zlacker

>>hrl+(OP)
I don't know if it is really a problem, more like a tradeoff. Reinforced concrete costs less and enables shapes that are impossible without it, with the downside that the buildings last 50 years instead of 100+ years. The present value of a building that lasts 50 years is not that much different that the same one that lasts 100 years.

With that in mind, it makes perfect sense to make an office building out of reinforced concrete.

>>idoh+S8
> The present value of a building that lasts 50 years is not that much different that the same one that lasts 100 years.

That's a problem in and of itself, IMO. Construction is tremendously resource-intensive. We should not be building "throwaway" buildings.

>>nerdpo+F9
A - The concept of present value isn't a problem, it's more like a fact, derived from the time value of money. It's like saying gravity is a problem.

B - Construction is resource intensive, no doubt about it. Without this technique the costs and resources would go up, double?, more? Many structures we take for granted, like freeway overpasses, would be impossibly expensive.