Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 16, 2021 at 16:44 comment added eXPRESS @TigerGuy I guess Japanese with their 250% debt to GDP can afford it but states with little more sensible fiscal policy might not. :D Just kidding, I get your point, but if that is the decision then how come people are struggling to get a place to live in my country. Of course this gets off the topic completely, but if such choice is made, it must be supported by actions mitigating the fallout. That lead me to ask the question in a first place, to understand if there are engineering limitations enforcing this (and it seems there are, as user r13 points out in his answer).
Dec 16, 2021 at 16:35 comment added Tiger Guy @express, modern homes are not built to last centuries. In Japan, homes are torn down regularly to build new ones; the government dictates the design life to be around 20 years. These are just choices. Certainly, most homes built 200 years ago are long gone.
Dec 16, 2021 at 16:16 comment added eXPRESS TigerGuy, I understand but I don't really agree. If your hypothesis would be correct (in housing construction), it would mean that now it should be cheap and effortless to build new homes, however it is not true. I don't think building constructions is the same as for example manufacturing new processors, where if the processor would last for 20 years, nobody would use it anyway. What you need is a roof over your head, this did not change for centuries. Simple shoebox for people and why pay for demolition and rebuilding of the same if it could be avoided as @r13 points out.
Dec 6, 2021 at 19:10 comment added r13 Just one comment, ideally, the reinforcement concrete structures should be last as long as possible to offset the demolition and rebuilding costs. The bridges and dams are usually designed for a service life longer than 100 years. I think the concrete tall building won't be an exception.
Dec 6, 2021 at 18:04 history answered Tiger Guy CC BY-SA 4.0