zlacker

>>hrl+(OP)
I'm not sure this article does a good job of highlighting "the problem with reinforced concrete" than it does "the better attributes of material x with y over concrete". Reinforced concrete seems to do exactly what it's intended to do for the designed life of that intent, with some very well known trade-offs coupled with some brilliant strengths.

Sure, compared to other materials it might not be as: long-lasting, cheap, sustainable, but as in all things it seems one can only pick two.

>>ajcp+kb
> Reinforced concrete seems to do exactly what it's intended to do for the designed life of that intent

Until there's apparently "no money" to replace the structure after its design life time. Thinking in decades of life span for many of these structures is very short sighted. I think the article mostly gets that across i.e. re-enforced concrete is hard to recycle and their life span is often within that of a human life. We should be able to do better and create large scale structures that can not only serve a purpose over several life times, but can be added to or enhanced rather than demolished.

The only reason we keep building these time limited structures is because building codes still allow this, which leads to easy short term profits, and it's "someone else's problem in 50-60 years time". There's no incentives.

>>teh_kl+cg
Municipal and other budgets are already highly strained all over. If the cost of an interchange or large culvert goes up 2x to increase its lifespan, you can do less work now. Your level of service goes down now.

There are trade offs to everything. Build something much more durable, pay twice as much, do half the work in a season and get more complaints. We already aim to build infrastructure based on estimates of future loading - how much traffic, what kind of trucks at what weight, etc.

We'd all be much better off increasing maintenance budgets to extend the lifespan of existing structures without completely re-doing them at multiples of the current price.