4 ms·

Longevity of modern building techniques (or rather lack thereof) is a pet peeve of mine. Romans, Greeks, like many other ancient cultures built for millennia wi

Longevity of modern building techniques (or rather lack thereof) is a pet peeve of mine. Romans, Greeks, like many other ancient cultures built for millennia with much simpler means than we have available today, while the methods a building contractor is offered these days yield lifespans of 30-100 years maximum (that's in Europe where we don't typically build something that needs only last till the next Hurricane). It's a sad state of affairs, owed to the throwaway mentality we have about pretty much everything today. Those who find Roman concrete interesting, might want to look into various forms of artificial stone too (used in the 19th century): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_stone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_stone

EdwardCoffin 12y ago
Something I've tried and failed to find out is whether the extreme durability of Roman construction was desired, or was a side-effect of building stuff at the scale they wanted. It would be nice to know whether they made it _this_ way by policy. If they'd had a cheaper construction method that they estimated would last only a hundred years, say, would they have used it?
- tim333 12y ago
  >If they'd had a cheaper construction method that they estimated would last only a hundred years, say, would they have used it? I believe they did have one and did use it - timber buildings. I think most ancient societies used timber but we don't see it now because it doesn't last. There's an article here on the find of "layer upon layer of Roman timber buildings, fences and yards" under London. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22084384 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22084384
  - EdwardCoffin 12y ago
    I know about their timber constructions, but I'm pretty sure that some of the things they built that have lasted couldn't have been built with timber, like the aqueducts, the Pantheon or the Colosseum. It's those things I am wondering about.
chongli 12y ago
Modern builders are operating on a much different set of constraints than the Romans. Simply include 2 additional factors in the equation (cost and harsh climate) and the Romans would not have fared nearly as well. The circumstances under which all of these ancient structures were built were more-or-less ideal for longevity. Is this a coincidence? No, it's survivorship bias[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- lazyjones 12y ago
  How is the climate worse nowdays than in the past 2000 years? For a sensible comparison, look at the (many) wars these buildings had to endure as well. It's easy to claim survivor bias, but the durability of these buildings is simply a matter of technical analysis and specification, as with modern construction. I had to choose the material for a building facade (renovation) recently and the best option for longevity was: natural stone, the worst being the most commonly used type.
  - chongli 12y ago
    When I mention survivorship bias, I do so in order to highlight that people are being selective when talking about those buildings which have survived and ignoring the vast multitudes of Roman and other buildings which have not. As for climate? Yes, the climate where I live (Ontario, Canada) is vastly more harsh than Rome (ancient or modern). Why do I bring this up? Because generally the people making these sorts of survivorship biased observations are also neglecting to control for other significant variables such as location. You also didn't mention cost. Many of the great Roman structures which have survived to this day would have astronomical costs should we attempt to build them in the modern day using ancient building techniques and materials.
    - lazyjones 12y ago
      > You also didn't mention cost. Many of the great Roman structures which have survived to this day would have astronomical costs should we attempt to build them in the modern day using ancient building techniques and materials. I'm not so convinced as far as materials are concerned. Techniques have improved and modern ones could be used (cranes etc.). The main issue I see here is that materials aren't even available anymore, nor are they legal w.r.t. building codes. So even if cost wasn't a factor, I don't see how anyone could build a modern building with Roman concrete, marble etc.
dalke 12y ago
How much of that is survival bias? We've only found a few timbers from the roundhouse buildings, and I don't think any of the old Germanic mead/feasting halls other structures still exist. In the American SW, adobe mud construction is worn down easily by rain, so is rebuilt often in order to persist, and neither traditional Hawaiian hale, made with thatched pili grass, nor sod houses would last 30 years without a lot of maintenance. Certainly an igloo is a traditional architecture style where the result is meant to be thrown away.
stephengoodwin 12y ago
In fairness to today's engineers, modern buildings have a much different cost model associated with them (e.g., ensuring worker safety, environmental costs of acquiring materials, building close to other large structures, designing around high traffic areas, inclusion of non-structural beautification elements like large glass windows). Not to mention, recreating many ancient structures would cost an order of magnitude greater now, due to higher costs of living.
- vacri 12y ago
  inclusion of non-structural beautification elements like large glass windows This item isn't peculiar to modern architecture, particularly when it comes to large public buildings. If anything, modern architecture suffers a lack of ornamentation.

EdwardCoffin 12y ago

Something I've tried and failed to find out is whether the extreme durability of Roman construction was desired, or was a side-effect of building stuff at the scale they wanted. It would be nice to know whether they made it _this_ way by policy. If they'd had a cheaper construction method that they estimated would last only a hundred years, say, would they have used it?

tim333 12y ago
>If they'd had a cheaper construction method that they estimated would last only a hundred years, say, would they have used it? I believe they did have one and did use it - timber buildings. I think most ancient societies used timber but we don't see it now because it doesn't last. There's an article here on the find of "layer upon layer of Roman timber buildings, fences and yards" under London. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22084384 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22084384
- EdwardCoffin 12y ago
  I know about their timber constructions, but I'm pretty sure that some of the things they built that have lasted couldn't have been built with timber, like the aqueducts, the Pantheon or the Colosseum. It's those things I am wondering about.

chongli 12y ago

Modern builders are operating on a much different set of constraints than the Romans. Simply include 2 additional factors in the equation (cost and harsh climate) and the Romans would not have fared nearly as well. The circumstances under which all of these ancient structures were built were more-or-less ideal for longevity. Is this a coincidence? No, it's survivorship bias[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

lazyjones 12y ago
How is the climate worse nowdays than in the past 2000 years? For a sensible comparison, look at the (many) wars these buildings had to endure as well. It's easy to claim survivor bias, but the durability of these buildings is simply a matter of technical analysis and specification, as with modern construction. I had to choose the material for a building facade (renovation) recently and the best option for longevity was: natural stone, the worst being the most commonly used type.
- chongli 12y ago
  When I mention survivorship bias, I do so in order to highlight that people are being selective when talking about those buildings which have survived and ignoring the vast multitudes of Roman and other buildings which have not. As for climate? Yes, the climate where I live (Ontario, Canada) is vastly more harsh than Rome (ancient or modern). Why do I bring this up? Because generally the people making these sorts of survivorship biased observations are also neglecting to control for other significant variables such as location. You also didn't mention cost. Many of the great Roman structures which have survived to this day would have astronomical costs should we attempt to build them in the modern day using ancient building techniques and materials.
  - lazyjones 12y ago
    > You also didn't mention cost. Many of the great Roman structures which have survived to this day would have astronomical costs should we attempt to build them in the modern day using ancient building techniques and materials. I'm not so convinced as far as materials are concerned. Techniques have improved and modern ones could be used (cranes etc.). The main issue I see here is that materials aren't even available anymore, nor are they legal w.r.t. building codes. So even if cost wasn't a factor, I don't see how anyone could build a modern building with Roman concrete, marble etc.

dalke 12y ago

How much of that is survival bias? We've only found a few timbers from the roundhouse buildings, and I don't think any of the old Germanic mead/feasting halls other structures still exist. In the American SW, adobe mud construction is worn down easily by rain, so is rebuilt often in order to persist, and neither traditional Hawaiian hale, made with thatched pili grass, nor sod houses would last 30 years without a lot of maintenance. Certainly an igloo is a traditional architecture style where the result is meant to be thrown away.

stephengoodwin 12y ago

In fairness to today's engineers, modern buildings have a much different cost model associated with them (e.g., ensuring worker safety, environmental costs of acquiring materials, building close to other large structures, designing around high traffic areas, inclusion of non-structural beautification elements like large glass windows). Not to mention, recreating many ancient structures would cost an order of magnitude greater now, due to higher costs of living.

vacri 12y ago
inclusion of non-structural beautification elements like large glass windows This item isn't peculiar to modern architecture, particularly when it comes to large public buildings. If anything, modern architecture suffers a lack of ornamentation.