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 bit like the one horse shay. It's not how long it lasts but what are the costs associated with it lasting any given length of time. Nothing lasts forever but say buildings lasted 500 years - Suddenly 500 years from now all buildings have to be replaced? And what's the cost of this 500 year building? Is it 10 times as much? Or is it 5 times as much?

Saying we shouldn't have buildings that only last 50 years but rather they should last 500 is like saying they shouldn't last 50 years but instead 5. Maybe. Maybe 5 makes sense.

My assumption would be - shocker - it's probably a complicated trade off that's best adjudicated by the people with the most skin in the particular game.

>>hacker+Fe
> Suddenly 500 years from now all buildings have to be replaced? And what's the cost of this 500 year building? Is it 10 times as much? Or is it 5 times as much?

What a weird argument. It's obvious for multiple reasons that all buildings won't fail at the same time.