I really wonder how he would feel about Roman concrete.
They better have concrete evidence of these claims tho
Autist here, while brick houses are nice, I actually own a 100+yo one, they’re also not the most ideal material for anything bigger that a midrise.
Wanted to have better insulation for shits and giggles? We have a tool for that: putting proper insulation on the concrete.
Some people have some real bad ideas about insulation. No, the air gap in your brick building isn’t good. Air gaps are cheap and easy, not good. They do belong in certain strategic locations, but they can’t compete with the R-value of filling the space with blown fiberglass. Not even close.
Windows, too. The best, most energy efficient window on the market is at least 3 times worse than a few inches of blown fiberglass. Industry marketing has confused customers on that one.
Yeah, the intuition of wanting air in the cavity is a correct one. it’s just that what we actually want is a vacuum. This creates a thermal gap a d is why cups with vaccum keep shit warm/cold awesomely. We cant, realisticly achieve this so instead we shove shit into the walls to protect or little air gap from being tampered with. Fiber glass works OK, but foams work better.
Aww that sounds sad 😔
I love autism
People when autistic boys have mental shutdowns: haha it’s so quirky when he hyperfixates.
People when autistic girls have mental shutdowns: what a bitchy and emotional teenager. She’s not even autistic she just does it for attention.
The trick is to be violent enough that they cant infantilize you!
“Mmmmm, yes, let’s turn a funny post about autistic hyperfixations into gender warfare. This will be a good use of everyone’s time.”
Dude this is about tye gendered double standard in mental illness.
It is a thing, and for autistic women it hurts that we don’t have funny stories about our trauma like this and it sucks.
The reaction to autistic men (here) is perfectly reasonable. We want that. Fuck off with your misogynist bullshit.
No. It’s about concrete.
Autistic boys sometimes get called quaint. Other times people call the police and they get shot.
Same for autistic girls!
Really? Because I just got whipped with a switch or a belt when I had my little boy autistic meltdowns.
Yeah, while there is definitely often sexism involved in how autistic girls and women vs autistic boys and men are treated, it’s not like any flavor of autism or anyone’s autistic meltdown is treated well…
Well yes. Thats how we do eqiality i guess. Like the way we’re closing the eating disorder gap!
At least he is forming concrete opinions
Don’t tell him that.
He’s being a massive brick about it tho
BLOCKed
Ba Dum Tsss
Bullshit concrete is inferior to brick. The Romans used concrete. 😤
The irony is brick was though of as cheap when buildings move to it, from traditional stone blocks. The term “oh, that’s so Redbrick”, was a slam against something that had become cheap or slummy
Self repairing concrete, the cheap stuff we use today is ass
We should work on making self-healing and self-replicating concrete to become superior. 😌
I think scifi nerds call that ‘grey goo’.
are you trying to give buildings cancer
modern concrete fuckin blows massive asses
This is the way
John Betjeman has been reincarnated as an Autistic German guy.
honestly I love bricks and hate concrete blocks.
btw what’s the most (not necessarily among these two) sustainable building material, lemmings?
Honestly, whatever makes the most sense with the materials in the local area. And then I don’t mean what you can get from the local hardware store, but literally, what the earth in the area provides. If you have lots of clay, then brick would be best. If you have lots of big stones, then stone construction it’ll be. If you’re deep in the woods, then a wooden building would serve you just right. Maybe a combination of materials and techniques if you have options in the area.
Bonus points if you can build in a way that passively optimises for managing things like moisture and temperature.
Thisss! You don’t need to invent some crazy futuristic material when humans have been building sustainably for millenia. All you have to do is look into: 1. what material is avaible in the area? and 2. what enviromental factors do you need to take into account? If you’re building in a hot area, the house needs to be able to stay cool. If you’re building in a cold area, the house needs to be able to stay warm.
Cob and rammed earth are hard to beat if you’ve got the right environment for them
Adobe is the best of you live in the right environment for it
what?
The mud bricks. They are BY FAR the cheapest to procure. No transportation fee because it’s right next to your house, and no materials fee because it’s free from the earth. It lasts decades with only minor patchwork repair needed. Anyone can do it and you can literally put up a house in a few days. It’s so good at insulation it hardly needs any AC or Heating. So your costs are absurdly low compared to any other building material. You can straight up put up a house for $10k
This adobe, not the company
you definitely don’t want a subscription based building. oh wait
Stone. It’s natural, subject only to the slow erosion of time.
While I’m a big fan of stone, I do have complicated feelings on the mining industry, so I’m not sure about how sustainable it is.
I’d bet wood is better since if you use it for construction and farm it you can theoretically use it as a carbon sink, and it’s renewable.
What’s the delta on mining and shaping stone vs lumber is the question
Well stone lasts forever barring someone turning big stones into little stones. So I think stone might still come out on top
Caves. We should all live in caves.
unfortunately there aren’t that many caves out there and it’s hard to build new.
It isn’t hard, just use dynamite
Yes, but most of us are going to die in climate change and water wars pretty soon.
I have a similar thing with flat roofs. They are terrible. When you are 5 years old, you already learn to draw houses with a pointy roof. The pointy roof has been invented about a 100 times in history, as people were looking for the best shape. The wave shaped roof tile with 2 waves per tile has been invented about 3 times in history as people were looking for the best shape. The advantages of a pointy roof over a flat roof:
- Rain flows off. Yes, you can give a flat roof a small inclination, but rain will not flow as well, and if your roof tilts a small bit during the decades, it can become horizontal again.
- Snow falls off, reducing the chance that the roof collapses under the weight of heavy snow.
- It is lighter and cheaper, as you can use thinner materials. This is because pointy is a stronger shape than flat.
- It gives more interior space.
- It allows more sunlight to reach the street.
- It has a smaller area-to-vloume-ratio through with heat can escape.
- Solar panels get a higher efficiency.
- It allows the roof to be made out of wavy roof tiles which provide the following advantages:
- Roofs designed with wavy roof tiles can be constructed when it rains.
- When a tile breaks, you can easily replace it, without having to cut it loose from the tiles next to it.
- Roof tiles do not fracture upon an uneven heat distribution. Meanwhile, the advantages of flat roofs are:
- If you design an apartment building, you can copy and paste the interior. (Thus less work for the architect.)
- A horizontal line is one segment less to draw compared to two diagonals. (Thus less work for the architect.)
- If a city has the same height restrictions for flat roofed buildings as for pointy roofed buildings, and the architect is too lazy to go to the city council to explain to them that that doesn’t make sense, the architect can design a building with more volume by making the roof flat. In other words: the only reason any architect would design a building with a flat roof is because they are either lazy or they have no idea what they are doing.
Flat roofs are good for putting large unsightly equipment on, particularly AC units
They can also be a usable outdoor space just to hang out on.
I like flat roofs because I want to be able to use a roof for a deck. Though, full disclosure, I don’t know how bad the leaking is and I don’t live in an area with snow.
Have you ever tried to explain anything to the city council? They’re extra neurotypical popular people and will not be honest with you. You’ll say “I want nicer roofs because reasons” and they will completely make up reasons for not liking the better roofs. Maybe they’re being bribed by a subset of landlords, or they’re just racist, or they’re holding out for something unspoken in exchange that you should know about already.
People in political office are not refusing to change because they haven’t heard enough good arguments. People who don’t get the change they want are not just lazy.
The A-frame is peak house design in cold environments and I refuse to hear otherwise.
- It is lighter and cheaper, as you can use thinner materials. This is because pointy is a stronger shape than flat.
- It gives more interior space.
If you’re using lighter cheaper materials you’ll need all the added interior space for roof trusses, none of it will be livable space.
- It allows more sunlight to reach the street.
No, for the same amount of occupiable space the shorter flat roof blocks less light than a standard 10:12 or 12:12 roof
- It has a smaller area-to-volume-ratio through which heat can escape.
The greater surface area of a pitched roof means this is absolutely not true. The hypotenuse is always longer than either leg.
- Solar panels get a higher efficiency.
This one actually depends on latitude, equatorialy it’s better flat. And don’t forget that the minimum summer angle is limited by the pitched roof.
- If a city has the same height restrictions for flat roofed buildings as for pointy roofed buildings, and the architect is too lazy to go to the city council to explain to them that that doesn’t make sense, the architect can design a building with more volume by making the roof flat.
No it makes perfect sense. It goes back to your comment on letting sunlight through to the street. The maximum height is the maximum height so everyone gets the same amount of light.
In other words:
the only reason any architect would design a building with a flat roof is because they are either lazy or they have no idea what they are doing.this guy thinks their habitat is the only kind over the whole planet and can’t imagine people living in areas where snow load wouldn’t need to be considered.snow load
Now I am kinda curious about how heavy snow can get.
I live in a snow-less flat-roofed region and the load capacity seems to be ~1.5 kN/m² [1]. So, even the cheapest compliant (maybe I should be checking govt. docs for compliance values) building not designed for snowfall should be able to manage 15cm of rain/snow.
Well, that is much lower than the 1m of snow that I would expect building up in case it really snows and it could get higher considering the parapet walls tend to ~1m high.
Snow itself can get pretty heavy, but more risky I think is repeated melting and refreezing. You can wind up with a large mass of ice that can really fuck up a roof or overhang.
Well, I have seen drains clog up so bad that the parapets act like a bowl and capture the ~1m of water with the roof still staying mostly intact (although seepage would have greatly increased there), so something other than my calculations is holding up that roof.
So I guess one would have to rely on the melting-refreezing to break down the roof, considering that without the phenomenon, the ice would be pretty fluffy and light.
More non livable space would’ve been nice in my attic recently. I was trying to diagnose a potential leak, but the chimney is in the corner of the house, so not only do I have to walk across the rafters, but I have to squat down in the corner to even begin to be able to peak at the chimney pipe. But that’s a very niche scenario. I just sort of dislike the idea of void in houses, I think it should all be accessible to an extent.
Roof decks are awesome though…
Most modern flat roofs (at least in my neck of the woods) aren’t actually flat. They’re at an incredibly shallow pitch. In residential applications (after underlayment) we use high density foam slats that get put together in a grid formation, each piece gets slightly narrower on one end until they can properly fit under a piece of bird stop around the fascia. Before the bird stop goes on, the foam is sealed with a waterproof self adhering material that comes in huge rolls. When properly installed, they can last 15-30 years. Just as long, if not longer, than any shingle roof. There’s also high density polyurethane foam flat roofs that can be sealed and are able to last up to 50 years. Many commercial operations use these methods as well as hot tar mopping, which can basically last forever. The one drawback to flat roofs is load bearing difficulties in places that snow. I don’t know much about that but seeing as flat roofs are everywhere in the north too, it must not be too difficult to work around.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good tile roof too, but there’s plenty of beautiful structures with flat roofs out there. And tile has considerable draw backs as well. Tile is incredibly heavy, they’re very fragile, they’re ludicrously expensive, and they’re expensive to maintain.
On the rain, no roofer is working in the rain, and tile roofs are vulnerable to rain during construction too. When it’s down to the plywood, you’re as likely to have rain troubles as any other roof. You can lay shingles and foam for flat roofs when you’re dried in too, but no one will if it’s more than a drizzle. Tile becomes an active danger in the rain because most tiles get really slippery in the rain
Replacing broken tiles is a bitch and a half, you have to carefully dance between tile joints and one slip of your foot (which is likely during repairs because tiles are slick and can become moldy/slimy when not maintained properly) you’re likely to break another tile, leading to more work and more chances of another broken tile. Even the process of removing a broken tile can break the tiles surrounding it
Tile in general is really finicky, high maintenance, and requires unique tools, methods, and skilled laborers that are capable of doing the work. That is by no means a bad thing but it’s really easy to get a flat roof that does the job perfectly fine. Tile, not so much
This post kinda feels like op is ridiculing autism with a probably made up story. Hyperfixation is a thing with autists but they don’t only talk about one topic and they shut up from time to time too. Autists are more than their hyperfixations, they’re humans.
Feels like the wrong community here for this screenshot
thought the point is that the kid is right and concrete does suck
Concrete is literally building slop
It’s great tho
Nah concrete is dope. Fight me about it.
Yeah, I actually kinda like brutalism
I agree. Wood is clearly the superior material.
Wood is dogshit bro fuck you smoking
Smoking wood
Current building codes allow the construction of wood frame buildings up to 18 stories tall. You need to expand your knowledge of wood construction beyond what you learned reading The Three Little Pigs.
Man, 18 stories sounds like a bit too much even if it’s not wood. I mean, I like the aesthetics, but not sure about how good high building are for the quality of life anymore
Maybe, I really couldn’t tell that. To me this was a story about someone’s autistic brother who had multiple mental breakdowns with rampaging construction sites and injuring other classmates. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wouldn’t expect many people to know about concretes dangerous environmental impact through released CO2 during production and it is not mentioned in the post either.
Don’t forget the released CO2 while it cures too! Humanity really needs to use a lot less concrete
I had a learner on spectrum who physically attacked me for 2 hours because, after our classroom won the ‘Golden Trashcan’ Award for cleanest room, the Golden Trashcan was not real gold.
The only quote I remember from this was him screaming at me while gesturing at the trashcan, “That’s not a thing! That’s not even an animal!”
10/10, would teach again.
I hope you’re alright after that physical attack! Hope someone educated the kid on their autism and their actions too. I think I slightly understand the train of thought with the “it’s not an animal” argument though. I’m guessing the kid assumed that the word gold was reserved for actual gold unless talking about animals like the golden hamster or goldfish where it just meant gold colored :P
Edit: also sorry for sending this comment thrice, no idea how that happened
Also, there was no successful remediation of this behavior. I worked with him for 5 years and, while he did learn the academics, he never really adjusted well to our society.
Yep. He was we would be getting the precious metal. This was made very clear by him.
You didnt have that one kid in any of your classes? A kid I went to school with had similarly deep feelings about evergreens over deciduous trees, and got in a fight with a Canadian kid after he started talking smack about maple syrup and maples in general. I dont think the Canadian wanted to fight, but he had on a Canadian flag shirt so the maple leaf was front and center, making him a target for the arborist. But it was literally trees all the time. Evergreens can photosynthesize year round so they are always giving us oxygen. Evergreen lumber is better for construction. Evergreen seeds are adapted to sprout after fires when there is more likely to be room for them to grow. Nonstop. Middle school is a weird time for a lot of folks and people on the spectrum are not exceptions.
The only good brick is a Lego brick.
Okay I am a big fan of brutalist architecture. Guess I am in the minority… I feel the philosophy behind it is just being wildly misunderstood.
I love brutalist architecture.
Can you share a little about the philosophy behind brutalism?
I think people often describe brutalism as cold, souless, dehumanizing, etc. But the principle behind is actually very humanitarian. They forgo grandiose decorations, embellishments, and instead choose to rather gain their form from function, and to maximize their functions so they can serve their inhabitants better. Many, many brutalist buildings were built as affordable, social housing during the post war era, when wealth inequality was perhaps the lowest in Europe.
And additionally, to me, because of how laid bare they are, they become an embodiment of transparency, and honesty that I wish our society can have more of.
(Don’t listen to me, there are many good articles/videos explaining brutalism way better than I could. Maybe this video on Habitat 67?)
see this would make sense if it wasn’t incredibly easy and cheap to make things look good, brutalism just ends up being needlessly ugly.
We built tons of cheap housing here in sweden in the 60’s, but it’s not all raw fucking concrete, we just put on some colours and veneers and made it look decent.
Except a lot of the brutalist architecture in the UK looks like shit and the towers are shit, which is why they’re being knocked down. Those tower blocks are SUPPOSED to have shops and amenities inside them, but the British ones don’t, so they exist solely as shitholes nobody with a choice wants to live in.
It also doesn’t help that tower blocks very quickly became a dumping ground for local councils to throw unwanted tenants into, so troublemakers, those who can’t be housed anywhere else. The image of a tower block became one of high crime, social isolation and poor construction. Couple that with Grenfell Tower and you’ve got “Death trap” added to the list.
You are seeing on a glimpse of a huge, interconnected social issue that I don’t have the ability to competently articulate. Council housing obviously have a bad self-reinforcing image problem: no one wants to live in them, so only desperate people live there; because only desperate people live there, no one wants to live there. But that’s because the government fucked it up, it’s not an inherent attribute of social housing. UK had pretty good social housing post-war until Thatcher gutted it with things like Right to Buy.
If there is a solution to the worsening housing crisis, then social housing must be an integral part of that solution. So we must get building and normalize the image of social housing. I get quite mad looking at the current Labour government just sits doing nothing about it.
Grenfell Tower is its special kind of hell too. Sure the building itself wasn’t kept up to standard, but also the abhorrent response to the fire. The residents were told to STAY PUT IN THE BUILDING ffs.
So yeah, makes me feel bad that brutalist architecture gets bad reputation in the UK despite they themselves doing nothing wrong.
It’s not the social housing that’s the problem though, it’s specifically the tower blocks. Social housing by-and-large worked pretty well, with some pretty nice council housing being put up and people living in them without too much issue. The thing is, there’s a big difference between a socially isolated tower block and a council house in the suburbs, a lot of which was eaten away by Right-to-Buy because it turns out they were really nice houses so people wanted them. Almost nobody wants to buy a flat in a tower block.
The 'Stay Put thing for Grenfell Tower was actually good policy… When the tower was built. Each apartment acted essentially as its own fireproof box, so under the original design, staying put is actually the best policy to have, because you knew a fire was only ever going to exist in one of the boxes. It’s when those boxes are compromised that things become a problem, stuff like unauthorised knock-throughs and especially the flammable cladding (that was added later) on the outside of the building. It turned all those fireproof boxes into fireproof boxes except on one side, so when that cladding caught fire, it just set fire to all of the boxes.
The ‘Stay Put’ thing
wait, you have a problem with that point?? as you yourself already pointed out, the “fireproof box” thought was only true with the original design, after the renovation that’s simply not the case, saying fire would be contained is just plain wrong. what’s even the point of bringing that up. but let’s even just ignore that, there is a fire in the building, even if you think the fireproof should hold the fire, i don’t get why wouldn’t you evacuate the building just in case? what if you are wrong, can you take that risk when the consequence is so many people losing their lives?? and even if you thought initially that staying put was the correct thing for the residents to do, once you realize you don’t the fire under control, wouldn’t you start the evacuation as soon as possible? why was that policy in place for so long??
i mean i am absolutely not saying the firefighter should take majority of the blame. they did save many people’s live that day, and there’s just so much wrong with everything else, the housing system, fire regulation, there are too many things I can’t list most of them. but like, can’t you at least admit they were wrong on this one?
I don’t care enough to have an argument with you about it.
So. Form follows function.
But thanks for the summary!
It’s just so BRUTAL. What more to saaay
