4 ms·

A European buddy visiting the states commented to me, some years ago, about how flimsy American construction was. "Back home we build things to last 500 years,"

A European buddy visiting the states commented to me, some years ago, about how flimsy American construction was. "Back home we build things to last 500 years," and so on. Part of that difference is that we don't want things to last that long. Expectations are that within 50 or 100 years this building will no longer be wanted in anything like its current form, so why build for longer? Just makes the teardown effort that much more expensive. There's argument to be made for investing more in infrastructure like roads; but again there's a counter argument to be made in favor of the way things have evolved and are done now. Fresh roads are smooth and level and "fixing potholes" is never going to be cheaper or produce better results than occasional full refurbishments do. Kind of a Laffer curve: Durable, low frequency but expensive maintenance vs flimsy, cheaply and often maintained and often rebuilt.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hermitcrab 4y ago
Making cheap, flimsy stuff that you trash (or worse, abandon) and rebuild every few years is very wasteful of resources and terrible for the environment though.
- seoaeu 4y ago
  Using buildings constructed before the invention of modern insulation is terrible for the environment too.
  - tener 4y ago
    You can totally insulate old buildings. Not super cheap, but cheaper than heating, perfectly doable.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      Sure, in many cases that's the right thing to do. From the outside, however, major retrofits like that are going to look a lot like the construction that the article is taking about
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Broadly, I agree. But the specifics depend on ... well, the specifics. If 20 years go by and there's new building techniques/materials that drastically reduce the energy utilization of a building, it's not unimaginable that it may be less wasteful to tear it down. I would agree that this doesn't happen very often for something at least moderately well built; for the not-very-well built, I am not so sure.
SamBam 4y ago
Perhaps, but even the old stuff needs to be constantly maintained. I grew up in Rome, the eternal city, and everything was constantly under scaffolding, and the cobblestones on the streets were always being redone. There were some facades of buildings that I had never even seen until I was aged 10, and all of a sudden a square that I always thought dull would be revealed with the scaffolding removed and the building looking beautiful.
notahacker 4y ago
There are obviously tradeoffs when building things to last a really long time, but people in the US aren't roofing their houses with crappy asphalt tiles that'll be lucky to last a couple of decades for ease of expansion. Modifying a well-built structure is often easier than completely tearing down and replacing a poorly built structure too.
mistrial9 4y ago
European warfare repeatedly destroyed valuable buildings "made to last 500 years" culminating in mass bombing in the Second World War. Meanwhile, super-advanced Japan builds houses that are expected to be torn down in less than 100 years, with a very different history of public destruction in the name of War.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Japan may be too far on the disposable end. Apparently buying used is a bad thing so they rebuild every 20 years or so.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    That depends entirely on the specifics. The Japanese aren't so crazy they'd toss good buildings to the fishes once they hit the 20 years. They just don't put the same value on old building materials as Europeans and North Americans do.
    - byw 4y ago
      My guess is that due to earthquakes and typhoons, there's a lot more pressure to keep building codes up-to-date with state of the art. In North America so much of how we build is dictated by traditions.
- i_am_proteus 4y ago
  Japan is subject to regular severe earthquakes. Most of Europe is not.
frosted-flakes 4y ago
Honestly, so much of America is suburban wasteland that I'm glad American buildings are so "disposable" and easily replaced. Once everyone figures out that, no, it's not a good idea to live so spread-out, hopefully cities will start to densify. Ahh, one can dream...
- refurb 4y ago
  The WFH change is driving de-densification. No commute and people fled cities pretty quickly. People don’t cram into 600 sq ft shoe boxes in SF because that’s their dream home. They do it to avoid a long commute.
pvg 4y ago
Back home we build things to last 500 years, Unless your buddy was from the Vatican, it's not true for much of Europe. These beauties aren't gonna last 500 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
- rd 4y ago
  It’s just a Communist Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe thing. Western Europe’s history and historical buildings remained and will remain intact for centuries. Eastern Europe’s didn’t remain due to war and won’t remain due to lack of culture surrounding said buildings now. None of this meant in an offensive way - just the way it goes sometimes.
  - pvg 4y ago
    Plenty of housing like it was built in the west, with the same tech. Not to mention all the cheap workers' housing of the industrial revolution most of which didn't last 150 years, never mind 500.
  - alephxyz 4y ago
    No it's not. France and Italy also built a ton of those brutalist commuter towns in the 60s.
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  But those examples were built as temporary buildings until real Communism was established and everyone could live in nice houses.
burlesona 4y ago
A lot of American buildings today are overfit for their initial purpose and hard to remodel / adapt later. In the past most buildings were simple rectangles with basements or pier and beam foundations and simple roofs which all help make a building easy to reconfigure. Today’s buildings are fast-fashion, and look and feel quite dated after 20-30 years. Ironically this is partially explained by the increasing stringency of zoning and building codes which leads to the increasing professionalization of building design. It used to be much more common for a person to basically just build a brick box on their own or with a little bit of contractor help. Professional designers need to do “design” to build their portfolio and attract business.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hermitcrab 4y ago

Making cheap, flimsy stuff that you trash (or worse, abandon) and rebuild every few years is very wasteful of resources and terrible for the environment though.

seoaeu 4y ago
Using buildings constructed before the invention of modern insulation is terrible for the environment too.
- tener 4y ago
  You can totally insulate old buildings. Not super cheap, but cheaper than heating, perfectly doable.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    Sure, in many cases that's the right thing to do. From the outside, however, major retrofits like that are going to look a lot like the construction that the article is taking about
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Broadly, I agree. But the specifics depend on ... well, the specifics. If 20 years go by and there's new building techniques/materials that drastically reduce the energy utilization of a building, it's not unimaginable that it may be less wasteful to tear it down. I would agree that this doesn't happen very often for something at least moderately well built; for the not-very-well built, I am not so sure.

SamBam 4y ago

Perhaps, but even the old stuff needs to be constantly maintained. I grew up in Rome, the eternal city, and everything was constantly under scaffolding, and the cobblestones on the streets were always being redone. There were some facades of buildings that I had never even seen until I was aged 10, and all of a sudden a square that I always thought dull would be revealed with the scaffolding removed and the building looking beautiful.

notahacker 4y ago

There are obviously tradeoffs when building things to last a really long time, but people in the US aren't roofing their houses with crappy asphalt tiles that'll be lucky to last a couple of decades for ease of expansion. Modifying a well-built structure is often easier than completely tearing down and replacing a poorly built structure too.

mistrial9 4y ago

European warfare repeatedly destroyed valuable buildings "made to last 500 years" culminating in mass bombing in the Second World War. Meanwhile, super-advanced Japan builds houses that are expected to be torn down in less than 100 years, with a very different history of public destruction in the name of War.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Japan may be too far on the disposable end. Apparently buying used is a bad thing so they rebuild every 20 years or so.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  That depends entirely on the specifics. The Japanese aren't so crazy they'd toss good buildings to the fishes once they hit the 20 years. They just don't put the same value on old building materials as Europeans and North Americans do.
  - byw 4y ago
    My guess is that due to earthquakes and typhoons, there's a lot more pressure to keep building codes up-to-date with state of the art. In North America so much of how we build is dictated by traditions.
i_am_proteus 4y ago
Japan is subject to regular severe earthquakes. Most of Europe is not.

frosted-flakes 4y ago

Honestly, so much of America is suburban wasteland that I'm glad American buildings are so "disposable" and easily replaced. Once everyone figures out that, no, it's not a good idea to live so spread-out, hopefully cities will start to densify. Ahh, one can dream...

refurb 4y ago
The WFH change is driving de-densification. No commute and people fled cities pretty quickly. People don’t cram into 600 sq ft shoe boxes in SF because that’s their dream home. They do it to avoid a long commute.

pvg 4y ago

Back home we build things to last 500 years, Unless your buddy was from the Vatican, it's not true for much of Europe. These beauties aren't gonna last 500 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka

rd 4y ago
It’s just a Communist Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe thing. Western Europe’s history and historical buildings remained and will remain intact for centuries. Eastern Europe’s didn’t remain due to war and won’t remain due to lack of culture surrounding said buildings now. None of this meant in an offensive way - just the way it goes sometimes.
- pvg 4y ago
  Plenty of housing like it was built in the west, with the same tech. Not to mention all the cheap workers' housing of the industrial revolution most of which didn't last 150 years, never mind 500.
- alephxyz 4y ago
  No it's not. France and Italy also built a ton of those brutalist commuter towns in the 60s.
Ma8ee 4y ago
But those examples were built as temporary buildings until real Communism was established and everyone could live in nice houses.

burlesona 4y ago

A lot of American buildings today are overfit for their initial purpose and hard to remodel / adapt later. In the past most buildings were simple rectangles with basements or pier and beam foundations and simple roofs which all help make a building easy to reconfigure. Today’s buildings are fast-fashion, and look and feel quite dated after 20-30 years. Ironically this is partially explained by the increasing stringency of zoning and building codes which leads to the increasing professionalization of building design. It used to be much more common for a person to basically just build a brick box on their own or with a little bit of contractor help. Professional designers need to do “design” to build their portfolio and attract business.