zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. bombca+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-05-25 23:29:35
Arguably for many buildings we should be going the other way - if the average house is remodeled or torn down in 30-40 years perhaps we should be building out of renewable materials that are designed to last long and no more (think hay bales covered with mud).
replies(1): >>lurque+Ao2
2. lurque+Ao2[view] [source] 2021-05-26 17:20:35
>>bombca+(OP)
Why do we not make clothing that can last 1000 years, be passed down, etc.?

I contend that buildings, with a few exceptions, are consumables. Whether wise or not, humans like to build new things, customizable to their own tastes.

An office building that lasts ‘only’ 50 years instead of 500 shouldn’t be surprising. In 50 years time, for most buildings, even if it could last another few decades, it will be torn down and replaced. That’s just what humans do. States differently, even if everyone at the time knew concrete/rebar would only last 50 years and not the 1000+ years, it wouldn’t have made a difference, for nobody — short of a Pharaoh — has any interest in such a permanent structure. Cities come and go, buildings come and go, rivers and shorelines change, etc. it’s not reasonable to assume the desirable center of activity (either residential or commercial) in which one builds will even be there 50 years hence. So why worry about how long the building will last?

[go to top]