4 ms·

Quarried stone lasts longer than steel and glass construction. For example, the glass is held in place by rubber gaskets which harden and crack in less than a c

by tlb 8y ago

Quarried stone lasts longer than steel and glass construction. For example, the glass is held in place by rubber gaskets which harden and crack in less than a century. Concrete exposed to the elements crumbles, and the rebar inside rusts. http://www.witoldrybczynski.com/architecture/short-life/ http://www.witoldrybczynski.com/architecture/short-life/

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
virgilp 8y ago
But, they can be maintained. Changing the rubber gaskets every 100 years doesn't sound so bad. And glass will withstand water+wind forever, unlike stone. And it's easier to replace. And our steal&glass buildings might withstand earthquakes better. In the end, I think what matters most is "maintainability": if the interest/ value of the buildings exceeds the costs to maintain it, they can live basically forever - humans will make sure of it. Otherwise, they all degrade eventually.
rickycook 8y ago
doesn’t have to be held in place by rubber gaskets. stone is pretty drafty! i’m sure you could make a steel, concrete, and glass construction that lasts as long as quarried stone and is still cheaper... the reason we don’t is not because we don’t have the ability; it’s just... why would we? what benefit does it serve? in many ways having buildings degrade and get rebuilt is a good thing, because you can build them taller to account for city populations that expand enormously over the years, with modern upgrades that are more difficult in old buildings.
- jrochkind1 8y ago
  because the good times are not going to last.
- bonesss 8y ago
  > in many ways having buildings degrade and get rebuilt is a good thing To bring in an IT comparison: getting some app to 150% so that is never needs to be changed again, is one way to make software. Getting it to the relevant 65%, getting users on board, and maintaining and upgrading it as needs develop gets you 'live' faster, and saves bucket-loads up-front, and saves bucket-loads if you have to terminate the project at any point. Lots of nerdlings want to tweak and polish until perceived perfection, costs be damned. Getting things out the door and into production is where value is created, though. It matters if Amazons new HQ is ready in 3 years or 15...
usrusr 8y ago
But there isn't much quarried stone in the Pantheon besides the entrance columns and some interior surfaces. Roman architecture is pretty much all about bricks and mortar (and in case of the Pantheon, lots of them). Many of the types of quarried stone they sometimes used for adding an expensive-looking surface are crumbling much faster than the brick.
- notahacker 8y ago
  In the case of the Pantheon, it's bricks and mortar supporting a cast concrete roof. Safe to say that if it hadn't been continuously occupied for two millenia by people willing to spend a lot on the upkeep of their churches, it would now be an attractive pile of rubble
  - usrusr 8y ago
    Nobody is denying the importance of maintenance, but just keeping plants out and the roof from seeping will get you a long way. The most important effect of the use as a church was that it limited (but far from completely prevented) spoilification, and that (cheaper) replacements were installed when the original gilded bronze roof was taken. Much of what we intuitively assume to be natural decay is the result of mining disused buildings for materials how the damage inflicted by that then accelerates natural decay.

by tlb 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

virgilp 8y ago

But, they can be maintained. Changing the rubber gaskets every 100 years doesn't sound so bad. And glass will withstand water+wind forever, unlike stone. And it's easier to replace. And our steal&glass buildings might withstand earthquakes better. In the end, I think what matters most is "maintainability": if the interest/ value of the buildings exceeds the costs to maintain it, they can live basically forever - humans will make sure of it. Otherwise, they all degrade eventually.

rickycook 8y ago

doesn’t have to be held in place by rubber gaskets. stone is pretty drafty! i’m sure you could make a steel, concrete, and glass construction that lasts as long as quarried stone and is still cheaper... the reason we don’t is not because we don’t have the ability; it’s just... why would we? what benefit does it serve? in many ways having buildings degrade and get rebuilt is a good thing, because you can build them taller to account for city populations that expand enormously over the years, with modern upgrades that are more difficult in old buildings.

jrochkind1 8y ago
because the good times are not going to last.
bonesss 8y ago
> in many ways having buildings degrade and get rebuilt is a good thing To bring in an IT comparison: getting some app to 150% so that is never needs to be changed again, is one way to make software. Getting it to the relevant 65%, getting users on board, and maintaining and upgrading it as needs develop gets you 'live' faster, and saves bucket-loads up-front, and saves bucket-loads if you have to terminate the project at any point. Lots of nerdlings want to tweak and polish until perceived perfection, costs be damned. Getting things out the door and into production is where value is created, though. It matters if Amazons new HQ is ready in 3 years or 15...

usrusr 8y ago

But there isn't much quarried stone in the Pantheon besides the entrance columns and some interior surfaces. Roman architecture is pretty much all about bricks and mortar (and in case of the Pantheon, lots of them). Many of the types of quarried stone they sometimes used for adding an expensive-looking surface are crumbling much faster than the brick.

notahacker 8y ago
In the case of the Pantheon, it's bricks and mortar supporting a cast concrete roof. Safe to say that if it hadn't been continuously occupied for two millenia by people willing to spend a lot on the upkeep of their churches, it would now be an attractive pile of rubble
- usrusr 8y ago
  Nobody is denying the importance of maintenance, but just keeping plants out and the roof from seeping will get you a long way. The most important effect of the use as a church was that it limited (but far from completely prevented) spoilification, and that (cheaper) replacements were installed when the original gilded bronze roof was taken. Much of what we intuitively assume to be natural decay is the result of mining disused buildings for materials how the damage inflicted by that then accelerates natural decay.