4 ms·

It is not moving goalposts, but a genuine question. I was surprised that there are buildings higher than 5 stories being constructed today in stone. However it

It is not moving goalposts, but a genuine question. I was surprised that there are buildings higher than 5 stories being constructed today in stone. However it looks very unaffordable for 99% of people (housing affordability like climate concern is also a social question). Plus I would hate to think how our planet would look if cities were made of stone instead of concrete (cities would look nice but the hills around them?).

littlestymaar 2y ago
> I was surprised that there are buildings higher than 5 stories being constructed today in stone. There aren't being constructed anymore. But that's the point I'm making actually: Paris is mostly made of buildings built in the 19th century, and that's only possible because the said buildings where made out of stone. With reinforced concrete, concrete cancer would be overwhelming. > However it looks very unaffordable for 99% of people In a planet where the population is converging, the ability to keep using the same building for more than a century is in fact the most economical way, focusing on short term costs of disposable buildings is already becoming unsustainable (that's exactly what we're talking about when the topic of “high infrastructure costs” is being discussed). > Plus I would hate to think how our planet would look if cities were made of stone instead of concrete (cities would look nice but the hills around them?). Where do you think the concrete comes from? You need to have stone quarries as well to make the cement (which is made of ground cooked rocks) as well as sand quarries to take the sand. But you need much more material because the process needs to be repeated every century (if you are using reinforced concrete: the problem always come from the rebar).
- medo-bear 2y ago
  > There aren't being constructed anymore. But that's the point I'm making actually: Paris is mostly made of buildings built in the 19th century, and that's only possible because the said buildings where made out of stone. With reinforced concrete, concrete cancer would be overwhelming. So these buildings were built during the peak of France's imperialist plunder. That's not a very good example then > In a planet where the population is converging, Is it? > the ability to keep using the same building for more than a century is in fact the most economical way, But so is recyclable materials. Constructing everything in stone actually means you think of your design choices as rather timeless. > Where do you think the concrete comes from? Where I live I can actually see the environmental damage of stone quarries every day
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > So these buildings were built during the peak of France's imperialist plunder. That's not a very good example then We're likely past peek US imperial dominance as well or at least close to it, and thinking about 150 years in the future is a good comparison. And there won't be much left because reinforced concrete is not a good material over a long period. > But so is recyclable materials. Why not, but concrete isn't recyclable either. It's even less recyclable than stone. So why bring that here? > Where I live I can actually see the environmental damage of stone quarries every day But concrete comes from quarries too!
    - medo-bear 2y ago
      > We're likely past peek US imperial dominance as well or at least close to it, US imperialism is built on capitalist pragmatism. > but concrete isn't recyclable either It is > But concrete comes from quarries too! Its basic economics. Stone just seems far more costly and unaffordable. I just dont see it as an alternative. Your suggestions seem little more than utopic. I am happy to be proven wrong
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        > US imperialism is built on capitalist pragmatism. I'm fascinated by this sentence, sounds like it comes straight from the propaganda machine. It's like meeting a North Korean praising the supreme leader… > > but concrete isn't recyclable either > It is If you know how to recycle concrete to make new cement, you hold a billion-dollar patent idea, because it's not recyclable under existing technology. > Its basic economics. Stone just seems far more costly and unaffordable. That doesn't change anything to the fact that talking about the environmental impact of stone makes no sense, since concrete impact is the same when it comes to extraction. > I just dont see it as an alternative. Your suggestions seem little more than utopic. I'm not even suggesting anything (and even less that we built every building in stone) I'm just pointing about the fact that reinforced concrete is disposable material on the longer term, and we should stop using it for everything. The main reason we use reinforced concrete isn't economical anyway, as it's much more expensive than plain concrete, for most use-cases it's because it gives freedom to architects to make buildings that look more appealing: it's a fashion driven disaster.

littlestymaar 2y ago

> I was surprised that there are buildings higher than 5 stories being constructed today in stone. There aren't being constructed anymore. But that's the point I'm making actually: Paris is mostly made of buildings built in the 19th century, and that's only possible because the said buildings where made out of stone. With reinforced concrete, concrete cancer would be overwhelming. > However it looks very unaffordable for 99% of people In a planet where the population is converging, the ability to keep using the same building for more than a century is in fact the most economical way, focusing on short term costs of disposable buildings is already becoming unsustainable (that's exactly what we're talking about when the topic of “high infrastructure costs” is being discussed). > Plus I would hate to think how our planet would look if cities were made of stone instead of concrete (cities would look nice but the hills around them?). Where do you think the concrete comes from? You need to have stone quarries as well to make the cement (which is made of ground cooked rocks) as well as sand quarries to take the sand. But you need much more material because the process needs to be repeated every century (if you are using reinforced concrete: the problem always come from the rebar).

medo-bear 2y ago
> There aren't being constructed anymore. But that's the point I'm making actually: Paris is mostly made of buildings built in the 19th century, and that's only possible because the said buildings where made out of stone. With reinforced concrete, concrete cancer would be overwhelming. So these buildings were built during the peak of France's imperialist plunder. That's not a very good example then > In a planet where the population is converging, Is it? > the ability to keep using the same building for more than a century is in fact the most economical way, But so is recyclable materials. Constructing everything in stone actually means you think of your design choices as rather timeless. > Where do you think the concrete comes from? Where I live I can actually see the environmental damage of stone quarries every day
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > So these buildings were built during the peak of France's imperialist plunder. That's not a very good example then We're likely past peek US imperial dominance as well or at least close to it, and thinking about 150 years in the future is a good comparison. And there won't be much left because reinforced concrete is not a good material over a long period. > But so is recyclable materials. Why not, but concrete isn't recyclable either. It's even less recyclable than stone. So why bring that here? > Where I live I can actually see the environmental damage of stone quarries every day But concrete comes from quarries too!
  - medo-bear 2y ago
    > We're likely past peek US imperial dominance as well or at least close to it, US imperialism is built on capitalist pragmatism. > but concrete isn't recyclable either It is > But concrete comes from quarries too! Its basic economics. Stone just seems far more costly and unaffordable. I just dont see it as an alternative. Your suggestions seem little more than utopic. I am happy to be proven wrong
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > US imperialism is built on capitalist pragmatism. I'm fascinated by this sentence, sounds like it comes straight from the propaganda machine. It's like meeting a North Korean praising the supreme leader… > > but concrete isn't recyclable either > It is If you know how to recycle concrete to make new cement, you hold a billion-dollar patent idea, because it's not recyclable under existing technology. > Its basic economics. Stone just seems far more costly and unaffordable. That doesn't change anything to the fact that talking about the environmental impact of stone makes no sense, since concrete impact is the same when it comes to extraction. > I just dont see it as an alternative. Your suggestions seem little more than utopic. I'm not even suggesting anything (and even less that we built every building in stone) I'm just pointing about the fact that reinforced concrete is disposable material on the longer term, and we should stop using it for everything. The main reason we use reinforced concrete isn't economical anyway, as it's much more expensive than plain concrete, for most use-cases it's because it gives freedom to architects to make buildings that look more appealing: it's a fashion driven disaster.