I see you moving goalposts here, but you can definitely find social housing made out of stone in Paris. Their worst enemy being gentrification more than structural decay.
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?).
> 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).
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 everythin
You suggested that stone can replace reinforced concrete for dense urban housing. I was truly fascinated by that since I love the use of raw materials in architecture. However to me you just seem to be out of touch. Raw stone quarries will be much bigger for the same amount of concrete and that would result in an environmental disaster
> 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.
No. Where I live we use reinforced concrete because we had several earthquake disasters. Vast majority of buildings are quite boring and unimaginative.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
> 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.
> 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:
