4 ms·

I'd genuinely like to see a reference. I don't know of any concrete-heavy building styles before the development of reinforced concrete in the late 19th century

I'd genuinely like to see a reference. I don't know of any concrete-heavy building styles before the development of reinforced concrete in the late 19th century. It would have also been pretty cutting edge until maybe halfway through the 20th century.

filleduchaos 6y ago
Out of curiosity, when exactly do you think the colonial era I am talking about was? The Middle Ages? > It would have also been pretty cutting edge until maybe halfway through the 20th century. Nah, there have been houses built using concrete blocks since fairly early in the 19th. Using cement in house construction was hardly cutting edge in the 1920s - 1930s.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  >concrete blocks since fairly early in the 19th That's the thing. I don't think that's the case. I think they are a 1900's-earliest, 1930's mainstream kind of thing. So by the time they became mainstream, the UK was already beginning the second world war, which would mark the end of the time when they were really rich or powerful enough to be an imperial state.
  - filleduchaos 6y ago
    What you think or don't think and what is reality don't always align, sorry For example, the first concrete built house in the US was built in 1837. Francois Coignet was making significant use of Portland cement as early as the 1850s/1860s. Even beyond that, I'll ask you yet again - when, exactly, do you think the colonial era I am talking about was? When exactly do you think Britain let go of all its territories in Africa? Come now, this isn't exactly hidden information or difficult to look up.
    - pasabagi 6y ago
      Well, the question is not 'when did Britain let go of its territories'. The question is 'when did Britain lose the kind of involvement you need to get into low-level building regulation?' Near as I can find, they never had that kind of interest or involvement. Which is why I wanted a source for your claim that they banned traditional building materials. So my thinking is simple: prior to 1930 is a bit early for concrete blocks to be the logical building material outside of places like New York, and even there, it would be a bit newfangled. After 1930 is a bit late for the british to be really calling the shots about what gets built and how it gets built, since the period between 1945 and 1960 was characterized by increasing independence and english divestment. Maybe some university buildings? Anyway, this whole conversation is a bit of a strange digression from your original rather belicose response to my observation that concrete was not by any means the 'European way'. It's my feeling that, aside from some monumental architecture (which it seems nigeria also had) most europeans were also building with brick, wood, plaster and thatch, up until the 19th century. If you look at a modern timber frame house in the UK, the basic structure would be familiar to a roman architect. The timber structure is laid on brick piles, which are in turn laid on concrete foundations (the only modern addition - victorian houses often wouldn't have these), then a tile roof is fitted on top. It's a ridiculously ancient design.

filleduchaos 6y ago

Out of curiosity, when exactly do you think the colonial era I am talking about was? The Middle Ages? > It would have also been pretty cutting edge until maybe halfway through the 20th century. Nah, there have been houses built using concrete blocks since fairly early in the 19th. Using cement in house construction was hardly cutting edge in the 1920s - 1930s.

pasabagi 6y ago
>concrete blocks since fairly early in the 19th That's the thing. I don't think that's the case. I think they are a 1900's-earliest, 1930's mainstream kind of thing. So by the time they became mainstream, the UK was already beginning the second world war, which would mark the end of the time when they were really rich or powerful enough to be an imperial state.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  What you think or don't think and what is reality don't always align, sorry For example, the first concrete built house in the US was built in 1837. Francois Coignet was making significant use of Portland cement as early as the 1850s/1860s. Even beyond that, I'll ask you yet again - when, exactly, do you think the colonial era I am talking about was? When exactly do you think Britain let go of all its territories in Africa? Come now, this isn't exactly hidden information or difficult to look up.
  - pasabagi 6y ago
    Well, the question is not 'when did Britain let go of its territories'. The question is 'when did Britain lose the kind of involvement you need to get into low-level building regulation?' Near as I can find, they never had that kind of interest or involvement. Which is why I wanted a source for your claim that they banned traditional building materials. So my thinking is simple: prior to 1930 is a bit early for concrete blocks to be the logical building material outside of places like New York, and even there, it would be a bit newfangled. After 1930 is a bit late for the british to be really calling the shots about what gets built and how it gets built, since the period between 1945 and 1960 was characterized by increasing independence and english divestment. Maybe some university buildings? Anyway, this whole conversation is a bit of a strange digression from your original rather belicose response to my observation that concrete was not by any means the 'European way'. It's my feeling that, aside from some monumental architecture (which it seems nigeria also had) most europeans were also building with brick, wood, plaster and thatch, up until the 19th century. If you look at a modern timber frame house in the UK, the basic structure would be familiar to a roman architect. The timber structure is laid on brick piles, which are in turn laid on concrete foundations (the only modern addition - victorian houses often wouldn't have these), then a tile roof is fitted on top. It's a ridiculously ancient design.