Hacker News Reader

Comment by DrewADesign | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

It's definitely happened in China though. Some of those mega-cities started out as sleepy fishing villages only 20 years earlier.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your lump of flesh is constantly replacing and repairing it's components

and why can’t civil structures do the same?

They can and should. That's the sign of a happening place. When reconstruction and replacement stops, it's a sign of decline

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com