zlacker

>>hrl+(OP)
This should be an economics piece, not an environmental piece. The author states that "one of iron’s unalterable properties is that it rusts" yet further on acknowledges the existence of stainless steel.

There's nothing wrong with reinforced concrete, but the incentives to produce long lasting buildings are not there. The cheapest bidder will generally win and their building will last the "design life" of the building, but often not much more. The simplest way to change this is to extend the design life, which would result in stainless steels or another more expensive material being used in this application.

>>brutus+J5
Is it a good thing for society to directly incentivize the construction of longer lasting buildings?

>>miniki+Q5
IMO yes; if the materials cost a lot of time/carbon/resources to produce, then we should make them last!

>>sesuxi+K7
Japan builds buildings to last 30 years on average. They tear them down and build new ones. Is it good, bad, something else? I don’t know, except not everyone builds for things to last a long time.

>>mc32+cl
People quote this figure often, but it really only applies to detached single-family dwellings, which are commonly built for a single owner. Japan certainly doesn't build larger structures such as office buildings for thirty-year lifespans – no one has floated any plans to tear down the Kasumigaseki Building yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasumigaseki_Building

>>morten+Tm
One historic building being 50 years old proves very little - of course some buildings last longer than the average. E.g. every one of the famous Dojunkai apartment buildings has been demolished.