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
How can I know if a building was designed to last a long time? Is it the materials, the method of construction?

>>matheu+J8
Yes.

>>ajcp+qa
Please elaborate. Which materials and methods?

>>matheu+Oa
There is no way to know other than to ask the architect. You can make educated guesses but that still won't tell you. Even then it's up to the contractors to have done everything properly.

Or if it's made of stone. Stacking giant stones on top of each other is a sure-fire way to make a building outlive you.

After that, the longest-lived buildings that I am aware of are made of wood. The catch is they've been rebuilt 50 times, once per time they burned to the ground.

After those, the longest-lived buildings are made of Roman concrete that we can't reproduce. (To give you an idea how insane Roman concrete was, you can go kayaking north of Naples, and kayak through a concrete Roman building that is sitting on piles in the Mediterranean sea)

>>0xbadc+Md
Didn't they figure out that Roman concrete was made or infused with ash from a volcano or something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete