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
Good point.

What hubris for a landowner to assume there will be a need for a building 1000 years hence.

Buildings aren’t usually demolished and replaced because they are dilapidated; rather, it’s because the new owner has a different need (and a different aesthetic.)

A building that takes 1000 to crumble is just as a much a blight — maybe more — as a plastic bottle that takes 10,000 years to crumble.

>>lurque+pf
The nice thing about buildings which last a long time is, the good ones can be kept around. It's the good side of survivorship bias.