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
"First world country" does not correlate well with housing quality. UK has some of the worst housing in Europe, with 35% in need of repair. Many Ex Soviet states like Czech Repulbic are doing better.

UK also has a history of major failured in construction practices and inspection, where chunks of a new apartment block suddenly collapse like in Ronan Point, or a recently renovated tower block goes up in flames and half of residents die despite them warning about issues for years.

I wish living in first world country guaranteed sensible things are happening, but it doesn't

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-bl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire