It seems that there is a lack of discourse around the lifespan of buildings and landscapes. The idea of a building that lasts 50 - 100 years seems so ridiculous. Have we given up on the 500-1000 year lifespan building, and accepted this disposable rapidly changing urbanism? We have an obligation to the future to create places that endure time. This 4th dimension of architecture is so seldom discussed. I just wanted to open the conversation.
b3tadine[sutures]
Sep 17, 22 4:26 pm
Capitalism.
x-jla
Sep 17, 22 4:32 pm
Modernism.
Stasis
Sep 17, 22 5:38 pm
+1 on Capitalism.. For our own survival.. some of us live off of retrofit/remodeling/seismic upgrade jobs, and can't always get a new ground up works.. With building becoming sturdier, there may be lesser opportunities.. I think modern smartphones comes to mind. They showcase all the latest tech improvements, but never go for the longevity..
x-jla
Sep 17, 22 6:01 pm
Lol, have you seen the durability of public works.
Stasis
Sep 17, 22 11:50 pm
Are you saying they are sturdy? Probably lot more so than the buildings. However, there aren't that many jobs unless they appropriate the funding for them and those works take really long time to plan, design, and build... I do like the idea of durable buildings if the client is willing to do pay for it. I've worked on lot of mission critical buildings where they care about 'can't fail' building systems. These buildings have pretty sturdy enclosures with mostly pre-cast panels, but I am not sure if my client envision to keep these buildings several centuries.
x-jla
Sep 18, 22 12:07 am
Does pre cast last that long?
Stasis
Sep 18, 22 4:27 pm
nah.. even 100 years would be pushing it..
x-jla
Sep 18, 22 4:35 pm
It’s interesting that the ruins of the future will be much more scattered than the ruins of the past. We will find things like granite sinks in thousands of years, aluminum frames, etc…but not intact buildings or footprints of buildings like those of the past.
x-jla
Sep 18, 22 4:36 pm
Fields of granite countertops and window frames. Lol
Stasis
Sep 18, 22 4:57 pm
It maybe so.. While those stone castles last centuries, not sure how many modern buildings as we know of will be around in next century.. I guess even Sagrada Familia would outlast some of the buildings from 1900s. I don't know if it was the original intend, but these buildings from the past do seem to be doing well against time. Perhaps one modern building I think it will challenge these historical buildings would be Getty Center in LA. It is pretty sturdy from seismic stand point (can withstand up to 8.0?). In my opinion, Its stone and white metal facades look pretty timeless and don't show much of aging..
I think the issue may be the construction time.. These historical buildings took ridiculous amount of time to build, and in today's economy, I don't know how much a client would be willing to invest long time and money to develop a sturdy buildings. Pretty much all of my clients care about is how soon we can finish so they can make profit off of the new buildings. Perhaps clients for civic or religious buildings may care for more symbolic, timeless buildings even at longer construction duration.
archanonymous
Sep 18, 22 9:20 pm
Lol, what? Precast should last several hundred years or more. Last project I did had 12,000psi mix.
archanonymous
Sep 17, 22 6:09 pm
I think adaptive reuse and reno work is increasing along with awareness of this issue.
I've designed quite a few built buildings and it really depends on client and budget, and even design expression.
I posted a precast school building a number of years ago... Other than roofing membrane replacement it should last hundreds of years. Maybe will need new window wall and windows once or twice in there if seals fail. Obviously interior renovations.
Quite likely the land it is on will become valuable enough that it is demo'd for something else though.
I've done another project that will need a new stucco facade every 50 years, or continuous quality maintenance. Doubt that it would ever be torn down but who knows. A massive earthquake could destroy it. Would love to see the mass timber structure in 500 years. That's what I call patina.
I think the projects you are talking about are single family frame homes and cheap commercial shit. Most educational and civic projects, even corporate hqs are designed for very long lives.
Wood Guy
Sep 18, 22 10:13 am
Durability and longevity come up constantly in my circles. They are integral to a "green" building. But there is also an argument that buildings don't need to be designed to last that long, as things change and a low-carbon building that can be remodeled or replaced easily has benefits as well.
Tedd Benson writes about "disentangling" the long-lasting elements--the foundation and structure--from the things like finishes and mechanical systems that will definitely be replaced within decades at most.
I think designers, builders and clients who are obsessed with making buildings that will last centuries are usually more interested in creating monuments to themselves than anything altruistic.
x-jla
Sep 18, 22 11:50 am
But buildings that last for centuries also help to create a sense of place and culture. It seems to me like if cities constantly turn over new buildings, without the layering and the artifacts of the past, everywhere will be dominated by the same contemporary thing.
will galloway
Sep 29, 22 10:47 pm
That is exactly a description of Tokyo. For every 4 new buildings one is torn down, and over about 30 years or so an average neighborhood will see 1/3rd of the buildings replaced. After a few decades the entire character of a place can change drastically. In Japan though the history is social and more in the people than in the buildings, so contemporary Japanese architecture is still pretty Japanese, far from generic. More important, there is no housing crisis. Since 1974 the nation has not had a housing deficit. Durability may offer a narrow kind of sustainability, but if the outcome is not equitable by definition it is not sustainable.
x-jla
Sep 30, 22 12:06 pm
Japan has also been able to somehow absorb modernism in the best way possible- where it looks both modern and Japanese. I think Partly due to the fact that modernism that was not all to different in principle from traditional Japanese architecture.
I believe this was a diagram in one of the case studies in A Pretty Good House
It divided the house systems into elements of substantial age: shell, frame, finishes, infrastructural services [just going off memory here]. And it proposes an arrangement that allows the lesser long-living systems be located near the center where they can be accessed during the longer life of the building shell.
An interesting take
[edit]I see Wood Guy mentions it above...ah well...
Wood Guy
Sep 18, 22 4:50 pm
I didn't mention the book, though, so thanks for that!
It seems that there is a lack of discourse around the lifespan of buildings and landscapes. The idea of a building that lasts 50 - 100 years seems so ridiculous. Have we given up on the 500-1000 year lifespan building, and accepted this disposable rapidly changing urbanism? We have an obligation to the future to create places that endure time. This 4th dimension of architecture is so seldom discussed. I just wanted to open the conversation.
Capitalism.
Modernism.
+1 on Capitalism.. For our own survival.. some of us live off of retrofit/remodeling/seismic upgrade jobs, and can't always get a new ground up works.. With building becoming sturdier, there may be lesser opportunities.. I think modern smartphones comes to mind. They showcase all the latest tech improvements, but never go for the longevity..
Lol, have you seen the durability of public works.
Are you saying they are sturdy? Probably lot more so than the buildings. However, there aren't that many jobs unless they appropriate the funding for them and those works take really long time to plan, design, and build... I do like the idea of durable buildings if the client is willing to do pay for it. I've worked on lot of mission critical buildings where they care about 'can't fail' building systems. These buildings have pretty sturdy enclosures with mostly pre-cast panels, but I am not sure if my client envision to keep these buildings several centuries.
Does pre cast last that long?
nah.. even 100 years would be pushing it..
It’s interesting that the ruins of the future will be much more scattered than the ruins of the past. We will find things like granite sinks in thousands of years, aluminum frames, etc…but not intact buildings or footprints of buildings like those of the past.
Fields of granite countertops and window frames. Lol
It maybe so.. While those stone castles last centuries, not sure how many modern buildings as we know of will be around in next century.. I guess even Sagrada Familia would outlast some of the buildings from 1900s. I don't know if it was the original intend, but these buildings from the past do seem to be doing well against time. Perhaps one modern building I think it will challenge these historical buildings would be Getty Center in LA. It is pretty sturdy from seismic stand point (can withstand up to 8.0?). In my opinion, Its stone and white metal facades look pretty timeless and don't show much of aging.. I think the issue may be the construction time.. These historical buildings took ridiculous amount of time to build, and in today's economy, I don't know how much a client would be willing to invest long time and money to develop a sturdy buildings. Pretty much all of my clients care about is how soon we can finish so they can make profit off of the new buildings. Perhaps clients for civic or religious buildings may care for more symbolic, timeless buildings even at longer construction duration.
Lol, what? Precast should last several hundred years or more. Last project I did had 12,000psi mix.
I think adaptive reuse and reno work is increasing along with awareness of this issue.
I've designed quite a few built buildings and it really depends on client and budget, and even design expression.
I posted a precast school building a number of years ago... Other than roofing membrane replacement it should last hundreds of years. Maybe will need new window wall and windows once or twice in there if seals fail. Obviously interior renovations.
Quite likely the land it is on will become valuable enough that it is demo'd for something else though.
I've done another project that will need a new stucco facade every 50 years, or continuous quality maintenance. Doubt that it would ever be torn down but who knows. A massive earthquake could destroy it. Would love to see the mass timber structure in 500 years. That's what I call patina.
I think the projects you are talking about are single family frame homes and cheap commercial shit. Most educational and civic projects, even corporate hqs are designed for very long lives.
Durability and longevity come up constantly in my circles. They are integral to a "green" building. But there is also an argument that buildings don't need to be designed to last that long, as things change and a low-carbon building that can be remodeled or replaced easily has benefits as well.
Tedd Benson writes about "disentangling" the long-lasting elements--the foundation and structure--from the things like finishes and mechanical systems that will definitely be replaced within decades at most.
I think designers, builders and clients who are obsessed with making buildings that will last centuries are usually more interested in creating monuments to themselves than anything altruistic.
But buildings that last for centuries also help to create a sense of place and culture. It seems to me like if cities constantly turn over new buildings, without the layering and the artifacts of the past, everywhere will be dominated by the same contemporary thing.
That is exactly a description of Tokyo. For every 4 new buildings one is torn down, and over about 30 years or so an average neighborhood will see 1/3rd of the buildings replaced. After a few decades the entire character of a place can change drastically. In Japan though the history is social and more in the people than in the buildings, so contemporary Japanese architecture is still pretty Japanese, far from generic. More important, there is no housing crisis. Since 1974 the nation has not had a housing deficit. Durability may offer a narrow kind of sustainability, but if the outcome is not equitable by definition it is not sustainable.
Japan has also been able to somehow absorb modernism in the best way possible- where it looks both modern and Japanese. I think Partly due to the fact that modernism that was not all to different in principle from traditional Japanese architecture.
the book "Vital Architecture" discusses this topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Vital-A...
I believe this was a diagram in one of the case studies in A Pretty Good House
It divided the house systems into elements of substantial age: shell, frame, finishes, infrastructural services [just going off memory here]. And it proposes an arrangement that allows the lesser long-living systems be located near the center where they can be accessed during the longer life of the building shell.
An interesting take
[edit]I see Wood Guy mentions it above...ah well...
I didn't mention the book, though, so thanks for that!
We also had Tedd Benson on The BS + Beer Show to discuss the concept: https://www.greenbuildingadvis...
I always loved this line by Steve Marin in LA Story, giving someone a driving tour of L.A.
"Some of these building are over 20 years old!!!"
Agreed! And later, getting in the car and driving to the house next door. I love that movie. Sorry, film.
Lovability is sustainability.