5 ms·

Why do we need more cement? In my country there are 2 houses for each family, and we in a housing crisis. Maybe the solution can be less speculation, a social

Why do we need more cement? In my country there are 2 houses for each family, and we in a housing crisis. Maybe the solution can be less speculation, a social solution instead of a technological one.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Three possible, not-mutually exclusive answers: - Fewer families now then before - Significant net movement of people (e.g. the UK took in 0.6m immigrants in 2022, pushing up housing requirements) resulting in more houses being needed in some locations even if the world had zero extra people - Cement isn't reusable, so once it's set it's only useful in that place
- Velofellow 3y ago
  cement ≠ concrete, but concrete is indeed recyclable. I know TxDOT (likely other agencies and municipalities) allows its use, often as aggregate material for HMAC paving. The cured concrete is crushed, sorted by gradation and used accordingly. Concrete rubble can also be used in retaining walls along with some backfill applications. https://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/contractors_consultants/recycling/concrete_aggregate.htm https://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/contractors_consultants...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Most concrete products can be recycled. But, due to the very low cost of cement and other related products, it is rarely economical to transport end of life concrete far to be reused. However, if there are effective taxes on disposing of concrete (as there are throughout the EU+UK), then concrete does tend to get reused.
slothtrop 3y ago
Even if you want to increase density, you'd need concrete to achieve it. Cost of housing is inversely correlated to the rate of new builds in cities, and the reason is the growth in demand through immigration. Can't have your cake and eat it too: want more immigration? Build more. > a social solution Such as what, coercing multiple families to share detached homes? Would you volunteer for that? And how far do we expect to push that when the demand for housing will keep growing?
- drekk 3y ago
  Apartments work fine? In lower density areas simple duplexes or quadplexes work fine. We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. We have more than enough homes. There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. It's not just an issue of building more. Shelter is being treated as a speculative asset and the only meaningful vehicle for building weath in the middle class. Hence the need for a social solution.
  - WheatMillington 3y ago
    You can live in your human storage compartment. I'm happy in my house, thanks.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    > Apartments work fine? You must be familiar with the monumental amount of concrete these require, yes? They are more dense, but not "low-carbon" by any stretch. > We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. Families can decide for themselves what suits them. It's not your place to tell someone they don't "need" something. You don't "need" most of your possessions. Hell you don't even "need" a roof over your head, as it pertains to survival. And we sure don't "need" to race to the bottom and demand lower qualify of life from everyone. Not for homelessness, and not for building efficiency. It does not solve anything. It's purpose is in-group virtue signaling. > We have more than enough homes. If that were true, more people could afford them. Affordability scales with the rate of new builds. > There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. Notwithstanding that this is unsourced, lodgment =/= home ownership and homelessness is its own special problem that includes factors beyond cost. > Hence the need for a social solution. We have those, and they're only being expanded.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      > Families can decide for themselves what suits them. But they only can choose from what gets built, and what gets built is ultimately a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows. And what legislation allows is based, to a significant extent, on what infrastructure can be provided to support particular types of residences. If a government decides it can't be bothered (or afford) upgrading or building the necessary infrastructure to support more apartment dwellings then families aren't going to get to choose living in them. Similarly, what's profitable depends on how taxes and other fees are levied from profits made by property developers and owners etc. Families don't get much choice over that either.
StefanWestfal 3y ago
That is true for a lot of western countries but we are expect to produce and consume more concrete until 2050 then we did so far in history in developing countries.
ayemel 3y ago
The US is currently on shoring a significant amount of manufacturing, need new builds to support this.

Why do we need more cement? In my country there are 2 houses for each family, and we in a housing crisis. Maybe the solution can be less speculation, a social solution instead of a technological one.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Three possible, not-mutually exclusive answers: - Fewer families now then before - Significant net movement of people (e.g. the UK took in 0.6m immigrants in 2022, pushing up housing requirements) resulting in more houses being needed in some locations even if the world had zero extra people - Cement isn't reusable, so once it's set it's only useful in that place

Velofellow 3y ago
cement ≠ concrete, but concrete is indeed recyclable. I know TxDOT (likely other agencies and municipalities) allows its use, often as aggregate material for HMAC paving. The cured concrete is crushed, sorted by gradation and used accordingly. Concrete rubble can also be used in retaining walls along with some backfill applications. https://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/contractors_consultants/recycling/concrete_aggregate.htm https://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/contractors_consultants...
londons_explore 3y ago
Most concrete products can be recycled. But, due to the very low cost of cement and other related products, it is rarely economical to transport end of life concrete far to be reused. However, if there are effective taxes on disposing of concrete (as there are throughout the EU+UK), then concrete does tend to get reused.

slothtrop 3y ago

Even if you want to increase density, you'd need concrete to achieve it. Cost of housing is inversely correlated to the rate of new builds in cities, and the reason is the growth in demand through immigration. Can't have your cake and eat it too: want more immigration? Build more. > a social solution Such as what, coercing multiple families to share detached homes? Would you volunteer for that? And how far do we expect to push that when the demand for housing will keep growing?

drekk 3y ago
Apartments work fine? In lower density areas simple duplexes or quadplexes work fine. We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. We have more than enough homes. There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. It's not just an issue of building more. Shelter is being treated as a speculative asset and the only meaningful vehicle for building weath in the middle class. Hence the need for a social solution.
- WheatMillington 3y ago
  You can live in your human storage compartment. I'm happy in my house, thanks.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  > Apartments work fine? You must be familiar with the monumental amount of concrete these require, yes? They are more dense, but not "low-carbon" by any stretch. > We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence. Families can decide for themselves what suits them. It's not your place to tell someone they don't "need" something. You don't "need" most of your possessions. Hell you don't even "need" a roof over your head, as it pertains to survival. And we sure don't "need" to race to the bottom and demand lower qualify of life from everyone. Not for homelessness, and not for building efficiency. It does not solve anything. It's purpose is in-group virtue signaling. > We have more than enough homes. If that were true, more people could afford them. Affordability scales with the rate of new builds. > There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. Notwithstanding that this is unsourced, lodgment =/= home ownership and homelessness is its own special problem that includes factors beyond cost. > Hence the need for a social solution. We have those, and they're only being expanded.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    > Families can decide for themselves what suits them. But they only can choose from what gets built, and what gets built is ultimately a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows. And what legislation allows is based, to a significant extent, on what infrastructure can be provided to support particular types of residences. If a government decides it can't be bothered (or afford) upgrading or building the necessary infrastructure to support more apartment dwellings then families aren't going to get to choose living in them. Similarly, what's profitable depends on how taxes and other fees are levied from profits made by property developers and owners etc. Families don't get much choice over that either.

StefanWestfal 3y ago

That is true for a lot of western countries but we are expect to produce and consume more concrete until 2050 then we did so far in history in developing countries.

ayemel 3y ago

The US is currently on shoring a significant amount of manufacturing, need new builds to support this.