I am totally OK with shitting on concrete as long as it is not used as an opportunity to shill for super tall timber construction. That's not a solution for anything.
There is too many of us, and consumption at this level is unsustainable regardless of smaller sensibilities.
How tall is super tall? For 6-12 stories, CLT sure seems to make sense in a lot of cases. I agree that consumption in general is out of control.
Mar 4, 19 7:38 pm ·
·
Rusty!
Global consumption is in line with global population. Except population is out of control. If all concrete work switched over to wood you would have an even bigger disaster on your hands.
Mar 4, 19 7:52 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Yeah I recently saw a statistic that worldwide concrete use is equivalent to building NYC, all five boroughs, every 34 days. Our forests couldn't handle that without massive changes.
Mar 4, 19 8:04 pm ·
·
Rusty!
Finer details are even more depressing. Thank heavens for HGTV where you can run away from it all. Yes Tarek, that 10 year old kitchen is seriously out of style and should be gutted. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Nah.
Remodel, Renovate, Redesign.
75 years old and still going strong. Any quantitative material analysis should be rated over the life of the material. That being said, bunkers made out of closely fit cut stone would be much nicer. Think Machu Pichu.
Mar 5, 19 7:32 pm ·
·
randomised
Wow Erik, you surely know how to celebrate Concrete Week! Amazing projects, keep 'em coming!
Sure, blame concrete. Why isn't the Guardain doing Plastics Week?
Are the oceans choking on concrete? Are global wars being waged for control of concrete? Does modern society run on concrete?
Let's not lose perspective here.
Mar 5, 19 9:20 am ·
·
Witty Banter
I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or proposition. I haven't had a chance to read the articles yet to understand the Guardian's position but could we not benefit from a discourse on both materials? This is a guess but I would assume the general public is much more in tune with the problems associated with plastic than they are with concrete. In my opinion both should be discussed and there is nothing wrong with focusing a discussion on one or the other.
Mar 5, 19 11:37 am ·
·
Wood Guy
Because production of portland cement is responsible for 10% of man-made global warming emissions. To make it you split CaCO3 into CaO and CO2, keeping the CaO and letting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Mar 6, 19 12:42 pm ·
·
randomised
Luckily olivine and basalt stone can bind CO2 and can be added to the concrete mixture to offset that release of CO2: http://www.green-minerals.nl/concrete/
87% of CO2 comes from fossil fuels. But let's ignore that and focus on the 5% (NOT 10%) from concrete. Classic misdirection to serve energy interests. The Guardian should join a climate denier group (if it doesn't already belong).
Mar 6, 19 1:27 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Miles, every rational person understands (or should, at this point) that burning fossil fuels contributes greatly to global warming emissions. Most, even those in the construction industry, do not understand how significantly conventional concrete (or the blowing agents in most foams) contributes as well. We need to fight on all fronts.
It’s important to factor in the loss of embodied energy, and the carbon impact of having to demolish avant-garde concrete structures a generation down the road, because they are so damn ugly.
“A campaign was mounted in 2008 by Building Design magazine and the Twentieth Century Society to get Robin Hood Gardens listed as a historical landmark in order to save it from destruction, with support from Richard Rogers and the late Zaha Hadid, the latter counted it as her favourite building in London.”
“The campaign to save Robin Hood Gardens drew very little support from those who actually had to live in the building, with more than 75% of residents supporting its demolition when consulted by the local authority.”
Mar 6, 19 11:15 pm ·
·
randomised
Yes, if you don't factor in the maintenance of buildings they deteriorate...but only because they were left to rot by housing associations struggling because of the neoliberal climate they were forced to operate in.
Mar 7, 19 1:52 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
It's Concrete Week!
It's Concrete Week at The Guardian! A festival of appreciation for everyone's favorite material:
1. Concrete, the most destructive material on Earth.
2. A delicate sense of terror.
3. What does concrete do to our bodies?
Not to shamelessly self-plug or anything, but my column in this month's Fine Homebuilding magazine dumps on concrete as well: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2019/02/27/minimizing-concrete-in-a-slab-on-grade-home?.
I am totally OK with shitting on concrete as long as it is not used as an opportunity to shill for super tall timber construction. That's not a solution for anything.
There is too many of us, and consumption at this level is unsustainable regardless of smaller sensibilities.
Eat your children first.
I'll eat yours first if you don't mind ;)
How tall is super tall? For 6-12 stories, CLT sure seems to make sense in a lot of cases. I agree that consumption in general is out of control.
Global consumption is in line with global population. Except population is out of control. If all concrete work switched over to wood you would have an even bigger disaster on your hands.
Yeah I recently saw a statistic that worldwide concrete use is equivalent to building NYC, all five boroughs, every 34 days. Our forests couldn't handle that without massive changes.
Finer details are even more depressing. Thank heavens for HGTV where you can run away from it all. Yes Tarek, that 10 year old kitchen is seriously out of style and should be gutted. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Nah. Remodel, Renovate, Redesign.
cap it at 5 stories imho
So, killing trees is the answer? Thanks, noted!
Trees literally grow on trees... so, you lose nothing.
Perfect, let's kill those too! Off with their heads!
Just kidding, i love me some wood!
Worked on some CLT buildings and competitions, great stuff...
Here is the Church of Sainte-Bernadette du Banlay, the home church of Brutalism, so to speak. What's not to like?
The only thing I don't like is that it's a church. It's a big flaw, but it's its only one.
That's more beautiful than any current CLT skyscraper ;-)
Gorgeous! I wish more things like this were built today.
Looks like the entrance to the underground parking on the back of a convention center.
That's some convention center I'd love to see!
Nazi WWII bunker:
75 years old and still going strong. Any quantitative material analysis should be rated over the life of the material. That being said, bunkers made out of closely fit cut stone would be much nicer. Think Machu Pichu.
Wow Erik, you surely know how to celebrate Concrete Week! Amazing projects, keep 'em coming!
Sure, blame concrete. Why isn't the Guardain doing Plastics Week?
Are the oceans choking on concrete? Are global wars being waged for control of concrete? Does modern society run on concrete?
Let's not lose perspective here.
I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or proposition. I haven't had a chance to read the articles yet to understand the Guardian's position but could we not benefit from a discourse on both materials? This is a guess but I would assume the general public is much more in tune with the problems associated with plastic than they are with concrete. In my opinion both should be discussed and there is nothing wrong with focusing a discussion on one or the other.
Because production of portland cement is responsible for 10% of man-made global warming emissions. To make it you split CaCO3 into CaO and CO2, keeping the CaO and letting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Luckily olivine and basalt stone can bind CO2 and can be added to the concrete mixture to offset that release of CO2: http://www.green-minerals.nl/concrete/
87% of CO2 comes from fossil fuels. But let's ignore that and focus on the 5% (NOT 10%) from concrete. Classic misdirection to serve energy interests. The Guardian should join a climate denier group (if it doesn't already belong).
Miles, every rational person understands (or should, at this point) that burning fossil fuels contributes greatly to global warming emissions. Most, even those in the construction industry, do not understand how significantly conventional concrete (or the blowing agents in most foams) contributes as well. We need to fight on all fronts.
And another scalable option was recently published "Scientists can now turn CO2 in the air into solid coal" https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/carbon-dioxide-into-coal
Every new technology is supposed to counter the ill effects effects of previous technologies. Don't hold your breath.
I like this so much more than Abstract Week.
It’s important to factor in the loss of embodied energy, and the carbon impact of having to demolish avant-garde concrete structures a generation down the road, because they are so damn ugly.
They aren't demolished because they're ugly, they're demolished to maximize real estate profits.
“A campaign was mounted in 2008 by Building Design magazine and the Twentieth Century Society to get Robin Hood Gardens listed as a historical landmark in order to save it from destruction, with support from Richard Rogers and the late Zaha Hadid, the latter counted it as her favourite building in London.”
“The campaign to save Robin Hood Gardens drew very little support from those who actually had to live in the building, with more than 75% of residents supporting its demolition when consulted by the local authority.”
Yes, if you don't factor in the maintenance of buildings they deteriorate...but only because they were left to rot by housing associations struggling because of the neoliberal climate they were forced to operate in.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.