6 ms·

While over any time frame a building will eventually collapse it's worth recalling that in europe many of the buildings are substantially older than those in th

by yomly 5y ago

While over any time frame a building will eventually collapse it's worth recalling that in europe many of the buildings are substantially older than those in the US. I foresee collapsing buildings becoming more and more of an issue for fast erected buildings from the past 50 or so years Slightly an aside but I believe that is part of the reason why leases in Singapore are often 99 years - because the government doesn't plan for them to last beyond then

axiosgunnar 5y ago
Who is „them“ referring to?
- yomly 5y ago
  Them = the buildings. This is pure conjecture but you could plan a cycle like the following: Build new housing development Sell all properties on it with 99 year leases When 50 years to go on lease conduct on block sale (maybe developer pays) Demolish and rebuild and restart 99 year lease cycle This keeps construction industry active on scarce land resource Keeps buildings fresh with latest materials and engineering principles Gives property owners an exit on their 99 year lease so household wealth doesn't evaporate Strategy folds when Singapore is no longer a desirable place to invest/build
kortilla 5y ago
> it's worth recalling that in europe many of the buildings are substantially older than those in the US. Not anything this tall. Mid to high rises weren’t really possible until very recently historically speaking. Also don’t forget that you’re literally hitting survivor bias here. Of course the old buildings still standing in Europe are the good construction, all of the others are gone.
- yomly 5y ago
  You're quite right on both size of buildings and also survivorship bias! Although the prevalence of old housing across the UK suggests (to me at least) that something systematic has changed. The fact that people can have an obsession with tudor, georgian, Victorian style housing tells me that things were built to last in a way that might be less true today. As you say, the technology to build so high is a recent one, I note the Empire State Building is only 80 years old which is pretty young when compared against Notre Dame for example

by yomly 5y ago

axiosgunnar 5y ago

Who is „them“ referring to?

yomly 5y ago
Them = the buildings. This is pure conjecture but you could plan a cycle like the following: Build new housing development Sell all properties on it with 99 year leases When 50 years to go on lease conduct on block sale (maybe developer pays) Demolish and rebuild and restart 99 year lease cycle This keeps construction industry active on scarce land resource Keeps buildings fresh with latest materials and engineering principles Gives property owners an exit on their 99 year lease so household wealth doesn't evaporate Strategy folds when Singapore is no longer a desirable place to invest/build

kortilla 5y ago

> it's worth recalling that in europe many of the buildings are substantially older than those in the US. Not anything this tall. Mid to high rises weren’t really possible until very recently historically speaking. Also don’t forget that you’re literally hitting survivor bias here. Of course the old buildings still standing in Europe are the good construction, all of the others are gone.

yomly 5y ago
You're quite right on both size of buildings and also survivorship bias! Although the prevalence of old housing across the UK suggests (to me at least) that something systematic has changed. The fact that people can have an obsession with tudor, georgian, Victorian style housing tells me that things were built to last in a way that might be less true today. As you say, the technology to build so high is a recent one, I note the Empire State Building is only 80 years old which is pretty young when compared against Notre Dame for example