4 ms·
It's an illustration of how the hit-ratio of contemporary architects (give or take half a century) is terribly low. It even seems to approach zero once you star
by usrusr 7y ago
It's an illustration of how the hit-ratio of contemporary architects (give or take half a century) is terribly low. It even seems to approach zero once you start factoring in longevity. Steel and concrete is notorious for failing to meet even embarrassingly low longevity expectations.
Use modern materials behind the scenes if it's unavoidable due to cost, but advertising them as a longevity upgrade would be pure hubris.
- TremendousJudge 7y ago>Steel and concrete is notorious for failing to meet even embarrassingly low longevity expectations. What? Low quality work, yes, as it's true for all other materials and methods. There are steel and concrete buildings that have lasted 100 years so far just fine.
- usrusr 7y ago> that have lasted 100 years so far just fine. Which isn't terribly impressive, unless you assume zero maintenance conditions (which admittedly hit pretty much everything else harder than concrete)
- Retra 7y agoIt is impressive when you compare it to all the buildings built from wood framing.