3 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if buildings really should last hundreds of years taking up that space. Similar to how laws last almost forever and lead to byzantine require

by yunohn 2y ago

Sometimes I wonder if buildings really should last hundreds of years taking up that space. Similar to how laws last almost forever and lead to byzantine requirements and tricky interpretations. Would be interesting if transient infrastructure and time-limited laws would lead to a more beneficial way of living.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Japanese buildings are designed to last about 50 years iirc, after which they're demolished. Temples are rebuilt every X years as well. The building materials, at least in those temples, are mostly natural (wood, mostly cleverly jointed so minimal metal required). IDK if they're still popular but the tatami mat is made out of rice straw, also fully biodegradeable (assuming the stitching isn't plastic).
- theultdev 2y ago
  Japan is not in the same era as what you're describing. There are many modern buildings that are built the same way as other modern cities and designed to last. They have very modern infrastructure, and while what you're describing does exist, but is by no means the norm nowadays.
- adrianN 2y ago
  AFAIK clever wood joinery is so niche nowadays that it’s really hard to find people who can still build like that.
jedimastert 2y ago
The question then becomes how do you make a building degrade in a way that isn't dangerous to the occupants? When a building does degrade, it takes more energy to remove the debris and build a new structure. Can that be minimized as well? This isn't to say I'm against the idea, just thinking out loud
- yunohn 2y ago
  I was thinking less about potential energy usage / emissions, so that’s a good point. Probably solvable like the sibling comment about Japan. I was philosophizing more about changing the way we enforce permanency of decisions taken by humans who lived before on everyone who comes after them.
Animats 2y ago
No, just slums.
- yunohn 2y ago
  Thanks for contributing nothing of importance to the discussion on this thread.
Tanoc 2y ago
If buildings could be more easily repurposed this wouldn't even really be a question that needs to be asked. Throughout most of human history larger buildings were repurposed instead of being destroyed, because there wasn't an illusion of limitless materials and labour. The proliferation of specialized buildings after the late 1800s because of that illusion rising, especially for commercial interests, is one half of a problem. The other being regulations written for those specialized buildings that provide little or no possibility of being repurposed. For example old roadside motels from the '50s and '60s could easily be remade into dorm style apartments with micro kitchens supplemented by communal bathrooms, but laws, especially hygiene and fire codes, currently prevent that. Those motels are built of sturdier materials than many modern homes, and only need to be refitted with fire suppression systems and heat pumps to be cheap housing. Making temporary housing is just creating a new problem rather than solving an existing one.
- yunohn 2y ago
  I really wasn’t focusing on the USA and its red-tape zoning and refurb laws. For example in the EU, lots of cities have 1-3 city halls at this point. The older ones are often repurposed into government offices or museums. But what if they disappeared entirely and we built something new in its place? What if the entire block was completely transformed at some point?
  - Keysh 2y ago
    Well, that happened with some European cities as a result of WW2. I remember a celebration in the late 1980s for a retiring British architect/art historian, who reminisced about being an architecture student during the Blitz in London. While he and his pals sheltered underground during the bombing, they shared a (slightly shameful) excitement about the prospect of rebuilding London with "something new" after the war was over. In contrast to some European cities, where the goal was to recreate as much of the pre-war architecture as possible, postwar London was, as I understand it, rebuilt with lots of new architecture. My impression is that most people think a lot of it was pretty terrible.
    - 2y ago
Nasrudith 2y ago
Most of our infastructure would benefit environmentally if it was more permanent, not less. Roads in particular. Buildings seem to have side benefits from more permanent construction such as better insulation and disaster resistance.

by yunohn 2y ago

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Japanese buildings are designed to last about 50 years iirc, after which they're demolished. Temples are rebuilt every X years as well. The building materials, at least in those temples, are mostly natural (wood, mostly cleverly jointed so minimal metal required). IDK if they're still popular but the tatami mat is made out of rice straw, also fully biodegradeable (assuming the stitching isn't plastic).

theultdev 2y ago
Japan is not in the same era as what you're describing. There are many modern buildings that are built the same way as other modern cities and designed to last. They have very modern infrastructure, and while what you're describing does exist, but is by no means the norm nowadays.
adrianN 2y ago
AFAIK clever wood joinery is so niche nowadays that it’s really hard to find people who can still build like that.

jedimastert 2y ago

The question then becomes how do you make a building degrade in a way that isn't dangerous to the occupants? When a building does degrade, it takes more energy to remove the debris and build a new structure. Can that be minimized as well? This isn't to say I'm against the idea, just thinking out loud

yunohn 2y ago
I was thinking less about potential energy usage / emissions, so that’s a good point. Probably solvable like the sibling comment about Japan. I was philosophizing more about changing the way we enforce permanency of decisions taken by humans who lived before on everyone who comes after them.

Animats 2y ago

No, just slums.

yunohn 2y ago
Thanks for contributing nothing of importance to the discussion on this thread.

Tanoc 2y ago

If buildings could be more easily repurposed this wouldn't even really be a question that needs to be asked. Throughout most of human history larger buildings were repurposed instead of being destroyed, because there wasn't an illusion of limitless materials and labour. The proliferation of specialized buildings after the late 1800s because of that illusion rising, especially for commercial interests, is one half of a problem. The other being regulations written for those specialized buildings that provide little or no possibility of being repurposed. For example old roadside motels from the '50s and '60s could easily be remade into dorm style apartments with micro kitchens supplemented by communal bathrooms, but laws, especially hygiene and fire codes, currently prevent that. Those motels are built of sturdier materials than many modern homes, and only need to be refitted with fire suppression systems and heat pumps to be cheap housing. Making temporary housing is just creating a new problem rather than solving an existing one.

yunohn 2y ago
I really wasn’t focusing on the USA and its red-tape zoning and refurb laws. For example in the EU, lots of cities have 1-3 city halls at this point. The older ones are often repurposed into government offices or museums. But what if they disappeared entirely and we built something new in its place? What if the entire block was completely transformed at some point?
- Keysh 2y ago
  Well, that happened with some European cities as a result of WW2. I remember a celebration in the late 1980s for a retiring British architect/art historian, who reminisced about being an architecture student during the Blitz in London. While he and his pals sheltered underground during the bombing, they shared a (slightly shameful) excitement about the prospect of rebuilding London with "something new" after the war was over. In contrast to some European cities, where the goal was to recreate as much of the pre-war architecture as possible, postwar London was, as I understand it, rebuilt with lots of new architecture. My impression is that most people think a lot of it was pretty terrible.
  - 2y ago

Nasrudith 2y ago

Most of our infastructure would benefit environmentally if it was more permanent, not less. Roads in particular. Buildings seem to have side benefits from more permanent construction such as better insulation and disaster resistance.