4 ms·

Stainless steel girders? I see this is a no costs spared build. At one point the author even considered Inconel girders, but practical considerations on build

Stainless steel girders? I see this is a no costs spared build. At one point the author even considered Inconel girders, but practical considerations on builder experience with exotic alloys made that a bridge too far. Even so he is planning to have builders come in an brick up the entire frame before the rest of the house is built. I did like that he realized one of the most important aspects of keeping a house around is to make people want to keep it around. Make sure it doesn't age poorly because then even if the structure is sound people will tear it down because "it is an eyesore".

rootsudo 5y ago
"Eyesore" also depends on the community. Lots of places will keep an eyesore place gladly because they can't infringe on the property owners rights. Many places in Asia are like this in general.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Sure, but over the course of 1000 years presumably the property will be brought and sold many times. So you need a building at least desirable enough that the subsequent owners won't opt to demolish it. Of course, designing widely beloved buildings is easier said than done.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Lots of places will keep an eyesore place gladly because they can't infringe on the property owners rights. This is some fun new meaning of the word "gladly"
tomthe 5y ago
Stainless steel is also much more brittle than construction steel. And this matters a lot. Not only in case of earthquakes but also just in construction where you have large tolerances. Construction steel will bend plastically, while a more brittle steel can just crack. Welding stainless steel is also inviting issues, but possible in principle.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That, and using both steel and stone in the same structure brings its own class of problems due to the different expansion coefficients which needs to be dealt with in a very ingenious way if that is supposed to last for a millenium (or more).
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Seems to me like, given the expense and duration goals, you'd be much better off forgoing steel entirely and creating a stone gravity-bound structure, and making the places where you can't go with stone easy to repair or replace, something for which I'm not sure structural steel is ideal. > Our other option is slate. Slate roofs have extremely long lifespans and are extremely attractive. But, like copper, they’re more expensive upfront, and require more specialized skills to install (since they’re less common). A slate roof is also extremely heavy, putting more weight on our framing and increasing the risk of damage during an earthquake. OP apparently doesn't know that slate roof have to be repaired all the time. Slates will age and break, especially if they're nailed (because the metal expands and cracks the slate). I've spent 10 years with a slate roof, and it has to regularly be fully checked, and missing or breaking slates replaced (because they'll leak). Screw slate, give me terracota tiles any day of the week. Lighter, way more flexible, and easier to replace when they invariably break.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, another way to spell Slate roof = work. The reason is simple: Slate, layers of fossilized leaves, has a rough surface and frost and the weather in general will work on it and split the layers apart, seeds will find enough purchase to germinate (the handy supply of water certainly helps) and lichen and moss just love to grow on slate. This whole article to me reads: "I'm planning on an overpriced construction for my house and need a plausible excuse'. It's a status thing and a discussion piece, not a serious project. If you want to build for a millenium: copy the Romans. Done. And even then you're going to have to re-do all the trimmings every so many years because they'll all give out with use. Even staircases made out of solid stone will wear over such time spans.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
>Make sure it doesn't age poorly because then even if the structure is sound people will tear it down because "it is an eyesore". This is an interesting one, lots of interesting buildings were torn down as old eyesores to be replaced with much more efficient modern buildings in the post-WW2 UK. Nowadays these are considered eyesores ripe for demolition and the buildings they replaced are valued, to the point post-War town planners are sometimes cursed to this very day. Taste changes often, I think the best chance of keeping a building around on these grounds are to make it an interesting or particularly elegant example of a style subjectively considered by most to be timeless. I know it's purely subjective, but I really think the trend in architecture to do away with ornamentation was quite bad from a 'places real people have to live in' perspective, even if it's interesting from an artistic point of view.

rootsudo 5y ago

"Eyesore" also depends on the community. Lots of places will keep an eyesore place gladly because they can't infringe on the property owners rights. Many places in Asia are like this in general.

michaelt 5y ago
Sure, but over the course of 1000 years presumably the property will be brought and sold many times. So you need a building at least desirable enough that the subsequent owners won't opt to demolish it. Of course, designing widely beloved buildings is easier said than done.
HWR_14 5y ago
> Lots of places will keep an eyesore place gladly because they can't infringe on the property owners rights. This is some fun new meaning of the word "gladly"

tomthe 5y ago

Stainless steel is also much more brittle than construction steel. And this matters a lot. Not only in case of earthquakes but also just in construction where you have large tolerances. Construction steel will bend plastically, while a more brittle steel can just crack. Welding stainless steel is also inviting issues, but possible in principle.

jacquesm 5y ago
That, and using both steel and stone in the same structure brings its own class of problems due to the different expansion coefficients which needs to be dealt with in a very ingenious way if that is supposed to last for a millenium (or more).
- masklinn 5y ago
  Seems to me like, given the expense and duration goals, you'd be much better off forgoing steel entirely and creating a stone gravity-bound structure, and making the places where you can't go with stone easy to repair or replace, something for which I'm not sure structural steel is ideal. > Our other option is slate. Slate roofs have extremely long lifespans and are extremely attractive. But, like copper, they’re more expensive upfront, and require more specialized skills to install (since they’re less common). A slate roof is also extremely heavy, putting more weight on our framing and increasing the risk of damage during an earthquake. OP apparently doesn't know that slate roof have to be repaired all the time. Slates will age and break, especially if they're nailed (because the metal expands and cracks the slate). I've spent 10 years with a slate roof, and it has to regularly be fully checked, and missing or breaking slates replaced (because they'll leak). Screw slate, give me terracota tiles any day of the week. Lighter, way more flexible, and easier to replace when they invariably break.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes, another way to spell Slate roof = work. The reason is simple: Slate, layers of fossilized leaves, has a rough surface and frost and the weather in general will work on it and split the layers apart, seeds will find enough purchase to germinate (the handy supply of water certainly helps) and lichen and moss just love to grow on slate. This whole article to me reads: "I'm planning on an overpriced construction for my house and need a plausible excuse'. It's a status thing and a discussion piece, not a serious project. If you want to build for a millenium: copy the Romans. Done. And even then you're going to have to re-do all the trimmings every so many years because they'll all give out with use. Even staircases made out of solid stone will wear over such time spans.

BoxOfRain 5y ago

>Make sure it doesn't age poorly because then even if the structure is sound people will tear it down because "it is an eyesore". This is an interesting one, lots of interesting buildings were torn down as old eyesores to be replaced with much more efficient modern buildings in the post-WW2 UK. Nowadays these are considered eyesores ripe for demolition and the buildings they replaced are valued, to the point post-War town planners are sometimes cursed to this very day. Taste changes often, I think the best chance of keeping a building around on these grounds are to make it an interesting or particularly elegant example of a style subjectively considered by most to be timeless. I know it's purely subjective, but I really think the trend in architecture to do away with ornamentation was quite bad from a 'places real people have to live in' perspective, even if it's interesting from an artistic point of view.