>>2920092 (OP)I currently own a 19th century house on stone footings with lime mortar, also previously owned a 17th century.
I also own a concrete poured modern house.
Stone and lime has a flexibility which is designed around inevitable movement. Reinforced concrete is designed to fight against it.
The stone houses I've owned I trust more, but you must respect the original materials as they are important to the design - no portland cement, only non hydraulic limes touch it. Though some hearth stones are original poured portland cement - the only place deemed appropriate.
Movement and load is localised and can be packed, pinned or rebuilt in small sections.
We pretty much had no problems with this as the houses were on stable well settled ground.
I was told the footings were traditionally left to settle often for a year before continuing building and any movement was repact and left to settle once more.
The house with the solid concrete slab keeps me awake at night as I see where it's starting to tip and will pull itself apart. Like a boat on a slow destructive wave.
This house will not last the test of time as my others had.
Fuck knows how hollow the ground underneith is becoming and how much pressure certain parts are having to put up with.
This newer house is on pile foundations and an earthquake resistant hopneycomb system (I was told)
Big cracks on one solid piece of material that's meant to be watertight is more concerning than more localised movement on a system that is purposely vapour permiable.
The old masony and lime building system and mentality is perfected over 2000 years of tradespeople generations. It was rejected when the workforce and knowlege died at war, and the new style of house building benefits speed and profits only as far as I can see - very jew enshitification centric.
Generations before could have begun making cement foundations, but didnt, because its benefits for a normal house are shortsighted.
Do what you want though