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
It will become a very big problem if/when buildings start collapsing with people in them.

I grew up partly in an 18 story reinforced concrete building built in the 1920s. The apartment I lived in was recently sold for several million dollars.

Once, when there was a leak and the plaster came off, the underlying concrete was exposed and it scraped away like very weak sandstone.

How strong is the building and when will it collapse? Does anyone know? Is anyone testing?

I think the answer to both of those questions is "no". Everyone seems to assume they will stand forever. They won't.

>>raylad+Dc
Unless you are living in a developing country, the answer to the second question should be "yes".

>>diegoc+Hd
It should be but is it? I don't think anyone ever tested this building, which has a combined market value of probably close to $200M.

None of the owners want to know that their investments are worthless. So nothing will be checked unless its required by law.

>>raylad+ef
> None of the owners want to know that their investments are worthless. So nothing will be checked unless its required by law.

That makes no sense. If I am buying property, it is in my best interest to make sure it isn't going to fall apart. Especially since if something happened due to my negligence, I would be responsible.

If you have no idea of whether or not the building is being inspected, why would you make the assumption it's not?