3 ms·
Could you make your comment more helpful? At the moment it can be summarized as "more concrete is more expensive". It's seems you have more thoughts on it, but
by BoiledCabbage 5y ago
Could you make your comment more helpful?
At the moment it can be summarized as "more concrete is more expensive". It's seems you have more thoughts on it, but it's hard to infer much else from it.
- stonemetal12 5y agoHe mentions density, which to me all most always comes down to height. How tall of a building can you build with meter thick walls?
- jazzyjackson 5y agoThe monadnock building in Chicago [0] partially answers your question: “ The Monadnock's final height was calculated to be the highest economically viable for a load-bearing wall design, requiring walls 6 feet (1.8 m) thick at the bottom and 18 inches (46 cm) thick at the top. Greater height would have required walls of such thickness that they would have reduced the rentable space too greatly.” [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building
- josephcsible 5y agoMy reading was that the issue is the massively increased footprint of every building, not the cost of the concrete.