3 ms·

The problem with that for architecture is most structures are meant to be occupied, and being inside a heaped structure of softer rocks isn't very nice. I do wi

The problem with that for architecture is most structures are meant to be occupied, and being inside a heaped structure of softer rocks isn't very nice. I do wish that I got to see a structure meant to last millennia built in my lifetime. On that timescale, I _just_ missed Mount Rushmore.

TremendousJudge 8y ago
This, maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now
briga 8y ago
Considering how many structures from thousands of years ago are still around, I'd be shocked if there weren't any 21st-century buildings standing thousands of years from now.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Thousands of years ago, the king did a levy for labor and demanded whatever he wanted. Today, you need to build a building designed to depreciate in 30 years to maximize your taxes.
- Someone 8y ago
  Rebar makes buildings a lot stronger, but also has the unfortunate property of rusting. That makes it less strong and expands it, damaging other parts of the structure. It also is more or less everywhere. Also, modern buildings often are designed for a given economical lifetime. If you order a structure that can be maintained for 50 years at $1M a year, that’s what you will get. You likely can keep it standing for centuries, but at ever-increasing maintenance costs. On the other hand, we are building so much that, statistically, something will be standing thousands of years from now.
mattnewton 8y ago
Does it count if the building is continuously maintained along the way? Something like https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri..., but with less conscious effort towards ritualistically maintaining the layout. If so, I think plenty of buildings will survive. If not, it’s a strangely specific definition to me, since still standing but un-maintained and unused isn’t a goal I would shoot for.

TremendousJudge 8y ago

This, maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now

briga 8y ago

Considering how many structures from thousands of years ago are still around, I'd be shocked if there weren't any 21st-century buildings standing thousands of years from now.

Spooky23 8y ago
Thousands of years ago, the king did a levy for labor and demanded whatever he wanted. Today, you need to build a building designed to depreciate in 30 years to maximize your taxes.
Someone 8y ago
Rebar makes buildings a lot stronger, but also has the unfortunate property of rusting. That makes it less strong and expands it, damaging other parts of the structure. It also is more or less everywhere. Also, modern buildings often are designed for a given economical lifetime. If you order a structure that can be maintained for 50 years at $1M a year, that’s what you will get. You likely can keep it standing for centuries, but at ever-increasing maintenance costs. On the other hand, we are building so much that, statistically, something will be standing thousands of years from now.

mattnewton 8y ago

Does it count if the building is continuously maintained along the way? Something like https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri..., but with less conscious effort towards ritualistically maintaining the layout. If so, I think plenty of buildings will survive. If not, it’s a strangely specific definition to me, since still standing but un-maintained and unused isn’t a goal I would shoot for.