32
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

That's cool and all, but the main reasons modern concrete structures don't last are either:

  1. They're full of steel reinforcement (because it would be unacceptably expensive to build structures relying entirely on compression the way the Romans did) and the steel deteriorates, or
  2. They become functionally obsolete regardless of the continuing stability of the structure.

There are precious few things we build these days, aside from deliberate monuments, that we even want to last 100+ years to begin with. Even huge things like the Hoover Dam aren't meant to be permanent on that kind of timescale.

[-] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

AFAIK another factor is that ancient structures were often way overbuilt by modern standards because it wasn't possible to perform razor-sharp load calculations like we do today. So they added large safety margins, leading to many structures being way more massive (and robust) than they strictly had to be.

[-] Sirius006@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Well, we thought we didn't want them to last, but right now in Europe renovating concrete building from the 30s is becoming a major preoccupation. More importantly 20 years from now the massive amount of constructions from after WWII will start to turn 100, and I don't think we can afford to build it all again.

More recent buildings have better reinforcement cover, but not the post war ones.

[-] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

This is only some part of it, another is that we changed the environment in a way that lets these buildings detoriate faster, even the roman ones.

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
32 points (100.0% liked)

Hacker News

5180 readers
418 users here now

Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.

The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.

Source of the RSS Bot

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS