3 ms·
It is a similar story for schools, and other building-types. They could be modular, and benefit from overhauls/extensions/fixups every decade or two. Instead
by stevekemp 3y ago
It is a similar story for schools, and other building-types. They could be modular, and benefit from overhauls/extensions/fixups every decade or two. Instead we have historically "quirky" buildings that evolve a little in-place at great cost.
This recently came to a head, again, in the UK where it was discovered that some schools were on the verge of failing due to the limited lifespan of the concrete and building technique in use:
"Crumbling and potentially dangerous concrete has been found in 174 English schools, 27 more than previously known..."
- bluGill 3y agoI'm not sure if limited lifespan is really a negative. 50 years ago i'd expect to see asbestos, lead paint, aluminum wiring, single pane windows, and minimal insulation. All are things expensive to replace so so tearing down and starting over makes sense. That is in addition to they didn't plan for modern needs in other ways, computer networks are retrofitable, but it will show. Did they build a lunch room with the right equipment in place, modern cooking has changed some (not always for the better). Did they put in the right size gym for modern needs. Should there be a separate cafeteria. Is the school way too big or small for the local population (family sizes are down, but schools have consolidated). Is there space for the different break out classes, my impression is gifted talented programs have more importance today.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoWell... That assumes willingness to build new things rather than miserably put up with the decaying things left to us by previous generations. They're re/building about 50 a year, and there are 32000 schools, so about 0.15% of the stock per year. So a school has to last over 600 years on average before it'll get rebuilt at this rate.