2 ms·

> I'm talking about concrete being recyclable. The same way plastics somehow being called recyclable, despite being very different from actually recyclable mat

> I'm talking about concrete being recyclable. The same way plastics somehow being called recyclable, despite being very different from actually recyclable materials like glass or steel. It's greenwashing PR bullshit. Yes you can “recycle” concrete in other use, but you cannot make new cement nor sand from your concrete, which means you still need quarries to make new concrete. With this definition stone would be “recyclable” too, since you can use it to make concrete later on. That's just not what recycling means to most people except the people designing the greenwashing campaigns. > You suggested that stone can replace reinforced concrete for dense urban housing. No I did not suggest to replace anything, and I even called you for moving the goalpost when you said so for the first time. My entire argument is that reinforces concrete sucks, stone is just one example because how were I live is built, but mud brick would have worked too in my argumentation, really. The problem lies in the status quo, which implies using reinforced concrete nilly-willy, I'm not suggesting one particular way around this situation, but stop acting as if it was not a garbage building material. > No. Where I live we use reinforced concrete because we had several earthquake disasters. Tell that to the Turkish that died in the earthquake this winter, most buildings where reinforced concrete ones, it doesn't solve the earthquake problem in its own. And most places where we use reinforced concrete are not places prone to earthquakes anyway. > Vast majority of buildings are quite boring and unimaginative. That's very typical from fashion though so it's not a counterpoint at all, quite the opposite.

medo-bear 2y ago
In Turkey it is precisely the pooprly reinforced buildings that collapsed. Much of the damage in Turkey occurred in nonductile concrete buildings constructed under a pre-1998 Turkish building code. Ductile concrete building elements, required by newer building codes, are more flexible, thanks to steel reinforcing bars at critical locations. https://theconversation.com/buildings-left-standing-in-turkey-offer-design-guidance-for-future-earthquake-resilient-construction-202089 https://theconversation.com/buildings-left-standing-in-turke... You on the other hand are saying that we should not reinforce
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  No, and you're moving goalpost again! I'm not saying reinforced concrete should never be used, because yes when done properly it can have good seismic properties (but it doesn't come for free, and most reinforced concrete buildings in the world aren't more earthquake-proof than the collapsed Turkish ones), but that doesn't make it a good default, and in fact most of the buildings shown in TFA aren't in a seismic area, so this argument makes no sense in that context.
  - medo-bear 2y ago
    Reinforced concrete should be the default in every seismic area (there are plenty of them). If however it is forbidden everywhere else it would create an unfair advantage. Also I immagine that unnecessary use of reinforced concrete makes up well under 1% of its global use, and you were whining because the article showed some cool pieces of brutalist architecture. If only 10% of concrete structures were that cool :)
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > if however it is forbidden everywhere else it would create an unfair advantage. Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real? > Also I immagine that unnecessary use of reinforced concrete makes up well under 1% of its global use That's the problem I think, you are giving way to much credit to your imagination.
      - medo-bear 2y ago
        You said before ... > for most use-cases [reinforced concrete is used] because it gives freedom to architects to make buildings that look more appealing: it's a fashion driven disaster. and yet you say I am giving too much credit to my imagination > Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real? Well then you seem to be saying nothing. You suggested alternative materials for reinforced concrete that really would not work in the real world. Even stone buildings use reinforcement to be able to better withstand earthquakes. Read about the Lisbon earthquake to get a feel for the sort of things "concrete cancer" can prevent. I'm ending this exchange with a simple Quora question on this topic: https://www.quora.com/Do-stones-and-bricks-help-protect-houses-from-earthquakes https://www.quora.com/Do-stones-and-bricks-help-protect-hous...

medo-bear 2y ago

In Turkey it is precisely the pooprly reinforced buildings that collapsed. Much of the damage in Turkey occurred in nonductile concrete buildings constructed under a pre-1998 Turkish building code. Ductile concrete building elements, required by newer building codes, are more flexible, thanks to steel reinforcing bars at critical locations. https://theconversation.com/buildings-left-standing-in-turkey-offer-design-guidance-for-future-earthquake-resilient-construction-202089 https://theconversation.com/buildings-left-standing-in-turke... You on the other hand are saying that we should not reinforce

littlestymaar 2y ago
No, and you're moving goalpost again! I'm not saying reinforced concrete should never be used, because yes when done properly it can have good seismic properties (but it doesn't come for free, and most reinforced concrete buildings in the world aren't more earthquake-proof than the collapsed Turkish ones), but that doesn't make it a good default, and in fact most of the buildings shown in TFA aren't in a seismic area, so this argument makes no sense in that context.
- medo-bear 2y ago
  Reinforced concrete should be the default in every seismic area (there are plenty of them). If however it is forbidden everywhere else it would create an unfair advantage. Also I immagine that unnecessary use of reinforced concrete makes up well under 1% of its global use, and you were whining because the article showed some cool pieces of brutalist architecture. If only 10% of concrete structures were that cool :)
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > if however it is forbidden everywhere else it would create an unfair advantage. Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real? > Also I immagine that unnecessary use of reinforced concrete makes up well under 1% of its global use That's the problem I think, you are giving way to much credit to your imagination.
    - medo-bear 2y ago
      You said before ... > for most use-cases [reinforced concrete is used] because it gives freedom to architects to make buildings that look more appealing: it's a fashion driven disaster. and yet you say I am giving too much credit to my imagination > Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real? Well then you seem to be saying nothing. You suggested alternative materials for reinforced concrete that really would not work in the real world. Even stone buildings use reinforcement to be able to better withstand earthquakes. Read about the Lisbon earthquake to get a feel for the sort of things "concrete cancer" can prevent. I'm ending this exchange with a simple Quora question on this topic: https://www.quora.com/Do-stones-and-bricks-help-protect-houses-from-earthquakes https://www.quora.com/Do-stones-and-bricks-help-protect-hous...