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

If population levels change, up or down, we are going to have to be continually adjusting our usage of space to account for this. Making it easier to modify and/or tear-down-and-rebuild would make things a lot more efficient there. You'd need some policy changes too to fix the problems of, say, homeless people sleeping outside empty office buildings, but getting construction costs down would be a huge part of this.

We shouldn't be so arrogant to assume we are planning the right construction to serve us well for hundreds of years.