Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to design a house to last 1000 years

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 402 posts

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#371

Post by teagoat »

nihonde wrote: post #367
Animats wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"rigid steel structure" Steel is springy. Tall steel-framed buildings and bridges routinely sway in wind, which is usually harmless to the structure but annoying to occupants. Unless you get harmonic oscillation, where the energy stored in the motion builds up, which can be a problem and has destroyed bridges. Much of seismic design involves connections which raise the resonant frequency of the structure so it can't…

> Tension joints for wood are seen in classic Japanese construction Japan also has several wooden buildings that purport to be 1,000+ years old—although these situations inevitably lead to Ship of Theseus debates.

"... And then it burnt down" was probably the funniest thing I heard touring the "thousand" year old castles in Japan. Being completely levelled by a fire seemed to happen about once every 200 years.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#372

Post by [deleted] »

skylanh wrote: post #193
rsync wrote: post #98

This is a very odd design document and it makes me think this author has thought a lot about materials and buildings but not actually built anything . The steel moment frame, to someone with shallow knowledge, sounds so strong and resilient . But in fact, a rigid steel structure is more vulnerable to seismic (and even wind) loads than wooden framing which can flex and move and dampen those loads naturally. The stainl…

> author has thought a lot about materials and buildings > but not actually built anything. That was my impression. As soon as they started talking about unenforced concrete pilings (drilled? monopile?) to bedrock and stressed steel framing I wasn't certain I would enjoy anymore or that it was a good use of my time. I think costs at this stage are unrealistically low "probably in the neighborhood of $1000-2000 per sq…

[deleted]

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#373

Post by theluketaylor »

littlestymaar wrote: post #330
ozim wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet peeve is when people claim that heavy old cast iron radiators are "always better" than new flimsy steel ones. Yes those are better for old houses with old insulation or no insulation because then you wanted radiator to keep warm so you can sit close to it and get yourself warm. Where with new thing ones you want to heat up the air so you don't want radiator to be warm but air in well insulated building.

> here with new thing ones you want to heat up the air so you don't want radiator to be warm but air in well insulated building. This is more complicated than this, and the construction industry has actually gone back and forth on this topic for the past 40 years. A few consideration against your point: - When you heat air, you dry it up, which can be pretty uncomfortable for the inhabitants. - Air stratification is…

> There exists sophisticated systems with heat exchangers to collect heat from the outgoing air and warm the incoming air, but those are really expensive and far from ubiquitous.

Energy recovery ventilation units are not that expensive and are required by code for new construction here in Ontario as of 2017. Adds some cost to the HVAC of a new build, but not that much.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#374

Post by distances »

rootusrootus wrote: post #304
distances wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2500sf is 232 square meters. That's three normal family city apartments by European standards. I guess houses just run bigger there but sounds quite excessive nonetheless.

"Excessive" is a moral judgement. City apartments aren't typically 2500sf in the US, either. I was referring to single family detached homes, which are by far the dominant type of dwelling in my region. Land is cheap, wood is cheap. A 2500sf house will be a good bit cheaper than a little flat in most western European cities, I bet.

Didn't mean it as a moral judgement, sorry if that was not the right choice of words.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#377

Post by Tepix »

jeena wrote: post #376

Somehow I find it weird that it doesn't reference previous art which has shown that it really could survive 1000 years like the Bamberg Cathedral for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamberg_Cathedral which was founded 1002 and has been used since then on a daily basis.

"After the first two cathedrals burned down in the 11th and 12th centuries, the current structure, a late Romanesque building with four large towers, was built in the 13th century."

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#378

Post by jacknews »

1000 years, huh?

Where is the grav-drone delivery pad?

You know the satelite microwave energy beam receiver needs to be aligned, and have at least an 8m opening to the sky right?

And are all other openings properly sealed or filtered? You don't want any of the radioactive atmosphere seeping in.

Speaking of which, you do have at least 1m double walls to house water radidion shielding, or are you using lead?

Only kidding, but it's impossible to know what needs will be in 1000 years, so it's much better to make something modular, reconfigurable, etc.

Re: How to design a house to last 1000 years

#380

Post by lmm »

aspaceman wrote: post #276
tiborsaas wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at that list, almost all of the surviving buildings are churches or religious places. If the goal is to build something that lasts 1000 years, then you need to factor in political and utility questions as well besides fixating on materials. Your home can have perfect architecture, but if a rich person buys your land after you are gone and decides what you've had sucks, it will just get demolished and repl…

> That rarely happens with churches. I agree. If the church didn't survive, they would just build a new one. I imagine there lie the remains of hundreds of separate cathedrals under one. But you would never say "the church fell down". Rather, "there was an accident and renovations were required". I see them as a Ship of Theseus, where the most long-lasting examples were determined through a lot of trial and error. Is…

Many cathedrals have been rebuilt two or three times, and building a bigger church over the top of a smaller one is normal, but there are also plenty that have survived more or less as they are for at least several centuries. (Hell, there's an 11th century church in my home village, and it still has the door on the wrong side because the village itself was moved due to plague).

Straight masonry without rebar lasts essentially forever - think of all those Roman viaducts that are still in use. Water can wear through it eventually if the shape lets it, especially in places with freeze-thaw cycles (so there's a saying that a church will survive as long as there's someone around to clear the gutters). I guess hurricanes would probably do it if you're in a place that gets those. But there's just not a whole lot to go wrong with what's essentially a big lump of stone. (Of course a bare stone building is not particularly comfortable for living in, and you have to be a bit more careful about how you maintain wood or fabric on the inside - but the building shell itself will last as it is)

Post reply on HN