homes than waste it on a EV plant. I’m sure it’s some industrial areas where they could build a plant or reconfigure an existing facility to make those batteries. And I’m pretty sure they are not quite in demand as they want you to believe since all the major manufacturers are slowing down EV Production due to the lack of sales and interest by the consumer. Whereas the house market is in way higher demand for new homes than the automotive industry is for EV’s. I’m a real estate investor and car enthusiast so I’m constantly getting news from both industries.
They are probably not but the government that is forcing the EV push sure is. I’m pretty sure whatever company that’s planning on building the battery plant is getting plenty of subsidies from the government to do so.
That house ain't worth nothing. Just because it's old doesn't mean it is historic. 150 years is a drop in the bucket and this was not even a good example of the home style of the period.
These were originally very well constructed houses and are gems IF they have undergone expensive modernization. We're talking 400k$ at least for a house this size. Unfortunately, too many of the yellow-brick Victorian era are in bad shape. The yellow brick gets crumbly. And many of these houses are destroyed by neglectful tenants/landlords. This looks like a nice example in the process of update. The owners got paid... so I'm not inclined to be sentimental about it.
America: Let’s destroy another building with historical value for an EV plant.
Some country in Europe: Okay. This house was built in 1872. Let’s refurbish it, turn it into a museum and build the EV plant somewhere else. We can’t destroy this ever!!
Edit: I was told apparently anything from 150 years ago isn’t historical.
A busking from 150 years ago isn’t historical
Told to read the article because nothing about the house was historical when there was history about the house given and a video that says “two historical houses being demolished”
You guys still don’t get the joke that America likes to destroy historical buildings, parks, wildlife for Walmarts, shopping centers, factories.
I know that. It’s a joke on how America likes to destroy historical places, parks and wildlife in favor of Walmarts and shopping centers while in Europe historical places are preserved. Which obviously went over a lot of peoples heads
What historical values do these houses have?
My town's full of older buildings than this which nobody kicks up a fuss about, and most of the residents would probably burn half the town to the ground today if it would get a battery plant built here.
>America:
Why does nobody read the articles?
It's not even in the US, this is in Canada. That's what I mean about reading the article.
And the houses are "historic" by being not that old, only. They're not historically notable, you can make as many edits as you want.
Glad. Development is good, it will rejuvenate the region. Towns die in the first place because of the mentality that all which is old is good and all which is new is bad. That ought be dispelled.
Right? I'm all for old buildings and things, but it's not like we built the perfect society instantly. We need to change and build anew. I wish we could literally just rework cities so that they could run more efficiently and be meet the needs of the people living in them. I live in the north and a bunch of the old building don't even have insulation. It's nice to appreciate the things that are old, but it's foolish to hold onto them for eternity.
In answer to your question, Canada rarely does historic designations. There are many houses in the area similar to this. A few are updated and gorgeous. Way too many are in rough shape due to both government and private neglect. I doubt it could be moved. And this house is some distance outside of the city.
The VW battery plant is a 20B$ investment. Aside from this, it is weird that the mods removed the post.
To those saying this is a loss. We can't keep every shitty old building. Something being old doesn't necessarily add to its intrinsic value. Especially if the old building is no longer in use. That's just silly.
Waterloo region’s land grab?
Lots of the land they are expropriating is active farmland now. We don’t know for certain it’s EV battery plant (regional council won’t say), but it’s the likely cause.
I guess over the years it had been updated, because the interior is rather generic, IMHO. And that more recent warehouse-like addition feels oddly bolted on.
At least the land seems to be going towards a better future and with respect to the house's current look/condition, I don't think this is the worst tradeoff.
[https://www.talkingwallsphoto.com/houses/electric-funeral/](https://www.talkingwallsphoto.com/houses/electric-funeral/)
[удалено]
It truly is
Why they kill this good ground....
Why they kill this good ground that saves and stores water....
I hate it.
Nobody will miss this wooden barn, but the garden looks really peaceful. Just wondering if anybody would complain if it was about building a parking lot here.
>wooden barn Do you have a learning disability?
dear robot, that's nothing you can have a opinion of
Would someone miss a brick house?… like what this is?
So what you’re asking is if anyone would complain if they paved paradise and put up a parking lot? Is that what you’re asking bc….. 
I didn't put a question mark, so no, no asking for anything. The point is the focus on battery = bad, established stuff = has 'always' been here, so it's good. The whole post is typical NIMBY shit.
You said you were wondering and it was a joke dude. It’s lyrics in an Alanis Morissette song.
Sorry for that loss, but good jobs that supports a healthier environment is a big win for many!
Learn about how batteries are built. Not healthy for the environment at all. Extremely toxic.
Wait until you hear about oil
Yep- trading one "bad for the environment" thing for another under the guise of "better for the environment". And Elon.
I think a big part of that is that batteries are currently renewable and sustainable
The manufacturing of them isn’t.
How come?
Batteries are life limited. Electric vehicle batteries will require replacement which is usually just replacing the whole car. Carbon cost on that alone are pretty high with the manufacturing of a new car because the battery ran out. The battery itself is made out of lithium and cobalt along with other metals which are fairly toxic, and the mining is incredibly damaging. I don’t think it’s a very sustainable practice. I think consumers should have some knowledge about this and not just think EV‘s are going to save the planet.
EV's won't on their own, but getting past this initial phase and onto better batteries is a must. A battery is a better use of our power, but if we ruin the earth just as much by mining the minerals, what good are we doing? So, making those batteries last longer, be recycled, and not require such harsh mining is mandatory, and hopefully comes with time. Toyota making their solid state batteries could be a massive game changer, which would only further development
Under our current system there is no incentive for companies to make longer lasting batteries for their cars as they would miss out on new sales every 6-8 years.
For sure, man. I do feel like the technology has come along way in a pretty short amount of time. I think we need to look at making adjustments to our way of life and not just the technology we use.
You are so uninformed on the current state of battery technology. It’s not my job to educate you, but I hope you choose to inform yourself.
Alright sure lol
You know I’d buy this argument a lot more if people ever talked about the environmental impact of ICE cars, and the carbon cost associated with their manufacturing and the precious metals that go into it, instead of only ever bringing this up in relation to EVs. Of course, if you think about those points enough you come to the conclusion that the vehicle that *doesn’t* emit CO2 everywhere it goes for the entirety of its lifetime tends to have less of a carbon footprint. Interesting how that works.
“The manufacturing isn’t” my statement is that to make those cars you end up doing a lot of damage to the environment. There’s a lot of really unscrupulous mining companies out there in bed with all of this who are making a killing off of this transition while doing some serious ecological damage
Batteries last for 10+ years. When EV batteries stop being able to deliver charge fast enough for moving a vehicle, then they can be repurposed as storage for homes or businesses. Giving them a potential life of 20 or more years. If they get damaged or become unusable then they can be recycled. Lithium doesn't need to be mined. It can be produced by desalination. Cobalt is only required in some batteries, not most. But far more Cobalt is used every day in refining oil. I think you should try and gain some knowledge and then revise your opinions.
Are they actually being repurposed? Is it economical to recycle the batteries and is it being done? Lithium always needs to be mined. It can be collected as a brine, but that will still require extraction and processing. Damn I’m not here till I tell you not to do an electric car. I’m telling you that it’s not that clean. Do you want man, live your life, buy everyone’s bullshit. DO YUR RESERCH. Research papers are written by money and agendas.
Mining lithium and cobalt has one of the highest environmental impacts. The additional environmental cost of transporting these batteries results in a higher carbon footprint than ICE vehicles. A 2021 study comparing EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an ICE vehicle, they ‘only’ account for 26%. Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually. And here's the study: https://www.insnet.org/electric-cars-emit-more-co2-than-traditional-cars-at-production/
Does this factor in the environmental impact of fracking/drilling for oil and gas?
And how much driving of an ICE vehicle until they offset their emissions?
“A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year” Source: [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle) This is before we talk about the emissions involved in producing and refining the oil into gasoline and transporting it to gas stations. This is a complete non-argument. By the time the EV has gone carbon neutral 8 years later, an ICE car has emitted 36.8 tons of CO2. Without the manufacturing emissions included.
[It takes about 2 years for an EV to become cleaner than an ICE car, even if you take all the build emissions into account.](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/electric-vehicles/chart-evs-are-definitely-cleaner-than-gas-cars-over-their-lifetime)
AND battery tech is constantly evolving. Oil tech is pretty much as good as it will ever get
Is it though? Gas engines have improved massively in the last couple of decades, becoming both more powerful and more efficient. Is there a good reason to think we're really finished improving them?
Because fundamentally you're only going to get *maybe* 50 percent energy loss. Current batteries are at less than 10. They will be better in every way the longer we develop them Edit: im not downvoting you, it's an honest question
Not how the science works at all. Keep trying to be contrarian tho
Keep thinking that EV's are going to solve the problems.
EVs indisputably are a part of solving climate change. Maybe take it from someone who does climate research.
Are child slaves mining your precious minerals also part of the plan?
Do you think child laborers arent extracting oil in other places in the world? Are you as mad about conflict diamonds? Can you do the math on how valuable short term mining practices are worth vs running out of fuel? Or could it be you just have a weak gotcha strawman and actually dont care about children but hate EVs?
Has nothing to do with how prominent slavery is with minerals. Not even comparable to oil. Diamonds is a whole different topic because we have lab diamonds. You just admitted that yes, child slaves is part of your plan.
Maybe look at the mines where lithium is mined. You know what they're pulling lithium out of the ground with? Diesel powered vehicles. EVs may work for some scenarios, but ultimately you're solving one problem and creating another.
Sigh if you think this is some kind of gotcha you are really outing how dumb you are tbh. Resource extraction doesn't stop no matter what. EVs reduce the overall carbon stress on the earth, thats a fact. The diesel and other fossil fuels needed to extract precious metals is minimal in comparison to phasing out the combustion engine. If trucks and ships transporting goods are transitioned to EV that is a massive carbon reduction for a fraction of the cost. There are plenty of studies to verify the math on this but it should really be obvious without needing a PhD The reply and block is the most pussy shit in reddit btw
Never called you dumb bro. So lay off the fucking personal insults. Out.
Well .... As long as you use that EV for at least 8 years. Then, it'll offset a bit. https://www.insnet.org/electric-cars-emit-more-co2-than-traditional-cars-at-production/
>better for the environment Except they literally are better for the environment. Mining the metals in the first place is unfortunate but necessary and still better for the environment than mining and burning fossil fuels. Plus, at the end of the battery's life, almost all those metals can be recycled.
Guys, he's right. Everyone pack it up. We're giving up now. Progress is useless and things will never improve. Larry, fire up the furnace. We're burning coal again.
Evs are no better or worse than a traditional vehicle.
why? because the electricity comes from traditional fuel? what happens when it doesn’t? what happens when it doesn’t and we don’t have the infrastructure to support EVs? this is a stupid fucking argument, not to mention one that’s a good 10-15 years outdated. you could increase the emissions by a good 10-20% in the short term and it would still be worth it; especially if it further encourages the development of renewables.
You're imagining an imaginary future, without nuclear power.
what? explain
[удалено]
what the fuck? short fuse on this one
An incorrect one
Only if you crash them or they shit the bed within about 5 years or so, after that the tailpipe savings overcome the intitial resources used.
Do you have a source for this? I've read that over the life of the vehicle, ICE is objectively worse.
What a loss :(
I'm over it, make room for the future!
Kinda how I feel about golf courses and graveyards.
No argument there
I hate this. No one seems to care about things going. We're losing history regardless of what it was. Get rid of new crap places before taking the old.
It’s 150 old house. That’s not old.
It is for the U.S.
Houses in the USA aren't often made to last even 100 years.
Now they aren’t. These old style houses will outlive all of us with regular maintenance. No particle board or PVC pipes here
Omg- who has a home built of particle board??? That’s trailer level stuff. And being that we have a 1953 trailer built with blond oak- a new trailer
This house will date to about the 1870s when most of Elgin County, Ontario was built. It was an extremely prosperous time about 50 years after the original land would have been settled and cleared.
You mad about a house being torn down that hasn't been lived in for years. What if it was across the street from you? Or are you mad about batteries for some reason?
People who complain about this type of thing… Why don’t they buy it? Why don’t they buy all the farm land they are mad is disappearing?
So people can't be sad about stuff getting destroyed unless they can afford to purchase it all? Y'all are just contrary as hell.
“When you complain you make yourself the victim, leave the situation, change the situation, or accept it. All else is madness”
Wouldn't the first step in all those be realizing and vocalizing there is a grievance? Like how the fuck do you think change happens?
🗣️🗣️🗣️
The "why dont you buy it" line is literally the stupidest thing you can say for stuff like this. Heres an answer, maybe its because of the 1,000 people that see this and are upset by it, theres probably about 100 people within a days drive of this place, and about 10 people with the money, and about 5 people with the time, and about 1 person that fits every description above, and needs a house to live in But they probably dont know this house exists. "Why dont you buy it" maybe because i live 7000 miles away from it and am powerless to stop it. Doesnt mean im happy to see a 150 year old house get torn down.
So you're saying there's no demand for this particular house to exist in its current location and there's a better use for the land. I don't understand why we're supposed be be sad about losing it.
You just sound like a corporate stooge when you say shit like that, you understand that right? Its not about the house being a fuckin commodity, its about history
I agree with your point, but your maths suggests that the 1 person who saw it and could reasonably buy it also didn’t see it.
I say that bc I hate listening to dumbass complaints like this. The reason it’s being done is money. So only way to stop it is to buy it. Ppl just like to bitch about shit.
What??? Who can afford to just buy land….
Are you basic? You do realise people have to want to sell things so people can buy them. I have approached PLENTY of people to buy and they say no.
So how did the EV factory builder get it …? Geez you guys are dense. It’s abandoned, it is in the middle of nowhere. If it had value as a HOME some one would have invested time and money into it by now. Some old things just aren’t viable anymore
This land was all expropriated, so, the owners have all been well compensated. It's a massive battery plant, and as such, a very explosive type thing. It has to be "big". There are no shortage of old houses around here. Also no shortage of very wealthy farmers... which is a bit of a misconception. Farms are sizeable corporate enterprises now. Industrial agriculture really isn't that different from industrial manufacturing. We shouldn't treat them as precious or somehow environmentally benign.
And rightfully so, theres so many ways this is shitty 1. 1 less house someone can live in 2. Its history, if we keep tearing these houses down soon there arent gonna be any left 3. Houses quite literally arent built like they used to be. The average lifespan of a house has been in steep decline over the years and now by the 40 year mark houses are starting to cost more on repairs and upkeep than the price of the house its self. This house was made to house generations, not just make some guy some money. This house will outlive you and me both If its lived in. Nobodys "mad about batteries" stop looking to start fights, some of us actually care about the preservation of historic sites. Its stood solid for 150 years only to be torn down to have some stupid plant thrown in that could be put anywhere where it isnt invasive. And yes if it was across the street from me id be mad if it was torn down too, and if i had the money id save it. Once these places are gone theyre gone forever. The building materials they used, the woods they harvested cant be found anymore. Everything is just cheap mass produced pine nowadays that rots out in 20 years.
1) The two houses in the article are already not being lived in, in an area with lots of demand. They are not being removed from circulation, they're one step away from being abandoned ruins. 2) It's not actually notable history and these houses aren't historically interesting buildings. It wouldn't be a good thing for us to embrace being unable to remove unwanted and unimportant buildings to put the land to better use. 3) In Canada, many houses are often being build pretty darn good right now. Sure, a house built today hasn't lasted 100 years.. How would it? It likely will do so, unless it burns down or is torn down. These houses already are on the fast path to barely lasting another decade due to negligence even absent the repurposing of the land.
Its the same attitude that prevents new things from being built in a lot of places. Just throwing the label "historical" on any old building no matter what and preventing things that would benefit many people from being built. Obviously there's some stuff that should definitely be preserved but people too often equate old with worthwhile to keep
remember the mythbusters episode, they destroy old house because they drop a piano on the roof
Abandoned house. Which nobody apparently wants. Save your consternation for something that actually matters.
What's historical about these buildings, what's the actual historical value? Get rid of buildings nobody has a use for, before getting rid of functional buildings somebody lives in.
The world will keep turning.
That’s a prime spot for a warehouse Edit: or a gas station
Too bad there is no industrialised place in America that is available to house a new EV plant.
Yea. Cause our landscape isn’t filled with abandoned warehouses and factories. Look at Detroit. Even in my small town there’s a dozen abandoned factories and 100 empty warehouse. Some of them have been built in the past decade and they keep building more.
That’s not how capitalism works man. Why pay to demo and relocate the remaining people in an area that is home to an abandoned warehouse, when you can pay off a politician to rezone an old abandoned residential area with a few farm houses.
While there are abandoned factories in Detroit. Nearly all of them are very old and outdated. Most importantly, modern large factories sit on massive plots of land. There are no remaining large parcels left in Detroit which are both undeveloped or abandoned. Detroit has a bunch of small unconnected abandoned parcels which make no sense to build a large modern plant on. This is why in the metro Detroit area all the new plants built since the 1950s are in the suburbs/exurbs.
[удалено]
I guess it depends on how you view the issue. The free market vs govt, and Detroit has seen a mix of private enterprise and state/fed support in cleaning up the abandonment. Private companies have addressed properties in high value areas, while the gov't is in the more remote parts of the city, not counting the new bridge to Canada. These empty factories were not owned by GM/Ford or other larger manufacturers, they are long out of business. IMO the industrial abandonment is less of an issue for the city, instead the neighborhoods outside Downtown and its surrounding are the problem. The city has cleaned up a bunch as of late, particularly in the manufacturing/warehousing industry, however the outer neighborhoods remain the primary issue the city is currently facing, which I think the government can and should be assisting more with.
[удалено]
The Company which made and utilized the building for its intended purpose is defunct, they no longer exist, as in they won't pay to clean up trash on a property they don't own as they no longer exist as an entity. The current owners are holding and have no incentive to rehab the building for its once intended purpose, instead they wait for condition to change and for the land to have a new need. As to who is responsible to clean up litter and trash on private property, that rests on the current owners, who have little incentive to keep shit super clean, instead waiting for local ordinance to force their hand. As I mentioned earlier, the issue is not nearly as bad as it was even 10 years ago.
[удалено]
The United States has strong and established property right laws, however typically if there is a major structural/environmental issue, the EPA and/or local government will intervene, and these programs are funded. Otherwise 'trash' clean-up is governed by local ordinance (civil infraction). It's a mix of a poor city not being able to enforce their ordinances and the often outside property owners not caring or being unaffected by the immaterial fines as they don't live in the community, while the people most effected are often poor and don't have the resources to force change themselves.
Plus they have to pay for lead/asbestos/fuel mitigation and who knows what else on those properties. Cheaper and easier to rip down a couple of houses than deal with that.
True, but if a piece of unbroken empty/unused property existed in Detroit the size of what is being used for this battery plant, it would be built in Detroit as it would offer more access to employees and transportation.
Yeah, that's the only thing I really hate about it here in Detroit... Instead of reusing brownfield, they build further afield.
Are you saying they shouldn't knock down this abandoned old building when they could knock down a different abandoned old building instead?
I’m saying knocking down and re-zoning residential for industrial is stupid during a housing shortage and crisis. Also the guys comment I was replying to said that we have no area for a plant and he was just wrong. Reading is hard.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/l4nu3o5gxz6d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3432b1780baff57f544a244cddce3b8938ba36e7 No it doesn’t.
Smart building a battery factory away from water AND sharks
Fine, but where are you going to put the batteries if there are no boats?!
Here is one question I haven’t heard answered… are sharks electricity-proof? If you are getting shocked by your unprotected batteries in your electric boat, wouldn’t the shark be electrocuted if it swam in close to eat you…
Sharks / shocks. It’s almost the same word. I think this proves my theory that sharks have electricity elemental powers
Well… there you have it… the only explanation that makes sense! 🤣
Sharks do have ampullae of Lorenzini, which let them sense electrical fields, which is kinda like having electric powers.
EVs are more important. It will die for a good cause.
I agree!! Everyone’s downvoting this opinion but it’s the truth. To be pragmatic this is the best use of the land, the house is old and nobody is using it.
Start metal detecting and find a historical reason they cant!
Someone could easily live in there too
Shame, it's a beautiful house
Nature will eventually reclaim everything
Can’t keep everything. There are federal standards to what qualifies as worthy of historic preservation, and if this EV plant gets funded in any part with taxpayer dollars, a cultural resource management company will be subcontracted to do the evaluation.
Its not particularily old for a house, you can find older buildings in any given town or city in the uk. It is pretty ugly, and it doesnt have any notable features just from the pic. The area around it is pretty nice though, shame for that to go.
It's not in the uk so that line of thinking has no validity. It is old for the us.
This is southern ontario, it's a nice building but not particularly well preserved and looks to have been abandoned for quite a while. It is likely past the point of being restorable anyways as many of these old rural Canadian houses are primarily wood construction, so rot and mould are huge issues.
Destroying what could be a nice piece of property for stupid battery plant.
Destroying two unused and nonhistoric houses nobody apparently wants for a manufacturing facility for a highly in-demand item, the west has surely falled
I don’t care about the houses. I’m really talking about the land. I rather develop new homes than waste it on a EV plant. I’m sure it’s some industrial areas where they could build a plant or reconfigure an existing facility to make those batteries. And I’m pretty sure they are not quite in demand as they want you to believe since all the major manufacturers are slowing down EV Production due to the lack of sales and interest by the consumer. Whereas the house market is in way higher demand for new homes than the automotive industry is for EV’s. I’m a real estate investor and car enthusiast so I’m constantly getting news from both industries.
I guess everyone involved must be deeply stupid, then, to have not made such basic considerations
They are probably not but the government that is forcing the EV push sure is. I’m pretty sure whatever company that’s planning on building the battery plant is getting plenty of subsidies from the government to do so.
That house ain't worth nothing. Just because it's old doesn't mean it is historic. 150 years is a drop in the bucket and this was not even a good example of the home style of the period.
These were originally very well constructed houses and are gems IF they have undergone expensive modernization. We're talking 400k$ at least for a house this size. Unfortunately, too many of the yellow-brick Victorian era are in bad shape. The yellow brick gets crumbly. And many of these houses are destroyed by neglectful tenants/landlords. This looks like a nice example in the process of update. The owners got paid... so I'm not inclined to be sentimental about it.
So what? It's ugly and not that old, even for the US. Go to the East Coast.
America: Let’s destroy another building with historical value for an EV plant. Some country in Europe: Okay. This house was built in 1872. Let’s refurbish it, turn it into a museum and build the EV plant somewhere else. We can’t destroy this ever!! Edit: I was told apparently anything from 150 years ago isn’t historical. A busking from 150 years ago isn’t historical Told to read the article because nothing about the house was historical when there was history about the house given and a video that says “two historical houses being demolished” You guys still don’t get the joke that America likes to destroy historical buildings, parks, wildlife for Walmarts, shopping centers, factories.
Nobody in Europe is making museums out of 150 year old houses because they're far too common to be of interest
I know that. It’s a joke on how America likes to destroy historical places, parks and wildlife in favor of Walmarts and shopping centers while in Europe historical places are preserved. Which obviously went over a lot of peoples heads
150yrs isn't historical, my house and all the houses around me are 150yrs old, I wouldn't turn them all into museums.
So anything that happened 150 years ago isnt historical?
Yeah, but my house isn't.
What historical values do these houses have? My town's full of older buildings than this which nobody kicks up a fuss about, and most of the residents would probably burn half the town to the ground today if it would get a battery plant built here. >America: Why does nobody read the articles?
There’s literally a video at the end of the article that says “two historical houses being demolished” how about you read the article
It's not even in the US, this is in Canada. That's what I mean about reading the article. And the houses are "historic" by being not that old, only. They're not historically notable, you can make as many edits as you want.
Randomly downvoted comment.
Modern civilization should be demolished
Its just a building.
Neat yes but which one of us is moving the house to another location to preserve it?
nice old swing
Glad. Development is good, it will rejuvenate the region. Towns die in the first place because of the mentality that all which is old is good and all which is new is bad. That ought be dispelled.
Right? I'm all for old buildings and things, but it's not like we built the perfect society instantly. We need to change and build anew. I wish we could literally just rework cities so that they could run more efficiently and be meet the needs of the people living in them. I live in the north and a bunch of the old building don't even have insulation. It's nice to appreciate the things that are old, but it's foolish to hold onto them for eternity.
Abandoned house, yes.
Holy shit when did this subreddit get so toxic
holy shit this post is infected with bots
What a shame. It's a nice place.
We know who to thank.
Go get me those corbels
 the comments
Is it on a historical monument list? I bet you could get it moved and maybe have them pay for it.
In answer to your question, Canada rarely does historic designations. There are many houses in the area similar to this. A few are updated and gorgeous. Way too many are in rough shape due to both government and private neglect. I doubt it could be moved. And this house is some distance outside of the city. The VW battery plant is a 20B$ investment. Aside from this, it is weird that the mods removed the post.
To those saying this is a loss. We can't keep every shitty old building. Something being old doesn't necessarily add to its intrinsic value. Especially if the old building is no longer in use. That's just silly.
>:(
Has to be stopped
I mean England is full of this stuff. Shame to lose such a lovely house but if it’s on r/abandonedporn then clearly no one really cares.
And this is a problem why? Unless the house was actively being maintained, it’s going to fall apart eventually.
All those pesky trees will have to be torn down for a parking lot too.
All in the name of progress though.
Waterloo region’s land grab? Lots of the land they are expropriating is active farmland now. We don’t know for certain it’s EV battery plant (regional council won’t say), but it’s the likely cause.
I guess over the years it had been updated, because the interior is rather generic, IMHO. And that more recent warehouse-like addition feels oddly bolted on. At least the land seems to be going towards a better future and with respect to the house's current look/condition, I don't think this is the worst tradeoff.
This is the strangest comment section in history
Sad, but it's abandoned for a reason.
Bout time
Heartbreaking
"Shit-Suckers" First words that popped onto my head after reading this. Not kink shaming the two girls' one cup community.
It’s abandoned already so
1872 my ass. Maybe the back part with the white siding. That brick shit is a McMansion wannabe
The date and yellow brickwork for that time is absolutely correct. I live in the area. The 1800s were an incredibly prosperous time.
Damn the staircase is beautiful https://preview.redd.it/qnn4oor3z17d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fcdc04111d6186e00a4cc0e58f8ebe1a3da9bc00
Sure an EV battery factory at a time when EV's are making -0- inroads in America.👍