Hacker News Reader

Comment by unnouinceput | Hacker News Reader

And that's why you pour the concrete directly into walls with rebars inside. Much stronger than cinder blocks and 10 times cheaper. But hey, nobody wants to actually do quality work, let's just fuck around with lego.

View on HN

Around here poured concrete is usually more expensive than cinderblock, though it is also usually better.

It’s even cheaper if you do the laying yourself of course.

Don't know where "here" is in your case but do you have skyscrapers? Because if you look at any documentary how a skyscraper is build, it's with pouring cement over rebars, not with stacking cinder blocks. Do you think those guys would not rather prefer stacking cinder blocks over rebars instead of pouring if would've been cheaper?

Skyscrapers have to hold the weight of the skyscraper, cinder blocks wouldn't work. Cinder blocks probably max out at two or three stories unless you do brick on concrete frame like you see in some countries.

Wood also maxes out at some point, and even poured concrete - which is why the tallest skyscrapers are glass on steel.

Wood was used to build this 18 story building recently - it definitely is less strong than glass/steel though

https://reasonstobecheerful.world/the-age-of-the-wood-skyscr...

Do you think they build skyscrapers and two-story houses the same? That's like saying Honda Civics and Abrahams tanks are built the same because they're both vehicles.

Both have engines, and both have crankshafts. So, yeah, at least partially, they are built the same. Now, translating that to our comparison of 2-story house vs. skyscraper, both have floors. Do you see on skyscrapers, when doing said floors, using concrete pouring or cinder blocks? Because if cinder blocks are cheaper, they would've been used for decking/ceiling a floor, but they always use concrete pouring.

So yeah, concrete pouring is way cheaper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com