4 ms·

We can do that. But we can't make new space.

by spaniard89277 3y ago

pegasus 3y ago
If the footprint is so expensive, you'd expect more investment in building quality, not less.
- azulster 3y ago
  bricks and wood are unable to maximize the quality of a limited footprint. an expensive plot of land in a city needs to be built to certain quality standards to make sure it is affordable and safe. this is only possible with steel and concrete. brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories
  - pas 3y ago
    Of course depending on the definition, but light-framed wood is good for around 5 stories. And mass timber (eg. CLT - cross-laminated timber) is good up to ~20. And for the foundation concrete is still needed. But a lighter one. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-but-it-will https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-...
  - pchristensen 3y ago
    Much of American cities and outer areas of are 0 stories (big lots, wide roads, etc), or maybe 1-2. Building technology is not the limiting factor.
  - nick__m 3y ago
    brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories Tell that to those architects: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/worlds-tallest-wooden-skyscraper-greenlit https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/worlds-tallest-woo...
    - astrange 3y ago
      That's not plain wood like American houses are made of, it's a new kind of engineered material that's made out of wood called CLT.
- hannasanarion 3y ago
  Because the footprint is so expensive, you don't have the cash to invest in quality without making the building too expensive for the people who are going to be using it. And the footprint isn't the only thing that's more expensive, all the cool new technologies that your grandparent comment brought up are all more expensive to implement than structures without them. The existence of those technologies implies the existence of skilled professionals to plan and install them. It used to be that you just needed to pay your architect and engineer and builders, now you gotta also pay your crane operators and electricians and plumbers and acoustic consultants, and fire protection experts, and geologists, and network engineers, and energy consultants, and accessibility consultants too and they all want to be paid well for their expertise. The proliferation of skilled professionals reduces the appetite in the population in general for unskilled manual labor, so that gets more scarce and expensive too. Gotta pay the builders well or else they'll quit and change careers to be one of those professional types. Add to that the regulatory and compliance requirements that raises the floor of acceptable quality (building MUST be energy efficient, accessible, fire-safe, earthquake-safe, minimally ecologically impactful, etc etc etc) and your wiggle room for where to focus your "quality" budget is pretty tiny and exterior aesthetics rapidly sinks to the bottom of that list. [disclaimer: I actually disagree with the people who say that new buildings are ugly. I actually like the modernist and international style aesthetics that are artistic declarations of raw functionality. My town has a brutalist city hall where the council chamber juts out in an overhang, so when you walk by you can look at it and say "that funky structural appendix is the exact room where people are making important decisions at this very moment" which I think is cool. This post-modern concert hall just opened a few blocks from me and I think it's pretty sexy: https://wysomusic.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-11-16-at-11.46.55-AM-1024x514.png https://wysomusic.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-11... ]
balfirevic 3y ago
> We can do that. Can we? Construction is heavily impacted by cost disease. My friend recently had a house built and the plot of land was around 15% of the cost of the entire project. The land in more premium location would still end up under 30% of total cost.

We can do that. But we can't make new space.

pegasus 3y ago

If the footprint is so expensive, you'd expect more investment in building quality, not less.

azulster 3y ago
bricks and wood are unable to maximize the quality of a limited footprint. an expensive plot of land in a city needs to be built to certain quality standards to make sure it is affordable and safe. this is only possible with steel and concrete. brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories
- pas 3y ago
  Of course depending on the definition, but light-framed wood is good for around 5 stories. And mass timber (eg. CLT - cross-laminated timber) is good up to ~20. And for the foundation concrete is still needed. But a lighter one. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-but-it-will https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-great-...
- pchristensen 3y ago
  Much of American cities and outer areas of are 0 stories (big lots, wide roads, etc), or maybe 1-2. Building technology is not the limiting factor.
- nick__m 3y ago
  brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over 3 stories Tell that to those architects: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/worlds-tallest-wooden-skyscraper-greenlit https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/worlds-tallest-woo...
  - astrange 3y ago
    That's not plain wood like American houses are made of, it's a new kind of engineered material that's made out of wood called CLT.
hannasanarion 3y ago
Because the footprint is so expensive, you don't have the cash to invest in quality without making the building too expensive for the people who are going to be using it. And the footprint isn't the only thing that's more expensive, all the cool new technologies that your grandparent comment brought up are all more expensive to implement than structures without them. The existence of those technologies implies the existence of skilled professionals to plan and install them. It used to be that you just needed to pay your architect and engineer and builders, now you gotta also pay your crane operators and electricians and plumbers and acoustic consultants, and fire protection experts, and geologists, and network engineers, and energy consultants, and accessibility consultants too and they all want to be paid well for their expertise. The proliferation of skilled professionals reduces the appetite in the population in general for unskilled manual labor, so that gets more scarce and expensive too. Gotta pay the builders well or else they'll quit and change careers to be one of those professional types. Add to that the regulatory and compliance requirements that raises the floor of acceptable quality (building MUST be energy efficient, accessible, fire-safe, earthquake-safe, minimally ecologically impactful, etc etc etc) and your wiggle room for where to focus your "quality" budget is pretty tiny and exterior aesthetics rapidly sinks to the bottom of that list. [disclaimer: I actually disagree with the people who say that new buildings are ugly. I actually like the modernist and international style aesthetics that are artistic declarations of raw functionality. My town has a brutalist city hall where the council chamber juts out in an overhang, so when you walk by you can look at it and say "that funky structural appendix is the exact room where people are making important decisions at this very moment" which I think is cool. This post-modern concert hall just opened a few blocks from me and I think it's pretty sexy: https://wysomusic.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-11-16-at-11.46.55-AM-1024x514.png https://wysomusic.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-11... ]

balfirevic 3y ago

> We can do that. Can we? Construction is heavily impacted by cost disease. My friend recently had a house built and the plot of land was around 15% of the cost of the entire project. The land in more premium location would still end up under 30% of total cost.