4 ms·

The world doesn't reward long term, unfortunately. Today, if someone wanted a building or house built, and one person who knows a special formula and method gi

The world doesn't reward long term, unfortunately. Today, if someone wanted a building or house built, and one person who knows a special formula and method gives a higher number than someone with rebar and concrete, they lose the contract. I'd imagine in all industries, brilliance has been defeated by cheaper adequacy to some extent. I can think of a few examples offhand, all related to metal and tooling. It's sadly been a race to the bottom, rather than sharing enlightening secrets.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Houses are an interesting example because I think that most people value longevity over at least a few generations, Old houses built 200 years ago in France or England are still used, maintained and highly valued. But more recent buildings have a lifespan that is shorter than a human, and are often ugly. I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours.
- qayxc 5y ago
  > I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours. This is a very one-sided view. The same argument can be used with other items as well, say shoes for example. Sure 200 years ago shoes were much more durable, but they were also so expensive that not everyone could afford them. Same goes for housing. Sure, you can build beautiful long lasting houses today, but they'd be even less affordable than the modern "ugly boxes". Then there's changing requirements as well. I live in a 100+ year old house and while it's medium to smallish by today's standards, it used to be a twin house back when it was built... In the original layout, rooms were tiny by today's standards not to mention insulation (or lack thereof), heating (wood and coal ovens in every room instead of central heating etc.), fire protection and plumbing. It's much more expensive to modernise an old house and bring it up to code than it is to build a new one that's designed to meet all current requirements from the start.
  - stephc_int13 5y ago
    Tiny houses were built for the poor. Have you visited Regency style first-floor apartment? They are far from tiny, with up to 4 meters heigh ceilings, very large rooms...
    - qayxc 5y ago
      What kind of bullshit argument is that? I could just as well state that US McMansions are built for the poor because $100 million 25000ft² estates exist. Yes, the super rich had big houses. But I'm not talking about the top 1% here. The average citizen throughout the centuries didn't reside in large houses or apartments. By your standards 99.x% of the people have been and still are poor.
      - stephc_int13 5y ago
        Nah, this type of Regency or Hausmann apartment were not built for billionaires but for the Bourgeoisie, people in the top 5-10% income of their time.
DeathArrow 5y ago
I believe not all individuals and all organizations are always chasing the lowest price. There is still room for quality although is less requested.
adwn 5y ago
> Today Do you think that the common people of Rome, when given the choice between a house that'll last for 50 years, and a house that'll last for 2000 years but costs a multiple, would have chosen the latter? How many houses from ancient Rome are still standing today? Taking this into consideration, do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon? Do you think that the Romans, had they had ready access to today's technology (steel rebar, Portland cement, and the knowledge necessary to use it), would have built the Colosseum the way they did? Or did they build it that way out of necessity, because they lacked alternatives?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon?" We literally he have proof written in stone. The wealthy men of olde were generational land-owners. They had dynasties and build generational assets. Their manshions and castles are still standing today unless they were destroyed by war. That was their wealth. I have a friend who offers climate change risk assesments on infrastructure and industry. Once he told the investor his asset will be gone in 15 years, you know what he replied? "Why do I care, i will sell it in 3 " You couldn't do that kind of shit before. Today's wealth is held in invisible, imaginary assets, that you can flip and swap at the click of a button. This short-termism will be our undoing
  - adwn 5y ago
    > We literally he have proof written in stone. No, we don't. Only a tiny fraction of ancient Rome's buildings are still standing ("standing" is relative, most of those are ruins). And they didn't overbuild them because of their virtuous character, but because they lacked more efficient construction techniques and materials. > mansions, castles Castles have been useless for hundreds of years now (except as tourist attractions), and a mansion that was built 300 years ago doesn't satisfy today's requirements (like built-in running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, insulation, accessibility). It seems that building something for eternity isn't actually a good use of our resources. (Please note that I'm not defending the extreme short-sightedness demonstrated by that investor you quoted)
Bayart 5y ago
Romans built houses largely out of bricks and half-timbering.

stephc_int13 5y ago

Houses are an interesting example because I think that most people value longevity over at least a few generations, Old houses built 200 years ago in France or England are still used, maintained and highly valued. But more recent buildings have a lifespan that is shorter than a human, and are often ugly. I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours.

qayxc 5y ago
> I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours. This is a very one-sided view. The same argument can be used with other items as well, say shoes for example. Sure 200 years ago shoes were much more durable, but they were also so expensive that not everyone could afford them. Same goes for housing. Sure, you can build beautiful long lasting houses today, but they'd be even less affordable than the modern "ugly boxes". Then there's changing requirements as well. I live in a 100+ year old house and while it's medium to smallish by today's standards, it used to be a twin house back when it was built... In the original layout, rooms were tiny by today's standards not to mention insulation (or lack thereof), heating (wood and coal ovens in every room instead of central heating etc.), fire protection and plumbing. It's much more expensive to modernise an old house and bring it up to code than it is to build a new one that's designed to meet all current requirements from the start.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Tiny houses were built for the poor. Have you visited Regency style first-floor apartment? They are far from tiny, with up to 4 meters heigh ceilings, very large rooms...
  - qayxc 5y ago
    What kind of bullshit argument is that? I could just as well state that US McMansions are built for the poor because $100 million 25000ft² estates exist. Yes, the super rich had big houses. But I'm not talking about the top 1% here. The average citizen throughout the centuries didn't reside in large houses or apartments. By your standards 99.x% of the people have been and still are poor.
    - stephc_int13 5y ago
      Nah, this type of Regency or Hausmann apartment were not built for billionaires but for the Bourgeoisie, people in the top 5-10% income of their time.

DeathArrow 5y ago

I believe not all individuals and all organizations are always chasing the lowest price. There is still room for quality although is less requested.

adwn 5y ago

> Today Do you think that the common people of Rome, when given the choice between a house that'll last for 50 years, and a house that'll last for 2000 years but costs a multiple, would have chosen the latter? How many houses from ancient Rome are still standing today? Taking this into consideration, do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon? Do you think that the Romans, had they had ready access to today's technology (steel rebar, Portland cement, and the knowledge necessary to use it), would have built the Colosseum the way they did? Or did they build it that way out of necessity, because they lacked alternatives?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon?" We literally he have proof written in stone. The wealthy men of olde were generational land-owners. They had dynasties and build generational assets. Their manshions and castles are still standing today unless they were destroyed by war. That was their wealth. I have a friend who offers climate change risk assesments on infrastructure and industry. Once he told the investor his asset will be gone in 15 years, you know what he replied? "Why do I care, i will sell it in 3 " You couldn't do that kind of shit before. Today's wealth is held in invisible, imaginary assets, that you can flip and swap at the click of a button. This short-termism will be our undoing
- adwn 5y ago
  > We literally he have proof written in stone. No, we don't. Only a tiny fraction of ancient Rome's buildings are still standing ("standing" is relative, most of those are ruins). And they didn't overbuild them because of their virtuous character, but because they lacked more efficient construction techniques and materials. > mansions, castles Castles have been useless for hundreds of years now (except as tourist attractions), and a mansion that was built 300 years ago doesn't satisfy today's requirements (like built-in running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, insulation, accessibility). It seems that building something for eternity isn't actually a good use of our resources. (Please note that I'm not defending the extreme short-sightedness demonstrated by that investor you quoted)

Bayart 5y ago

Romans built houses largely out of bricks and half-timbering.