Construction is life(kk.org)
kk.org
Construction is life
https://kk.org/thetechnium/construction-is-life/
35 comments
I work in construction and I notice this attitude is becoming more common, even among my coworkers. The reality is the western world is falling behind in essential infrastructure in every capacity. And I think our attitudes towards construction have a lot to do with that. Its hard to build roads, highways, sewers these days without some pushback. We need to start changing our views and start seeing constriction as an essential human need and return to the old view of infrastructure as something we take pride in
We don't need more urban sprawls. Heck, new road construction is probably the easiest thing we can get build. The problem is the immense cost imposed on society to implement an automobile based architecture.
Instead, we should build up what we already have and encourage density.
This is not a call for less infrastructure spending, but a reconfiguration of our urban design patterns.
Instead, we should build up what we already have and encourage density.
This is not a call for less infrastructure spending, but a reconfiguration of our urban design patterns.
To build up and in, we really need more of a "let's build it!" mentality where a few NIMBYs can't block everything.
Do you believe that automobile based architecture never worked, or that it worked before but no longer works? How could it ever work if we refuse to invest in the infrastructure to make it work?
It is not so much a "yes-no" as a "how much and what exactly" question. And the starting points may differ from country to country.
After the Second World War, Japan concentrated heavily on passenger trains, Germany on the autobahn and a little on passenger trains, and the USA (almost?) exclusively on automobiles. Some of the differences can be explained by geography, but it was certainly not all determined by it. There always seems to be some room for choice. Usually, at any given time, the public perceives only part of the actual advantages and disadvantages, as well as the inherent trade-offs. Moreover, people's preferences are also constantly changing. That's why it's always necessary to adjust and dare to do something new.
However, in such matters, countries also seem to be extremely conservative and hardly able to leave a path once it has been taken, because institutional and economic structures and entire schools of thought would have to be completely realigned. In particular, the losers of a rethink will do everything they can to delay change as long as possible, while the exact winners are not yet known.
After the Second World War, Japan concentrated heavily on passenger trains, Germany on the autobahn and a little on passenger trains, and the USA (almost?) exclusively on automobiles. Some of the differences can be explained by geography, but it was certainly not all determined by it. There always seems to be some room for choice. Usually, at any given time, the public perceives only part of the actual advantages and disadvantages, as well as the inherent trade-offs. Moreover, people's preferences are also constantly changing. That's why it's always necessary to adjust and dare to do something new.
However, in such matters, countries also seem to be extremely conservative and hardly able to leave a path once it has been taken, because institutional and economic structures and entire schools of thought would have to be completely realigned. In particular, the losers of a rethink will do everything they can to delay change as long as possible, while the exact winners are not yet known.
It works, but it’s very space intensive, so it only works where space is abundant, like in rural areas. Notably, the city is not a place cars really work.
I think that it worked and it still does so far as the transport of people and goods is concerned, but such an architecture was never necessary.
Speak for yourself. Living densely is not for everyone. I for one hate it. I like my 10 acres and my car based infrastructure. Otherwise we end up like Europe, I was there for a month earlier this year and their roads are unplanned, narrow, chaotic dogshit, there is no parking and you’re forced to take public transport everywhere.
> Otherwise we end up like Europe, I was there for a month earlier this year and their roads are unplanned, narrow, chaotic dogshit
I wish this was true. But it's like this only in the historic centers which (obviously) have not been designed with cars in mind. Outside of those historic centers large European cities are more often than not full of nightmarish highways and parking lots.
I wish this was true. But it's like this only in the historic centers which (obviously) have not been designed with cars in mind. Outside of those historic centers large European cities are more often than not full of nightmarish highways and parking lots.
That’s not true. There are places with nice highways and ample parking but a lot of places outside of cities are still impossibly narrow roads and haphazardly planned junctions etc. most tows are like this too and the terrible street parking situation is everywhere.
Like switching from fossil fuels to green energy, we need to change the way we build things. Fossil fuels were the quick easy way to get energy, but at a climate and pollution cost that degrade life. Buildings that only last 20-50-100 years are cheaper but a constant drain and disruption. Until we learn to build things that last we'll be in a constant war with entropy, and we'll always be losing. It is like quickly written code; you assume someone else will come along later and improve it, but it ends up getting hacked for a decade, wasting time and lives. I'd suggest you can tell how advanced a civilization is by how long its structures (both civil and material) last.
I wonder if our general views of construction are related to the public's distrust of politicians?
Personally, when I'm inconvenienced by a crew spending six months on a job that looks like it could be done in two weeks, I think "what politician's cousin is padding their pockets with this absurdly long and inefficient contract?"
Personally, when I'm inconvenienced by a crew spending six months on a job that looks like it could be done in two weeks, I think "what politician's cousin is padding their pockets with this absurdly long and inefficient contract?"
> The reality is the western world is falling behind in essential infrastructure in every capacity.
Could you expand on this? What do you mean?
> Its hard to build roads, highways, sewers these days without some pushback. We need to start changing our views and start seeing constriction as an essential human need and return to the old view of infrastructure as something we take pride in
For me, it's not "construction" by itself, but I suspect it's pushback against urban sprawl and poor urban design. I watched an excellent video about Houston: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 It takes awhile to get to the point, so you might want to skip to 3:42.
Could you expand on this? What do you mean?
> Its hard to build roads, highways, sewers these days without some pushback. We need to start changing our views and start seeing constriction as an essential human need and return to the old view of infrastructure as something we take pride in
For me, it's not "construction" by itself, but I suspect it's pushback against urban sprawl and poor urban design. I watched an excellent video about Houston: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 It takes awhile to get to the point, so you might want to skip to 3:42.
I'm also in construction. Important stuff is going to start falling down because of government mismanagement. It has the money for infrastructure but the leaches take it all. This kills the soul of the good worker. Corruption saps all motivation.
The western world is not falling behind, it is, as ever since the last century+, at the forefront of progress.
And this is just a natural evolution of realizing that building more and more and having "pride" in buildings is not really a good thing (similar to the economic doctrine of forever-growth). Working in an office building, no matter how well ventilated and sound proofed, is incomparable with working in a room with a few to a quiet garden - to give just one example.
The countries that you see that are "surpassing" the west simply haven't reached this stage of insight yet and are still locked in mundane materialistic thinking. Let them have their buildings and bustling streets and noisy neighborhoods and 10 lane highways. They will realize the health benefits of returning to more quiet way of living at some point (unfortunately, I see a number of people here in this thread have neither reached this point.)
And this is just a natural evolution of realizing that building more and more and having "pride" in buildings is not really a good thing (similar to the economic doctrine of forever-growth). Working in an office building, no matter how well ventilated and sound proofed, is incomparable with working in a room with a few to a quiet garden - to give just one example.
The countries that you see that are "surpassing" the west simply haven't reached this stage of insight yet and are still locked in mundane materialistic thinking. Let them have their buildings and bustling streets and noisy neighborhoods and 10 lane highways. They will realize the health benefits of returning to more quiet way of living at some point (unfortunately, I see a number of people here in this thread have neither reached this point.)
I agree that our infrastructure needs massive improvement - which requires construction.
I don't think we need more roads and highways, though. In some places, repaired and improved - for sure.
I don't think we need more roads and highways, though. In some places, repaired and improved - for sure.
[deleted]
Ironically, it's the city where construction is the hardest to get permission for.
You only exist in this world because trees were cut, soil was scraped, and concrete was poured.
And yet you only exist because trees and soils are there to form a complex ecological web that sustains you.
This type of narrow thinking that we somehow "own" nature is nuts. We don't own anything and cutting down trees and scraping soil we actually eroding the foundation that sustains us. You can very well exist, and people did for thousands of years, without cutting trees and scraping soil.
I'm shocked to see people with such a distorted view of the world are here on HN, otherwise a place of informed people.
Hopefully in a few decades people like this will be denounced as they climate heretics that they are and punished for it.
This type of narrow thinking that we somehow "own" nature is nuts. We don't own anything and cutting down trees and scraping soil we actually eroding the foundation that sustains us. You can very well exist, and people did for thousands of years, without cutting trees and scraping soil.
I'm shocked to see people with such a distorted view of the world are here on HN, otherwise a place of informed people.
Hopefully in a few decades people like this will be denounced as they climate heretics that they are and punished for it.
I don't understand why we see animal infrastructure like beehives or nests as part of nature but human infrastructure as some abomination. A concrete jungle is part of nature exactly like anything else on this planet.
Eh... If this is supposed to be an allegory to show that your convenience and aesthetic preferences don't dictate the greater good, then sure... However, there's a vast gulf of perfectly healthy states between constant churn and abject neglect. For example, many historically important yet populous areas are not under construction, yet their vitality withstood the test of time. Just because something isn't growing doesn't mean it's shrinking. Just because nobody's modifying something doesn't mean it lacks necessary modifications. Sometimes things just suit their purpose and a bunch of physical infrastructure churn wouldn't improve anything.
Physical things this need maintenance, repair, and eventually replacement. Needs change over time.
If the buildings around you have a lifespan of 50-100 years and you aren’t replacing 1% or 2% of them every year, then you are falling behind. If population is growing due to births, increases in life expectancy, or an influx of immigrants/refugees then housing construction must account for that as well.
If the buildings around you have a lifespan of 50-100 years and you aren’t replacing 1% or 2% of them every year, then you are falling behind. If population is growing due to births, increases in life expectancy, or an influx of immigrants/refugees then housing construction must account for that as well.
Why such a short estimate? Is this an America thing?
I'm currently renovating a 150 year old house that was previously majorly renovated 50 years ago and we're aiming for a useful lifespan just for the parquet/plumbing/electrics of at least 50 years, 100 years for the joists, insulation and plaster. The building will hopefully stand for hundreds of years.
I'm currently renovating a 150 year old house that was previously majorly renovated 50 years ago and we're aiming for a useful lifespan just for the parquet/plumbing/electrics of at least 50 years, 100 years for the joists, insulation and plaster. The building will hopefully stand for hundreds of years.
Yes. Some time around 1970 or so, US homes began to be built increasingly cheaper and more quickly. This approach has benefits and drawbacks, as you'd imagine.
This assumes the construction of these 50-100 year buildings were evenly distributed over a given time. If 90% of a towns or cities 100 year infrastructure if built in a decade, then it'll just lead to a lot of replacements starting in about 90 years, not continuous small replacements.
> If 90% of a towns or cities 100 year infrastructure if built in a decade, then it'll just lead to a lot of replacements starting in about 90 years, not continuous small replacements.
Lifespan of a building isn't some kind of magical threshold thing where it is perfect for 100 years and then must be replaced in year 101.
A noticeable share of those buildings built for 50 years will need to be replaced around years 25-30. Almost all of those buildings will need work before 20 years is up. Some of them will outlast their design life by a large factor.
Not to mention that not every builder is selecting the same construction techniques and design life.
Lifespan of a building isn't some kind of magical threshold thing where it is perfect for 100 years and then must be replaced in year 101.
A noticeable share of those buildings built for 50 years will need to be replaced around years 25-30. Almost all of those buildings will need work before 20 years is up. Some of them will outlast their design life by a large factor.
Not to mention that not every builder is selecting the same construction techniques and design life.
More likely once the 90 years expires the area discovers that it is not actually capable of doing the replacements required.
Of course, pretty much only suburban areas have infrastructure/buildings built over that short an interval. Constructing 90% of a major city’s high rises in a decade would be a construction boom unlike anything the western world has seen in a lifetime.
Of course, pretty much only suburban areas have infrastructure/buildings built over that short an interval. Constructing 90% of a major city’s high rises in a decade would be a construction boom unlike anything the western world has seen in a lifetime.
It's definitely happened in China though. Some of those mega-cities started out as sleepy fishing villages only 20 years earlier.
[deleted]
In the vast majority of the urban northeast— easily one of the most vibrant parts of the country— there's nowhere close to 1 or 2 percent turnover in residential building stock every year. Probably not every ten years.
Man, I miss SimCity.
I feel this misses the point of the article a little. It's not saying that everything must be constantly churning, or that infrastructure is dying if it's not being ripped down or built, just that if nothing around you is being fixed or rebuilt then the whole area is dead.
Dead doesn't necessarily mean useless. It just means passive, static, unevolving.
Dead doesn't necessarily mean useless. It just means passive, static, unevolving.
What if the things that were built were built right the first time and take a long time to decay? If you walk around a correctly built city where nothing is falling apart, by this logic, you'd naively think this place was dead and dying.
Everything need maintenance, and often. Everything.
I feel like this definitely something younger people don’t understand. The extent to which everything human-made needs constant effort to keep it from decaying. They see a world already built up and functioning and don’t realize the monumental effort that requires.
The first time I built anything to survive outside (a ramp to a shed), I learned this the hard way.
Even with a decent amount of planning for the elements, it lasted 3 years. It really makes one appreciate how special it is that this lump of flesh might survive 70 or 80 years.
Even with a decent amount of planning for the elements, it lasted 3 years. It really makes one appreciate how special it is that this lump of flesh might survive 70 or 80 years.
That is true as well for democracy.
FWIW, that is what I took away also.
> Just because something isn't growing doesn't mean it's shrinking.
And if you check nature, the pattern of infinite growth should be left to tumours. Our goal is survival, not killing our host and causing our extinction.
And if you check nature, the pattern of infinite growth should be left to tumours. Our goal is survival, not killing our host and causing our extinction.
Do you have an example? I used to live in cities filled with historical monuments and they're constantly under maintenance as well.
Outside of central neighborhoods in most old small to medium sized cities?
The historical monuments were constantly under construction? The author was talking about scaffolding and jackhammers and moved earth, not detailing and polish.
The historical monuments were constantly under construction? The author was talking about scaffolding and jackhammers and moved earth, not detailing and polish.
> The historical monuments were constantly under construction
It's really not remarkable yeah, also the rest of the city. I read the author's words as "globally, the city always seems to have some amount of construction or renovation". Which is true for all the lively cities I've lived in personally.
It's really not remarkable yeah, also the rest of the city. I read the author's words as "globally, the city always seems to have some amount of construction or renovation". Which is true for all the lively cities I've lived in personally.
A European buddy visiting the states commented to me, some years ago, about how flimsy American construction was. "Back home we build things to last 500 years," and so on.
Part of that difference is that we don't want things to last that long. Expectations are that within 50 or 100 years this building will no longer be wanted in anything like its current form, so why build for longer? Just makes the teardown effort that much more expensive.
There's argument to be made for investing more in infrastructure like roads; but again there's a counter argument to be made in favor of the way things have evolved and are done now. Fresh roads are smooth and level and "fixing potholes" is never going to be cheaper or produce better results than occasional full refurbishments do.
Kind of a Laffer curve: Durable, low frequency but expensive maintenance vs flimsy, cheaply and often maintained and often rebuilt.
Part of that difference is that we don't want things to last that long. Expectations are that within 50 or 100 years this building will no longer be wanted in anything like its current form, so why build for longer? Just makes the teardown effort that much more expensive.
There's argument to be made for investing more in infrastructure like roads; but again there's a counter argument to be made in favor of the way things have evolved and are done now. Fresh roads are smooth and level and "fixing potholes" is never going to be cheaper or produce better results than occasional full refurbishments do.
Kind of a Laffer curve: Durable, low frequency but expensive maintenance vs flimsy, cheaply and often maintained and often rebuilt.
Perhaps, but even the old stuff needs to be constantly maintained. I grew up in Rome, the eternal city, and everything was constantly under scaffolding, and the cobblestones on the streets were always being redone.
There were some facades of buildings that I had never even seen until I was aged 10, and all of a sudden a square that I always thought dull would be revealed with the scaffolding removed and the building looking beautiful.
There were some facades of buildings that I had never even seen until I was aged 10, and all of a sudden a square that I always thought dull would be revealed with the scaffolding removed and the building looking beautiful.
Back home we build things to last 500 years,
Unless your buddy was from the Vatican, it's not true for much of Europe. These beauties aren't gonna last 500 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
Unless your buddy was from the Vatican, it's not true for much of Europe. These beauties aren't gonna last 500 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
It’s just a Communist Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe thing. Western Europe’s history and historical buildings remained and will remain intact for centuries. Eastern Europe’s didn’t remain due to war and won’t remain due to lack of culture surrounding said buildings now.
None of this meant in an offensive way - just the way it goes sometimes.
None of this meant in an offensive way - just the way it goes sometimes.
But those examples were built as temporary buildings until real Communism was established and everyone could live in nice houses.
A lot of American buildings today are overfit for their initial purpose and hard to remodel / adapt later. In the past most buildings were simple rectangles with basements or pier and beam foundations and simple roofs which all help make a building easy to reconfigure. Today’s buildings are fast-fashion, and look and feel quite dated after 20-30 years.
Ironically this is partially explained by the increasing stringency of zoning and building codes which leads to the increasing professionalization of building design. It used to be much more common for a person to basically just build a brick box on their own or with a little bit of contractor help. Professional designers need to do “design” to build their portfolio and attract business.
Ironically this is partially explained by the increasing stringency of zoning and building codes which leads to the increasing professionalization of building design. It used to be much more common for a person to basically just build a brick box on their own or with a little bit of contractor help. Professional designers need to do “design” to build their portfolio and attract business.
Making cheap, flimsy stuff that you trash (or worse, abandon) and rebuild every few years is very wasteful of resources and terrible for the environment though.
Broadly, I agree. But the specifics depend on ... well, the specifics. If 20 years go by and there's new building techniques/materials that drastically reduce the energy utilization of a building, it's not unimaginable that it may be less wasteful to tear it down.
I would agree that this doesn't happen very often for something at least moderately well built; for the not-very-well built, I am not so sure.
I would agree that this doesn't happen very often for something at least moderately well built; for the not-very-well built, I am not so sure.
Using buildings constructed before the invention of modern insulation is terrible for the environment too.
Honestly, so much of America is suburban wasteland that I'm glad American buildings are so "disposable" and easily replaced. Once everyone figures out that, no, it's not a good idea to live so spread-out, hopefully cities will start to densify. Ahh, one can dream...
The WFH change is driving de-densification. No commute and people fled cities pretty quickly.
People don’t cram into 600 sq ft shoe boxes in SF because that’s their dream home. They do it to avoid a long commute.
People don’t cram into 600 sq ft shoe boxes in SF because that’s their dream home. They do it to avoid a long commute.
European warfare repeatedly destroyed valuable buildings "made to last 500 years" culminating in mass bombing in the Second World War. Meanwhile, super-advanced Japan builds houses that are expected to be torn down in less than 100 years, with a very different history of public destruction in the name of War.
Japan is subject to regular severe earthquakes. Most of Europe is not.
Japan may be too far on the disposable end. Apparently buying used is a bad thing so they rebuild every 20 years or so.
That depends entirely on the specifics. The Japanese aren't so crazy they'd toss good buildings to the fishes once they hit the 20 years. They just don't put the same value on old building materials as Europeans and North Americans do.
My guess is that due to earthquakes and typhoons, there's a lot more pressure to keep building codes up-to-date with state of the art.
In North America so much of how we build is dictated by traditions.
In North America so much of how we build is dictated by traditions.
There are obviously tradeoffs when building things to last a really long time, but people in the US aren't roofing their houses with crappy asphalt tiles that'll be lucky to last a couple of decades for ease of expansion.
Modifying a well-built structure is often easier than completely tearing down and replacing a poorly built structure too.
Modifying a well-built structure is often easier than completely tearing down and replacing a poorly built structure too.
[deleted]
I immediately thought of Primo Levi's celebration of homo faber; you should make things. Not just read or write about them.
I wonder how many current politicians and bureaucrats work solely in the world of letters and laws. I think it would be telling.
The excerpt from Bernard Levin's review of The Wrench in The Times resonates:
> This is not a book for journalists. Civil servants, too, will feel uneasy while reading it, and as for lawyers, they will never sleep again. For it is about a man in his capacity as homo faber, a maker of things with his hands, and what has any of us ever made but words. I say it is 'about' the man who makes; truly, it is more a hymn of praise than a description, and not only because the toiler who is the hero of the book is a hero indeed - a figure, in his humanity, simplicity, worthy of inclusion in the catalogue of mythical giants alongside Hercules, Atlas, Gargantua and Orion. He is Faussone, a rigger'
https://www.amazon.com/Wrench-Abacus-Books-Primo-Levi/dp/034...
I wonder how many current politicians and bureaucrats work solely in the world of letters and laws. I think it would be telling.
The excerpt from Bernard Levin's review of The Wrench in The Times resonates:
> This is not a book for journalists. Civil servants, too, will feel uneasy while reading it, and as for lawyers, they will never sleep again. For it is about a man in his capacity as homo faber, a maker of things with his hands, and what has any of us ever made but words. I say it is 'about' the man who makes; truly, it is more a hymn of praise than a description, and not only because the toiler who is the hero of the book is a hero indeed - a figure, in his humanity, simplicity, worthy of inclusion in the catalogue of mythical giants alongside Hercules, Atlas, Gargantua and Orion. He is Faussone, a rigger'
https://www.amazon.com/Wrench-Abacus-Books-Primo-Levi/dp/034...
I have a similar experience. I used to live in the suburbs, disliking the mess of road and skyscraper construction in the city. I moved to the city, and what enabled that was that the target neighborhood was full of new buildings going up.
Slowly, I realized that those two experiences are connected: Because those suburban houses have existed for 50 years and will probably remain unchanged for 50 more, all the big construction projects end up concentrated in a few areas downtown. It would fairer if the developments were spread throughout the city.
Slowly, I realized that those two experiences are connected: Because those suburban houses have existed for 50 years and will probably remain unchanged for 50 more, all the big construction projects end up concentrated in a few areas downtown. It would fairer if the developments were spread throughout the city.
In NYC the scaffolding is eternal. Nobody gets to enjoy the street. It's better than having tools fall on the street and things like that, but the average age is over 7 months and many are there for years.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/sidewalk-shed-map...
Construction is great, maintenance is important, but why have all of these architectural facades when all you get to see is painted wood and temporary lighting?
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/sidewalk-shed-map...
Construction is great, maintenance is important, but why have all of these architectural facades when all you get to see is painted wood and temporary lighting?
>In NYC the scaffolding is eternal.
Wendover made a short video about that: https://youtu.be/lphKvTqovHs?t=1m56s
TLDW: It's the Law of Unintended Consequences -- The sidewalk shed (aka "scaffolding") is a hack to get around a law requiring building facades be inspected every 5 years. Instead of actually inspecting the building masonry and making any necessary repairs, just install a sidewalk shed and leave it there year after year.
Wendover made a short video about that: https://youtu.be/lphKvTqovHs?t=1m56s
TLDW: It's the Law of Unintended Consequences -- The sidewalk shed (aka "scaffolding") is a hack to get around a law requiring building facades be inspected every 5 years. Instead of actually inspecting the building masonry and making any necessary repairs, just install a sidewalk shed and leave it there year after year.
> In NYC the scaffolding is eternal
You might enjoy the episode “How to Put Up Scaffolding” from the TV show How to with John Wilson https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13021528/
You might enjoy the episode “How to Put Up Scaffolding” from the TV show How to with John Wilson https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13021528/
A handful of the larger buildings seem to have accepted the permanent scaffolding state of affairs and actually handle it quite well.
Ie [1] where the supports for the scaffolding are built into the building itself leaving the sidewalk completely free of interference. Still not the best to look at if you look up, but doesn't impede foot traffic at all. And it's nice in the rain.
Some others like [2] have spent a bit more money to make the scaffolding look nicer and cleaner.
It's a fair intermediate solution imo that I hope becomes more widespread if we take as a given that eternal scaffolding isn't going away any time soon.
[1]https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7630615,-73.9738617,3a,75y,2...
[2]https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7589834,-73.9748391,3a,75y,1...
Ie [1] where the supports for the scaffolding are built into the building itself leaving the sidewalk completely free of interference. Still not the best to look at if you look up, but doesn't impede foot traffic at all. And it's nice in the rain.
Some others like [2] have spent a bit more money to make the scaffolding look nicer and cleaner.
It's a fair intermediate solution imo that I hope becomes more widespread if we take as a given that eternal scaffolding isn't going away any time soon.
[1]https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7630615,-73.9738617,3a,75y,2...
[2]https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7589834,-73.9748391,3a,75y,1...
It’s not for construction and maintenance. It’s for inspection. The scaffolds exploded after some facade bits fell on someone and they passed Local Law 11, and they radically increased the number of inspections and basically required scaffolds for them.
The correct modern solution is probably mostly drones. This idea has been floated but is not presently legal, and the scaffold companies will lobby the government and cry bloody murder, so expect the scaffolding to continue for the next 300 years.
The correct modern solution is probably mostly drones. This idea has been floated but is not presently legal, and the scaffold companies will lobby the government and cry bloody murder, so expect the scaffolding to continue for the next 300 years.
At the places I've lived, construction is a symptom of chronic architectural / civil engineering problems caused by lack of vision and poor maintenance. At those places construction is also life, but it is life that would have been more constructive (no pun) somewhere else.
Or having built a city on a precarious place that shouldn't have been for human dwelling by any conceivable reason, and yet it is. That people insist on living in these places is a testament to the value of human occupation as such.
(I live in a city that's mostly built on what was the ocean two hundred years ago (sometimes fifty years ago) but won by civil engineering. It's a big empty country otherwise. We're basically below the sea level and maintaining underground infrastructure (electricity, fiber optic, heating gas, what have you) is a constant source of noise -- even the cable company has to have its draining machine vans. But by golly do we want to live here whatever the costs.
(I live in a city that's mostly built on what was the ocean two hundred years ago (sometimes fifty years ago) but won by civil engineering. It's a big empty country otherwise. We're basically below the sea level and maintaining underground infrastructure (electricity, fiber optic, heating gas, what have you) is a constant source of noise -- even the cable company has to have its draining machine vans. But by golly do we want to live here whatever the costs.
In the third world sometimes the maintenance is just as bad as the construction. Does this person know what they are doing? Well, we are going to find out.
I wonder if it is possible to design buildings that are made to be changed and improved on without having to use jackhammers and raise a ton of dust. Same for the streets - have modern stone pavement that is rearranged when you need to dig under the street.
There is a lot to be improved in construction - it is horrible for the environment, a lot of the buildings don't last, labor productivity has grown more slowly compared to other industries or even fallen.
There is a lot to be improved in construction - it is horrible for the environment, a lot of the buildings don't last, labor productivity has grown more slowly compared to other industries or even fallen.
Christopher Alexander theorized about this in a great short article entitled Specifications for an Organic and Human Building System: http://worrydream.com/refs/Alexander%20and%20Jacobson%20-%20...
His key attributes:
1. A common pattern language
2. User design
3. Repair and piecemeal growth
4. A human-scale building system
His key attributes:
1. A common pattern language
2. User design
3. Repair and piecemeal growth
4. A human-scale building system
With respect to the architecture there are many attempts at addressing slow and error-prone builds with modular or 3D print methods. The savings is not a clear win in all cases, however - it's not at the disruptive level we'd want(yet). There are also some material innovations taking place that ease the involved costs. Graphene has become available enough to be used in concrete mixtures for a substantial strength/weight improvement which can reduce material usage.
On the streets, the big change going forward will be AVs and micromobility(e-bike, e-scooter etc.) - right now most cities are not Amsterdam, because they're locked in on the idea of providing space mostly for heavy vehicles that are unused 95% of the time; once you add AV rentals to the mix, it becomes substantially easier to cut down the size of the fleet, both in a vehicle dimensions sense and number of vehicles. This in turn makes it easier to use the lightest vehicles safely, so the streets will wear down much less quickly, even with no change in the builds themselves.
On the streets, the big change going forward will be AVs and micromobility(e-bike, e-scooter etc.) - right now most cities are not Amsterdam, because they're locked in on the idea of providing space mostly for heavy vehicles that are unused 95% of the time; once you add AV rentals to the mix, it becomes substantially easier to cut down the size of the fleet, both in a vehicle dimensions sense and number of vehicles. This in turn makes it easier to use the lightest vehicles safely, so the streets will wear down much less quickly, even with no change in the builds themselves.
Fair point, but I still think ripping streets up only a couple of months after paving them is bad planning. Very bad planning. Sometimes I wonder if councils in the UK are deliberately badly planning highway work so some contruction companies can constantly have work to do. I honestly believe if you dig deep enough you will see part of this whole "always under construction" is a result of some sort of corruption. Otherwise who would, in today's age, build a road to only rip it up again to install some underground cabling?! What were they thinking when they built this only two months ago??
I always felt the same way, that construction is a sign that the city is alive. Places devoid of new construction always had signs of urban decay, e.g. East Des Moines IA.
> Those who arrive at Thekla can see little of the city, beyond the plank fences, the sackcloth screens, the scaffoldings, the metal armatures, the wooden catwalks hanging from ropes or supported by sawhorses, the ladders, the trestles. If you ask, "Why is Thekla's construction taking such a long time?" the inhabitants continue hoisting sacks, lowering leaded strings, moving long brushes up and down, as they answer, "So that its destruction cannot begin." And if asked whether they fear that, once the scaffoldings are removed, the city may begin to crumble and fall to pieces, they add hastily, in a whisper, "Not only the city."
- Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities
- Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities
There are two seasons - winter and construction.
But constant tearing up of streets isn't necessary for life - you can have construction going in stages without a permanent state of constant construction.
Construction is a sign of growth usually, which is not entirely the same as life.
But constant tearing up of streets isn't necessary for life - you can have construction going in stages without a permanent state of constant construction.
Construction is a sign of growth usually, which is not entirely the same as life.
> But constant tearing up of streets isn't necessary for life
No city has literally all the streets torn up at once. Which means by definition all road construction is in stages. I’m somewhat puzzled how what you’re proposing is different from the status quo
No city has literally all the streets torn up at once. Which means by definition all road construction is in stages. I’m somewhat puzzled how what you’re proposing is different from the status quo
I'd say we need more construction, more frequently based on comments I've read here, resealing or resurfacing a street more frequently is cheaper than waiting for streets to give up the ghost?
This also means we need alternate routes or extra lanes or some kind of redundancy which asked this kind of work? So higher taxes?
This also means we need alternate routes or extra lanes or some kind of redundancy which asked this kind of work? So higher taxes?
This is where economic notions of growth get revealed as being largely nonsensical, or at least not equivalent to biological notions of growth.
For example, most of the molecules in your body are regenerated/replaced on a fairly rapid timeline - seconds when it comes to things like ATP, minutes to hours when it comes to blood sugar, days to weeks when it comes to skin cells and hair and intestinal lining cells, and longer timelines for most other structures, with a few exceptions like much of the bone structure (and even that is dynamic to some extent).
However, your body size doesn't grow despite all this construction continually taking place, does it? You lose as much as you gain, you're in a healthy steady-state condition.
Now, if your body is infested with parasites, ticks and lice and tapeworms and roundworms and malarial protozoans, and they're growing happily, while negatively impacting your overall health, I suppose that's something your neoclassical economist would call 'strong growth of the investor class'...
Welcome to investment capitalism and the financialization of the economy! Not the same as main street capitalism and a healthy industrial economy, is it?
For example, most of the molecules in your body are regenerated/replaced on a fairly rapid timeline - seconds when it comes to things like ATP, minutes to hours when it comes to blood sugar, days to weeks when it comes to skin cells and hair and intestinal lining cells, and longer timelines for most other structures, with a few exceptions like much of the bone structure (and even that is dynamic to some extent).
However, your body size doesn't grow despite all this construction continually taking place, does it? You lose as much as you gain, you're in a healthy steady-state condition.
Now, if your body is infested with parasites, ticks and lice and tapeworms and roundworms and malarial protozoans, and they're growing happily, while negatively impacting your overall health, I suppose that's something your neoclassical economist would call 'strong growth of the investor class'...
Welcome to investment capitalism and the financialization of the economy! Not the same as main street capitalism and a healthy industrial economy, is it?
If you are looking for economist words I think the one that matches your description is the phrase “rent seekers.”
Your value judgment on investment is, ah, popular in some circles, but its placement on the Y Combinator news forum is ironic.
Your value judgment on investment is, ah, popular in some circles, but its placement on the Y Combinator news forum is ironic.
>Construction is a sign of growth usually, which is not entirely the same as life.
And unlimited growth is followed by resource exhaustion and death.
And unlimited growth is followed by resource exhaustion and death.
> unlimited growth is followed by resource exhaustion and death.
This is only true in the physical sense if the universe is singular *and finite. Which it appears not to be.
It is never true in the sense of technological, economic, and societal progress. There is an infinite amount of growth possible in those areas. Because that kind of growth leads to more efficient use of resources, or the discovery of new resources and knowledge which extends how far we can go. And this repeats in an endless cycle.
Take virtual reality (metaverse) for example. That would allow for massive expansion of the virtual space in which we can operate and massive reduction of the physical space we need to occupy.
As another example, we could eventually learn how to gather up all the raw material (hydrogen) in so called “empty space” and use it to manufacture a new planet. There is nothing in the laws of physics preventing us from doing this. The only thing we lack is the knowledge of how to do it.
So there really is no rational basis for the kind of pessimism you are advocating. So long as people are allowed to critique existing ideas and develop new ones, we have an infinity of progress ahead of us.
This is only true in the physical sense if the universe is singular *and finite. Which it appears not to be.
It is never true in the sense of technological, economic, and societal progress. There is an infinite amount of growth possible in those areas. Because that kind of growth leads to more efficient use of resources, or the discovery of new resources and knowledge which extends how far we can go. And this repeats in an endless cycle.
Take virtual reality (metaverse) for example. That would allow for massive expansion of the virtual space in which we can operate and massive reduction of the physical space we need to occupy.
As another example, we could eventually learn how to gather up all the raw material (hydrogen) in so called “empty space” and use it to manufacture a new planet. There is nothing in the laws of physics preventing us from doing this. The only thing we lack is the knowledge of how to do it.
So there really is no rational basis for the kind of pessimism you are advocating. So long as people are allowed to critique existing ideas and develop new ones, we have an infinity of progress ahead of us.
> This is only true in the physical sense if the universe is singular *and finite. Which it appears not to be.
Laws of physics aren't negotiable. Barring very unlikely breakthroughs humans will remain a single planet species until the sun goes supernova. And with that constraint we face a nearly closed system of resources, except for solar energy and maybe a few asteroids.
> The only thing we lack is the knowledge of how to do it.
Again even if more innovation is possible there are only so many people with enough resources to discover them. Those people have all the basic needs as well as years of education just to sustain today's innovation.
Laws of physics aren't negotiable. Barring very unlikely breakthroughs humans will remain a single planet species until the sun goes supernova. And with that constraint we face a nearly closed system of resources, except for solar energy and maybe a few asteroids.
> The only thing we lack is the knowledge of how to do it.
Again even if more innovation is possible there are only so many people with enough resources to discover them. Those people have all the basic needs as well as years of education just to sustain today's innovation.
> Laws of physics aren't negotiable
Nobody said that. We only need space, matter, energy and knowledge.
This last part is mostly what we're missing now, the limiting factor, as the universe has plenty of space, matter and energy!
> Barring very unlikely breakthroughs humans will remain a single planet species until the sun goes supernova
Hard disagree, as some already have their sight on Mars. We are an ambitious species!
> Again even if more innovation is possible there are only so many people with enough resources to discover them
There're over 7 billion of us, and knowledge diffusion techniques (especially online) mean innovation is accelerating - so the limiting factor won't be limiting for long.
Given than facts don't support your pessimist view, I wonder why you think this way?
Nobody said that. We only need space, matter, energy and knowledge.
This last part is mostly what we're missing now, the limiting factor, as the universe has plenty of space, matter and energy!
> Barring very unlikely breakthroughs humans will remain a single planet species until the sun goes supernova
Hard disagree, as some already have their sight on Mars. We are an ambitious species!
> Again even if more innovation is possible there are only so many people with enough resources to discover them
There're over 7 billion of us, and knowledge diffusion techniques (especially online) mean innovation is accelerating - so the limiting factor won't be limiting for long.
Given than facts don't support your pessimist view, I wonder why you think this way?
> Hard disagree, as some already have their sight on Mars. We are an ambitious species!
Mars is not habitable for humans and has never been touched by human hands. Ambition won't overcome that fact. Should we exhaust the earth to establish an unsustainable colony on Mars?
> Given than facts don't support your pessimist view,
My you are confident. The fact is there are no human colonies off planet earth. Even the space stations that exist aren't self sustaining. The future is not yet a fact, so we're both speculating.
Mars is not habitable for humans and has never been touched by human hands. Ambition won't overcome that fact. Should we exhaust the earth to establish an unsustainable colony on Mars?
> Given than facts don't support your pessimist view,
My you are confident. The fact is there are no human colonies off planet earth. Even the space stations that exist aren't self sustaining. The future is not yet a fact, so we're both speculating.
Can you describe exactly why you believe progress has a limit?
I don’t see how there could be a limit (other than the laws of physics which actually prevent none of what has been described in this conversation).
I don’t see how there could be a limit (other than the laws of physics which actually prevent none of what has been described in this conversation).
[deleted]
If you don't grow, you fade away. There's no middle ground.
there's also the obvious parallel to software.
they're never done. or, rather, if they no longer get changes or improvements, they've probably reached EOL.
they're never done. or, rather, if they no longer get changes or improvements, they've probably reached EOL.
Depends on the purpose of the software. If it's a focused library then the perceived stagnation might actually be feature completion
no bugs in the library? no new feature requests?
I used to think more along those lines, but less so now. I cannot really think of a library I actively use that doesn't get any changes to it.
But I also won't be surprised if this is true for some. Do you have a good example?
But I also won't be surprised if this is true for some. Do you have a good example?
zlib went more than 5 years without a release, and is heavily used.
Back in early 2010s Brazil, I remember seeing cranes lifting up new buildings everywhere in my city. Not as much new public sector infrastructure, but private sector was booming. This came with a 100-1000% housing inflation that never corrected later.
The country started its slow but sure descent into the gutter in mid 2010s, and by 2016 basically everything stopped. Only pre covid did I start seeing new apartment buildings rising again at snails pace, but then came covid.
The country started its slow but sure descent into the gutter in mid 2010s, and by 2016 basically everything stopped. Only pre covid did I start seeing new apartment buildings rising again at snails pace, but then came covid.
Related, I learned when I moved to San Francisco that the golden gate is continuously being painted in red throughout the year, every year.
You bring up a good point here.
No matter what it is, there is a need for maintenance of that thing. Bridges need painting, streets need repaving, ballparks need sweeping.
People are like this too. We all need sleep, the bathroom, food, etc. Yet with people we don't think of them during their maintenance periods. I think this is because we all do this during a certain period of the day, leaving the other parts of the day to enjoy our non-self-maintenance work with each other.
Why can't we do this for cities too?
I know it would be difficult. But declaring some sort of jubilee from maintenance would be pretty cool. Just for 1 month every 10 years or so, no more road construction, or bridge painting, or sheds on the sidewalk. Get the city to enforce it, make the fine big, coordinate it so that everything is clean and tidy, just for 30 days every decade or something. Make it a celebration, a party, a big time for tourists to come in and photograph everything. Like a height marker for a child on the door-frame. A pause, 'Look in the mirror, take it in, breathe, it won't last long, savor this moment'.
No matter what it is, there is a need for maintenance of that thing. Bridges need painting, streets need repaving, ballparks need sweeping.
People are like this too. We all need sleep, the bathroom, food, etc. Yet with people we don't think of them during their maintenance periods. I think this is because we all do this during a certain period of the day, leaving the other parts of the day to enjoy our non-self-maintenance work with each other.
Why can't we do this for cities too?
I know it would be difficult. But declaring some sort of jubilee from maintenance would be pretty cool. Just for 1 month every 10 years or so, no more road construction, or bridge painting, or sheds on the sidewalk. Get the city to enforce it, make the fine big, coordinate it so that everything is clean and tidy, just for 30 days every decade or something. Make it a celebration, a party, a big time for tourists to come in and photograph everything. Like a height marker for a child on the door-frame. A pause, 'Look in the mirror, take it in, breathe, it won't last long, savor this moment'.
salt water and fog really tear up any exposed metals
[deleted]
Where I grew up, they used the number of cranes visible on the skyline as an indicator of the strength of the economy.
What an oddly romanticized view of construction. I like Kevin's writing, but this is just fluffy nonsense.
I don't think it's that romantic. When I moved between Europe and China for work every few months you could see this in action. There was a building close to my apartment that I think got rebuild three times in just a few years with a new business every time. My hometown in Europe basically looks (and feels) like a museum.
And it shows in the people. There's a dynamism, young people moving in, upwards mobility, low cost of living, jobs that you lack in many of these static, affluent places.
And it shows in the people. There's a dynamism, young people moving in, upwards mobility, low cost of living, jobs that you lack in many of these static, affluent places.
I always wonder how they make those postcard images of cities, where no crane is visible in an entire city.
Photoshop?
I feel like this video on city growth is relevant, and was pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
It suggests that a lot of the construction/repair needs of major cities could be reduced significantly, but it's a flaw inherent to their design that needs correcting first.
It suggests that a lot of the construction/repair needs of major cities could be reduced significantly, but it's a flaw inherent to their design that needs correcting first.
Tell that to a guy who's been living next to a piledriver construction site for the last year
Very true, as construction is not just new builds but also renovation and maintenance. Even a theoretical city with completely stable population still needs to keep its structures up to date and renew infrastructure.
This is nothing more than romanticism for the jack hammers of poor decisions. A vibrant arcology can take many different forms, but constant redecon isn't required.
It's not about the continuous construction. It's about the speed. Construction is way too slow but the world is spending more money on faster compute instead.
You try 3D printing a house on a Pentium, or running inference models. We needed the compute. We need so much compute it boggles the mind and we don't know what to do with it.
Only then, as we are drowning in compute, does it spill over into other areas and allow that compute to be used as leverage towards enhancing or automating areas compute has yet to break into. Only then are crazy ideas like having large clusters of transistors act as neurons in a neural net actually possible, and efficient enough.
This is at least what I mean when I occasionally say something flippant like "(technology/computers/software) will eat the world". Maybe our relentless pursuit of more compute isn't the best way to solve complex problems, but it increasingly seems like it may be a way.
Only then, as we are drowning in compute, does it spill over into other areas and allow that compute to be used as leverage towards enhancing or automating areas compute has yet to break into. Only then are crazy ideas like having large clusters of transistors act as neurons in a neural net actually possible, and efficient enough.
This is at least what I mean when I occasionally say something flippant like "(technology/computers/software) will eat the world". Maybe our relentless pursuit of more compute isn't the best way to solve complex problems, but it increasingly seems like it may be a way.
Whether you print a benchy using a tabletop 3d printer using PLA, or a using a gigantic gantry crane pouring cement, the compute power required is the same.
3D printing firmware and all of it's associated design software (CAD/CAM) would run fine on computing technology 10 years old.
Construction speed is bottlenecked by the lack of investment in new techniques, not for the lack of compute power.
3D printing firmware and all of it's associated design software (CAD/CAM) would run fine on computing technology 10 years old.
Construction speed is bottlenecked by the lack of investment in new techniques, not for the lack of compute power.
Real buildings must take into account material costs, weight bearing, soil conditions, thermal cycling through various paths, and human and seismic induced dynamic loads. The larger the buildings get, the exponentially more compute is needed to solve these problems.
“Anyone can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
“Anyone can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
You can still design 99% of the bridges in existence today with commercially available software and hardware from 10 years ago.
Why do you want to make a bridge that barely stands?
Instead you want your engineer to:
1. build it cheaply and quickly,
2. maintenance is cheap and non disruptive.
3. probability of unplanned failure is small, eg once in 100,000 years
Why do you want to make a bridge that barely stands?
Instead you want your engineer to:
1. build it cheaply and quickly,
2. maintenance is cheap and non disruptive.
3. probability of unplanned failure is small, eg once in 100,000 years
Investment in new techniques is limited due to the limited prospects of saving money. Construction is an efficient business; gains are possible but hard, and material transportation prices play a much larger role than one might be used to.
haha. the exact same language was used when major semicon foundries was stuck at 14nm for a while.
sometimes solving multiple hard problems simultaneously is easier and yields better results than trying to solve individual problems on their own, due to synergies that can be taken advantage of.
however, the “divide and conquer” adage has stuck too hard into the minds of ordinary people and going against it - that’s the really hard part.
sometimes solving multiple hard problems simultaneously is easier and yields better results than trying to solve individual problems on their own, due to synergies that can be taken advantage of.
however, the “divide and conquer” adage has stuck too hard into the minds of ordinary people and going against it - that’s the really hard part.
> Construction is an efficient business
It doesn’t feel very efficient, especially residential construction. My neighbor is building a garage with some finished space above. It’s sat without a garage door for literally months now - everything else is done.
I often wonder how soon into the project was the garage door ordered and how was that order tracked? Was the lead time calculated and a fallback option presented? These are things that we just take as a matter of course in software. They are also routine in industries that are software-intensive (finance, insurance, retail, to a lesser extent logistics)
The construction business - especially residential construction and remodeling - seem insanely inefficient to me. Jobs that should take a few days of wall clock time often take weeks due to poor planning and scheduling.
It’s interesting that certain high value specialties within construction end up being extremely efficient. You can get a new HVAC system (assuming that you don’t need to install ductwork) in a couple of days. Ditto for a new roof or a new driveway. The process is finely tuned.
It would be wonderful to have the ability to apply computational power to jobs that are not as repeatable today. Scan the house and identify constraints. Automatically design the systems, measurements and layout and assemble a BOM to minimize the effects of supplier lead times. Submit detailed RFPs to subcontractors and track their performance to plan. Etc.
It doesn’t feel very efficient, especially residential construction. My neighbor is building a garage with some finished space above. It’s sat without a garage door for literally months now - everything else is done.
I often wonder how soon into the project was the garage door ordered and how was that order tracked? Was the lead time calculated and a fallback option presented? These are things that we just take as a matter of course in software. They are also routine in industries that are software-intensive (finance, insurance, retail, to a lesser extent logistics)
The construction business - especially residential construction and remodeling - seem insanely inefficient to me. Jobs that should take a few days of wall clock time often take weeks due to poor planning and scheduling.
It’s interesting that certain high value specialties within construction end up being extremely efficient. You can get a new HVAC system (assuming that you don’t need to install ductwork) in a couple of days. Ditto for a new roof or a new driveway. The process is finely tuned.
It would be wonderful to have the ability to apply computational power to jobs that are not as repeatable today. Scan the house and identify constraints. Automatically design the systems, measurements and layout and assemble a BOM to minimize the effects of supplier lead times. Submit detailed RFPs to subcontractors and track their performance to plan. Etc.
> It doesn’t feel very efficient, especially residential construction. My neighbor is building a garage with some finished space above. It’s sat without a garage door for literally months now - everything else is done.
If all you have to improve the construction industry is better scheduling and supply-chain management, that's something. But the poster above seemed to be hinting at things more like new construction techniques.
If all you have to improve the construction industry is better scheduling and supply-chain management, that's something. But the poster above seemed to be hinting at things more like new construction techniques.
San Francisco is dying
I wonder if there are urbanistics designs / architecture that would accommodate that permanent state of construction.
What if you hate the noise though?
Go live somewhere that’s dying, but doing so slowly enough that it doesn’t bother you (e.g. most suburbs).
You become a nimby. Everything is an assault to you and can just have to constantly fight.
Gary, Indiana is pretty quiet when it comes to construction!
Gunshots? Not so much.
Gunshots? Not so much.
start tearing up your house and soundproofing (sorry renters)
Sounds like construction!
Seriously, though, I do think soundproofing is significantly underused and even undertaken in most residential construction. And at times have thought anyone for increasing density needs to start there.
Seriously, though, I do think soundproofing is significantly underused and even undertaken in most residential construction. And at times have thought anyone for increasing density needs to start there.
wear noise cancelling headphones
Yo dawg I've heard you don't like noise? Put headphones with counter noise so you will not listening noise while not listening noise...
He said he dislikes noise, not all sound. If he hates all sound he's out of luck in life in general.
when they were restoring that taj mahal, all that scaffolding made it look ugly. thats when kate and prince william visited and still took a picture. hope they removed it now.
Life is life.
Construction is correction.
Construction is correction.
well ... yes and no imo. the text sounds like what somebody realized during an acid trip. of course maintenance is required. but to equate incessant, disruptive maintenance with "life" is a bit over the top. properly constructed building won't need serious overhauls for decades. the constant building, ripping down, ripping up, building again is as I see it just as well correlated to an unhealthy pump and dump tendency of our hyper capitalist economy.
> Jackhammers removing the old are the sound of a city’s metabolism. Neighborhoods that have construction in them are alive; those without it are ill.
But go to an old European city and you're not going to see much construction. And they're not tearing down old stuff to build new. And yet many of those cities are very vibrant and full of life.
But go to an old European city and you're not going to see much construction. And they're not tearing down old stuff to build new. And yet many of those cities are very vibrant and full of life.
Full of life, yes. But lower metabolism. Kind of like an aging actor.
[deleted]
photochemsyn(3)
[deleted]
Construction is simply an economic activity, not “life.”
At least not any more ‘life’ than say music, or physics,machining, the Grateful Dead, etc. As an economic activity, it has fluctuating valuations in asset values, prices, profitability, etc. and is greatly influenced by financing. As we’re all aware, China has hugely over-constructed, is in the process of asset value decline, and has wiped out some speculators.
Having grown up in the countryside, where most construction involves killing all the trees on a site by scraping off the top layer of soil, the sounds of construction only makes me think of death.