can you make hundred story stone buildings? also in my opinion st basils in moskow is the pretiest building because of its towers domes and amazing colors though i still love giant glass skyscrapers but i wish they used colered glass like in churches imagine a skyscraper with nature and history as wals made of stained glass
can you make a video about modern aversion to bright colour and nature paterns also did you know roman buildings and statues were painted in bright colours
I've seen so many buildings in construction sites, where they first were made with concrete and THEN placed decorative stone outside. Since the 50's architects never thought about the longevity and beauty of buildings. It's time WE the public should take things in our hands, not the architects as they've proven.
Sadly, even when concrete buildings are faced with stone, that stone is merely thin sheets cut into nothing but flat planes - nearly always either polished marble or granite. Half the time as the building shifts with temperature change, the corners of those planes crack and fall revealing the squiggle of industrial glue and the hideous concrete underneath, as well as revealing the sheet is 2cm thick or less. Worst of all possible uses of a beautiful material ....
Dutch stonecarver here. Belgian blue limestone is a very tough material, but 300 years is about the end of its lifespan. It's usually not applied as a building material itself, but more as a cladding material, the internal structure commonly was made out of brick. It has always been quite an expensive material. We just finished the Utrecht Dom Tower, where we replaced many limestone parts that were about 100 years old (it is hoped that the new English Portlandstone will last a century longer). Stone does not have an eternal lifespan, but with proper maintenance buildings can last a very long time. Skilled labour would be an issue. Much is done with cnc robots nowadays, but without that human touch it would end up looking lifeless and fake. Plus the work would be adapted to what the machine can do, not to what it should look like
@@jamewakk that would depend on the type of stone. Travertine is deposited in days, tuff ash is deposited in hours but takes centuries to harden, sandstone similar, or deposited over hundreds of thousands of years and takes thousands of years to harden, granite is solidified earth crust formed in the formation of the earth itself, billions of years ago.
this what those extrame classicals don't understand. the only thing they worry about when it comes to architecture is aesthetics - As much as I believe the importance of it- with ZERO knowledge of cost efficiency, time and skilled labor while ignoring much important topics. I don't like modernism but god I hate when classicals lovers start yapping... I would love to hear more about ur experience if possible
As a second year Civil Engineering student in Delft, I find this video incredibly fascinating. The curriculum of CE is unfortunately based mostly on building with concrete and steel, with very little emphasis on other materials. I would love to see a renaissance of building technology like you proposed. We need more beauty in our cities!
One aspect that was implied in this video, but not expended on, is that the type of stone used in constructions can impact the identity of the place. For example, in the Loire valley in France, there is a lot of buildings (and castles) with white walls, because there is a lot of tuffeau there. However in Tuscany, in Italy, the stone is more yellow, contributing to the warm landscapes of the region. Because in ancient times, each place was built using local ressources, every city was born from the very stone it lands upon. That created an identity and a visual landmark. It's a "when you see this type of stones, you know you're in that place" type of thing, wich creates a reassuring feeling.
Paige Saunders have a video where he did a survey of peoples exterior cladding preferences. he makes a good argument that people would be more supportive of new construction as long as the exterior of the new building was aesthetically pleasing.
Yes, I have no problem with modern techniques, but there is so much that looks like rubbish. Housing, commercial and offices should be pleasing to experience, industry is where form follows function.
I'm a geologist, and passionate about ornamental stones at that, so this video was candy to me. The part that intrigued me the most was the price aspect. Every interior designer you talk to about, for example, kitchen countertops will tell you "Natural stone is the most beautiful material, you can't beat it. But it's *so* much more expensive. So people choose cheaper alternatives, like so called quartz (which is essentially artificial, fake rock made with natural rock fragments)". If that's not actually true, more people need to know about it. If buying stone slabs from a local producer turns out to be cheaper than faux stone, developers, builders, designers, and even everyday people who renovate their kitchens should get on board with that. One downside you didn't mention is that quarries are not pretty to look at and they can disrupt the ecosystem, causing loss of soil, affecting slope stability, aquifers, etc., so there's no such thing as free lunch. But exploiting and reopening existing quarrying sites is probably still a more sustainable option than extracting all the materials that are needed to make concrete. And yes, stone can be reused, if the buildings are disassembled smartly. That would require the same change in attitude that's needed to switch from concrete to stone as a source material: building up would take much longer, and tearing down would take much longer as well.
I live in London, I am a lifelong theatregoer, and I am in my 70s. Our National Theatre, designed by Denis Lasdun, is not only hideous to look at, it doesn't work as a theatre. Because it is built from reinforced concrete, the acoustics are terrible. The sound of the actors' voices bounces off the concrete and creates an echo. To avoid the echo, actors have to speak softly, which means they need microphones - a disgrace to all of us, as experienced actors should be able to make themselves heard at the back of the auditorium without requiring microphones. I hope I live long enough to see this horrible building torn down and replaced with something more suitable for the performance of the plays of the immortal William Shakespeare.
This is why I don’t get nearly as worked up about big box stores, strip malls, and giant parking lots as many urbanists do. They’re basically just holding space for future builders. Especially because nobody *likes* those structures, so nobody is going to bemoan when they’re repurposed.
@@JTonson wow, I had no clue about that. I always thought the National Theatre was hideous - I go past it often, but it's impractical too in terms of acoustic? insane
I studied Clerkenwell Close last semester after Pierre gave us a lecture on it over Zoom! Pre/post-tensioned stone is pretty cool, but it’s interesting to note that something similar was done at Amiens Cathedral hundreds of years ago! When structural issues started to occur, the genus that was the medieval mind installed a massive red-hot iron chain that wrapped the interior of the triforium. When it cooled, the chain contracted and kept the whole thing in compression while the chain was in tension. Pretty amazing! Note: I don’t remember the sources for this, but I’ve seen it and heard it in several places. If I’m wrong, my apologies!
That's very beautiful. Thank you Ruben. I'm a carpenter so I tend to think wood (proper timber framing to be fair). But I feel very inspired by your content to get into stone. I just quit an uni study of architecture.. going back into crafts trying to make a change straight on the market. I want make plannings with stone as well. The only honest way to learn that feels like hitting it. Looking forward. All the best from Germany
I'm enthusiastic about the use of stone in new architecture. Thanks for the video. I wish you included a segment addressing seismic considerations when using stone in architectural applications.
The 20 story stone building in Algeria has survived multiple earthquakes I believe, and the stone building by Archiplein in Swiss was also designed to be earthquake proof as it is in a seismically active area, but I’m not sure about the best practices and if it would work in the most extreme earthquake prone areas. The Inca drystone wall stone buildings in Peru have also survived for centuries, but those have polygonal walls that also seem to be earthquake proof
I'm from the belgian province of Hainaut and I've always loved our traditional buildings made of our precious limestone and, of course, sturdy beglian bricks. I hope we'll be building like this again in the future. I'm so tired of those ugly glass boxes
It's funny, that for 3+ years I've been developing a method to use brick for an exterior weathering face, stone and the loadbearing exterior and interior walls, CLT for the floor and roof plates, and Glulam timbers for the floor and roof beams. Then rockwool for insulation/fire protection (made from basalt, another rock) and and light steel hat-track to create acoustic floating. The goal was a home design that would last >400 years. Then this video came out...
There’s something disturbingly Keynesian about concrete. Paying people to build in concrete and then paying them to dismantle it a few years later. There’s no long term vision or cultural mission here, just money cycles.
It really takes away economic potential that could go towards other activities in the economy rebuilding the same buildings every 100 years when we could just build once do a Lil maintenance and have the same structure for 1000+ years
I am from India and don't want these ugly so called modern buildings , I will be Europe ( Belgium ) next year for my bachelor study, I want those cultural, asthetic and sustained architectures to see , keep it up , we all are with you , please keep making architectural beauty , for cities , we want those cities to make instead of ugly modern one
I couldn't agree more, stone is exquisite to look at that is carved, and whet they put into museums should be on the outside and our lives lived in beauty!!!
Really like the idea of a modular stone building block that could be used in different designs for houses and small builldings. Imagine if we could share our global solutions for all kinds of different construction problems using local and abundant materials
This video is incredible. I thought it was the other way around that stone pollutes more than concrete and instead, as usual, you always teach us something new. I will continue to repeat it but your channel and your videos are a breath of fresh air and a breath of hope for the new generations thanks again for all the work you do and for this video!
Well, my experience with globigerina limestone is negative. Aesthetically speaking, there is the "honeycomb weathering" effect that completely destroys the stone relatively quickly. Then living in that kind of building is a health hazard because the stone captures humidity, causing damp-related illnesses. Go to Malta where globigerina limestone is used. In summer, it is hotter inside than outside; in winter, it is colder inside than outside. The country has a high prevalence of asthma and arthritis because of that building material. Buildings there are simply unfit for habitation. Buildings made of limestone in Malta also have a tendency to collapse. But that is because builders do not use a continuous layer of cement to glue blocks together. They just stack up blocks.
This is so real, not all buildings are suited to be built of stone and buildings should adapt to the environment. In Colombia by example, clay bricks are widely used because there is a lot of thermal floors and bricks are a cheap, good looking refractarian material that absorbs heat during the day, liberates it during the night and is flexible enough to create latticework for airflow (important in tropical countries) and we have 500 year old buildings made of that In Japan there are advantages of using wood and steel (due to their seismic requirements) so on and so forth…
Here in the UK, almost all buildings were made of locally fired stones, bricks and other materials, such as the famous Bath Limestone Stone in the West of England or Cotswold Stone in nearby areas, and the world known "London Redbrick", but unfortunately since the Second World war, Stone buildings have gone out of fashion, and most local authorities, at least in the South-East of England only approve new constructions made out of the now low-quality bricks from the "London Brick Company" (London Red Brick, mostly), and most quarries have been closed down and either left abandoned, in rare cases turned into reservoirs, or built in, such as in the case of the Bluewater Shopping Centre/Mall in North Kent (near South-East London). It is very unfortunate that Stone construction is not very popular now, hopefully that will change.
Thank you for this superb video. I wonder if you would consider making a video about Coade stone, a synthetic stone marketed by Mrs Eleanor Coade in the 18th century. It looks good and wears even better than real stone. The most famous piece of Coade stone in London is the lion standing at the south end of Westminster Bridge.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Very few materials can rival stone or wood in Beauty. Stone also has an incredibly long lifespan, making it far more “sustainable” than modern concrete and steel.
A great example of a newer building (or more precisely series of buildings) built with stone is the Getty Center in Los Angeles. Situated on the hills overlooking the city, it’s clad with walls of beige/white travertine, giving the sense that you are among ancient ruins, quite fitting for an art museum housing historic works of art. Despite the fact that it’s designed in a modern style of architecture, it’s quite an attractive set of buildings, built masterfully and precisely, taking advantage of what the local environment has to offer.
Concrete is an artificial rock which could be moulded into a desired shape. Reinforced concrete is the combination of concrete and steel making the concrete more efficient than just stone, in relation to its width to height ratio. But concrete and stone is practically the same.
The whole idea of building with stone has ring of 'classicism' behind it. The vast majority of historical structures, still remaining on the planet, from any cultural tradition, are all of stone. It (stone structures throughout history) has an almost eternal 'ethos' behind it.
I struggle to believe that reinforced concrete has a lifespan of just 50 years... so long as the reinforcing rods are kept away from moisture, or galvanized before use. Yes, exterior cantilevered balconies can have issues with "concrete cancer" but do the concrete columns and floors of curtain wall buildings really have issues? Having said that, I'm all for transitioning to low-carbon alternatives which could be Roman concrete. Regardless, natural stone and concrete are both heavy which means considerable energy to move it around. I am reminded of Buckminster Fuller's question to Normal Foster, "How much does your building weigh?"
Concrete can indeed last (much) longer, but it depends on many factors. A well executed building in reinforced concrete can stand for 100 years with ease, one with construction mistakes might need renovation within 30 years. But at some point, natural processes like carbonation will take their toll on reinforced concrete. Most buildings are built to have enough cover to have no problems until the 50 year point, at that point the carbon dioxide reaches the rebar and deterioration can start. It can take 50 more years or longer till structural failure, but the oxidation/ rust process is not something that can be stopped unless measures are taken. With renovation and maintenance, the life span can be increased, but it would be better to build in a way that doesn’t require renovation every couple of decades
@@the_aesthetic_city Thank you for responding! If the reinforcing bars are the issue, it seems that building codes should demand that they be galvanized since the implication of what you say is that we can expect a lot of poorly maintained buildings to collapse in the coming decades. I've been involved with Home Owners' Associations (USA) and Body Corporates (AU) and the maintenance fees tend to skew to the poorest people in the building so only minimal work gets done.
I love this… the idea of just having one material that is so maintenance free, local, insulated, and beautiful is appealing. My 2 concerns as a builder are as follows: here in California the earthquake standards are very tight this was not mentioned but we can’t just use anything here… as well here in CA the crazy cost to build is 70% labor. Meaning a small house costs $500k usd and nearly 350k of that is labor. I am worried that the biggest barrier is not materials but lots of hands working on it
As a filmmaker I support your mission, all modern concrete cities look the same that's why I don't make films in them, they have no identity, if they used local stone instead of concrete, then the color of the buildings suddenly matches the colors of the local Enviromint, giving the city a sense of identity, belonging and a past to the land in which it is built, other wise everything is the same as everything else, germany is the same as paris, and new yorke, why even go traveling if that becomes the case?
Everything sounds great so far, but you did't mention static strength. Maybe for nothern Europe stone is good but what about south east Europe or Japan which are extremely seismogenic. Could you build 15 story building?
I love this channel. I think the main issue currently is, you need to have a proper architect and also a construction company which knows how to work with this sort of construction and calculate the building costs.
Thanks for this. I assume all the engineering can account for high seismic loads. There must be a lot of really robust connections. I see this working best in old established cities that are not subject to a lot of growth. In newer cities that are growing quickly, the strategies of how to accommodate that growth are constantly evolving and, with it, the building form that houses people and businesses. In much of North America, zoning regulations are quicky changing from "cities" dominated by single family houses toward allowances to build modest multi-unit buildings to midrises to highrises near transit. It is risky to build a building to last centuries if the urban plan and vision for the city only lasts decades. Visioning a city plan that lasts centuries is asking a lot.
Marketing and overly normalized, expensive stone is a real problem, as long as you can as well build with cheaper pieces. Often, it's not visible. Btw.: Basalt can also be used as rebar for concrete. I hardly believed so first, but it's possible.
Can you go deeper into the thermal and insulation topic? I know there are types of stone that consist mostly of air like pumice and in sufficient thickness will be very energy efficient (basically the natural version of Ytong). But the average limestone, granite, etc. to my knowledge is just as bad at insulation as concrete. No thermal mass can prevent this, over a long winter, it will lose all the energy.
My concern too, living in Vancouver. Always thought reinforced concrete or wood was best here, though engineered wood is starting to be used quite a bit for buildings up to 20+ storeys.
It is not a good idea. Seismic resistant buildings require a certain degree of flexibility and stone only works with compressive forces, stone buildings in seismic regions have a precedent of collapsing.
Most buildings are shells with a facard. They can factory build each component. Stone components factory cut and shapped next to the quarry. Once it is on the rack it is quick and fast.
Modernism really did a lot of damage in a very comprehensive way, and the current economic system reinforces and incentivizes it. Quality costs more, and you need a system that allows for looking long-term and being able to make those investments. Chronic short-termism is a disaster every way, yet we're expected to live with it. This was inspiring to watch. Stone is a beautiful material. My favorite is red sandstone, but I think I'll always be most partial to bright red bricks with stone accents. Both materials work well together. :D
If we do go back to using stone, for the love of God, can it be something other than those smooth, faceless facades? I need ornamentation and features in my architecture, not flat boxes!
Stone is so beautiful and lasts. It makes no sense why we stopped using it. I want to see beautiful marble and granite cities. So sick of seeing plastic and glass and steel.
Building like Prague (if you mean the old town obviously) would not be quite authentic, but Milton Keynes is indeed quite bad. Maybe something more like the stone building in London...
Those who identify as progressive and environmentalists should advocate for the use of stone, which allows for the construction of structures for future generations in harmony with nature.
There's no way in this world I'm going to buy a timber framed building. It's beyond belief that a house that gets quickly assembled like an IKEA furniture is listed for $300k in the US.
The thing that comes to mind, admittedly ignorant, is the piping and cables and stuff like that, though I do like the idea of more styles of construction taking if not center stage at least some limelight. I've seen compressed stabilized earth blocks, rammed earth videos and stuff like that covered with limestone; it's a shame there are so many options, specially for local resources, but they are all fringe and “far out there” options.
stone is great but its longevity can also be.. well maybe not a negative but not a benefit a lot of the time you dont really need buildings to last hundreds of years, cities and towns should evolve over time and grow, which is ofcourse something that is already stifled today by special interest groups and poor laws, but a more expensive and longer lasting building would certainly make that choice harder which can be a good thing, theres a lot of buildings that get demolished for something worse to go there and even though you can reuse the stone instead of demolishing it, that adds extra expenses as well, i mean you can already reuse wood supports from many old buildings but thats not very common due to time and cost i do think stone should be used more as a material though, even though builders will most likely use the cheapest method and make kind of bland stone buildings
At least we don't build with wood frame houses that last about 100 year, the US started doing this in the '50s. I wonder how they are going to replace all those buildings in one or two decades with still huge mortgages on them
The US has been building wood frame houses for centuries. It's not unusual to find centuries old wood buildings in the USA. Like all buildings they must be properly maintained to prevent rot, but wood itself is an easily renewable resource.
@@CheeseBae The US has build wood houses (just like Japan, Sweden and Switzerland), these can indeed last centuries, Japan has some good examples. The wood frame/drywall houses are invented in the 50's, these don't last. And they US is full of these houses, the rot from the inside out, no maintenance can stop that.
