Must not know about asphalt yet...
I'm sorry, is this asphalt over baked paving stones? And if so, why?
Or is this a pothole filled up with stone? And if so, why?
It is indeed paved over. I'm sure there are reasons, but probably not good ones given potholes like this. Aside from initial cost, for large vehicles+higher speeds. IMO seems a bit like gluing carpet over wooden floorboards (which is another anger-inducing thing, especially if you've lived in a house with a carpeted bathroom).
Not Just Bikes has a video on brick roads in the Netherlands (the bricks being called Klinkers, video called Natural Handcrafted Artisanal ... Streets?!
), how they allow easier maintenance/re-use, brick designs instead of painting the surface after, worn klinkers used in historic areas etc.
Oh yeah, klinkers (if they're baked clay) or the much less inspired sounding betonstraatstenen (concrete street stones) definitely have their benefits, but that video really skips over what a literally backbreaking job it is to pave a street like that, or how slippery these stones get when wet (less so for concrete or textured baked clay).
It's mandatory to do anything over 2 hours of bricklaying by machine now, but that requires packaged stone. And packaging stone is even worse than relaying it from a pile, so you end up loading it into a truck, shipping it off for packaging and then moving it back.
You can design around that, most of the time, but we haven't been doing that, so lots of handwork remains, which is not great for your health.
Of course, running asphalt over a street like this gets you the worst of both worlds, and its begging for potholes since the two materials match up really poorly. You do occasionally see it in the Netherlands on old roads on top of dikes that were "modernized" in the 70s and 80s.
(Edit: it's actually more a synergy of shittyness, because you can't really reuse most of the asphalt, because you don't brickdust in it, and you can't reuse the bricks because there's asphalt on them)
Source: am dutch, took a year of civil engineering, ended up doing lots of safety and regulatory stuff for roadworks.
Since you have expertise in this maybe you can answer this question for me.
Do brick or stone roads last longer than asphalt or concrete roads?
It seems to me like they should, given the higher hardness of the material and the presumably greater resistance to freeze/thaw cycles. I have also seen a few brick roads near me that I can only imagine have gone a very long time with no maintaince (as I think the government here would rather cover it in asphalt than try to work with the bricks). The ground underneath the bricks has shifted over time forming depressions in the path that car tires take, but it is still fine to drive over at low speeds, as the slopes are smooth unlike the holes that form in asphalt.
I've tried googling this before but haven't been able to find a straightforward answer as to how long a road like that can go between rounds of maintenance.
Do brick or stone roads last longer than asphalt or concrete roads?
That's a solid "it depends". And in this case, it depends on the definition of "lasting" and the definition of "road".
Klinkers are near immortal, but they're laid on what we call a "street layer" of 3cm of compacted, specifically graded sand, on top of some 25cm of less expensive sand. That sand can shift, compress and ruin the stability of the bricks. That usually happens due to heavyweight transport, or external factors (settlement of the soil underneath, tree roots, etc). If you run just passenger cars in a suburban area on steady ground, it could last 50 years. If you supply your stores on a road like that, it's more like 10 years. But you can remove the brick, regrade/replace the sand and rebuild it from mostly the same bricks. Concrete bricks don't last as long, and they break more when removed/packaged/relaid, I don't really know the numbers.
Asphalt is different. Assuming we're talking about a road that could also be made in bricks, asphalt has a surface layer of some 3-5cm, then between 10 and 20 cm of underlayers in layers of around 5 or 6cm. Then some 20-30cm of gravel, and up to half a meter of sand. That top layer lasts something like 10 to 15 years, and it suffers most from frost/thaw, UV light, etc. You don't have to replace al of it at once though, you can patch it.
The underlayers generally fail due to traffic weight, but that can be 2, 3 or maybe even 4 cycles of surface layer replacement later. Generally, for busier (non high-way) roads, they replace the surface layer twice and the third time they do parts of the underlayers, or all of it, depending on damage. Asphalt can be 80 or 90% recycled though, but it takes quite a bit of heat (something like 3 to 6 cubic meters of gas for each ton of asphalt).
So, all in all, not all brick roads are equal, not all asphalt is equal. And "how it lasts" is a complex question too. It's also a tough comparison, because we generally don't build roads for the same purposes. If it's very busy, we usually don't use bricks.
Our driveway is made from the same kind of thing, rain never pools on it as it goes down the gaps
It's a lovely street made of brick pavers that has been paved over with asphalt because it provides a smoother ride for vehicles and pleasant aesthetics are for losers.
Don't know why, but I totally get this. Like, 100%, I just have it as a general feeling of disgust that I can ignore.
I understand the distaste for the aesthetics. But it's a pretty inarguably better material from a structural, cost, sound blocking, etc. standpoint.
Don't get me wrong, I love red brick, and personally want a red brick house, but I also recognize the sheer practicality of concrete blocks and would probably pick that with a brick veneer if I actually had to pay for it to be built new.
That's literally how many German private houses are built: Autoclaved aerated concrete with a brick cladding. Looks nice and provides a lot of thermal insulation.
Oh no, far more visceral. Nothing about the aesthetics.
The brick pictured makes my hands feel dry and papery. That's from when I was a kid, so I know what that's about. Buuuut....
There was a period where cement was used on wire frames to do sculpture - makes me want to gag. Fully repulsive to me. A tree made from cement angers me. It's all trash to me, zero redeeming elements.
A large cement column in a building under construction? I intentionally avoid it so as not to touch it. They smell bad, too. Once painted, I'm totally fine with them.
Dry cement powder? I would rather touch fire.
It's a sensory processing thing. Can't explain it more than that I guess.
I find differences in how people react to sensory inputs fascinating. I don't have any problems with concrete or concrete powder. For me hell on earth are lenticular prints (not viewing them, but touching them) even hearing someone glide their finger over one makes my skin crawl
Huh. Yeah, I have no problem with that, but I get you.
There's a kind of not refined pulp paper stock that was used to make cheap paperbacks, I've only seen it in older books from the 50s-70s, that does that to me. Only ever ran into it a few times, but if my fingernail touches it, it's worse than being electrocuted. Full body shivers and chills. Even thinking about it tenses me up.
You got that ASMR? Seems like there's some overlap between things like this, like you have some things you can't stand, some that send you into a trance, and they're infuriatingly close sometimes.
Did you read that link before posting?
In comparison with other construction materials (aluminium, steel, even brick), concrete is one of the least energy-intensive building materials.[2]
Except it isn't just about the energy intensity, but specifically the CO2 emission from the concrete process itself.
From the link's sources:
The issue isn't concrete or cement inherently but how much of is used. And it's used because it's either the most cost-effective material or just the only one able to deliver the required specs.
Concrete is a major driver of CO2 emissions. Fuck concrete.
It's a major driver because of how much it is used. It's the building material, nothing else even really comes close. If we used bricks to the same degree, that would be the major driver.
There's often no good alternative to concrete. There's lots of newer less CO2 intensive cements and cement replacements out there though. Often comes at a cost on something else though.
Bricks would be much more efficient co2 wise, they don't have the curing process that pollutes
They also put out a lot of CO2 and you'd have a hell of a lot of issues scaling the brick production to the same level. Not to mention all the othe associated issues that bricks have.
It's just a poor replacement for concrete at the same scale. But that's not to knock bricks specifically, since nothing really is a good replacement at that scale.
Best we could do is to not build as much or in such a big scale, but that has issues too.
bricks made by burning clay aren't that much better. Especially considering that you need more bricks for columns and other load bearing structures.
Modern and brutalist architecture can have that effect on people. Fuck concrete, and fuck neo-imperialist colonial architecture.
Concrete is horrible for the environment and its fucked up global emissions of buildings and architecture. (Cement production alone constitutes 8% of global emissions, not considering its inefficiency in thermal lifecycles of a building and ultimate un-renewable waste). It is in fact not the best fit for every circumstance.
One shoe fits all architecture trends have effectively killed vernacular wisdom and climate conscious local innovation. Favoring “cheap” garbage that jacks up costs in other sectors, damages climate and ignores localized need, requiring complex, often power-hungry, solutions like extensive BAS to try and counterbalance their piss poor application.
(For those unaware modern buildings when all is said and done account for over 40% of global emissions. And the heating/cooling systems far outpace keeping the lights on in terms of energy consumption (something like 2/3 of the total buildings demands over time). Tackling that behemoth number is going to take a multifaceted approach but the importance of materials and place-specific design cannot be understated.)
- sincerely, someone whose installed one too many motors for automated blinds and slapdash bandaid HVAC solutions.
Cast concrete is best.
Better keep this kid far away from any bulldozers.
German flag
I would've been surprised if it had been different, lol.
Sounds like he wanted to do a 1 man blitz, in order to reverse the outcomes of the actual 'blitz', but thankfully he turned out to be more of a V1 doodlebug.
okay, i would like to talk to oops brother. I say bricks are cool for houses but for buildings and bridges and etc, you need concrete
I'm guessing they don't love tall modern buildings either
I wonder what they think about affordable concrete housing
OP should send his brother to Stevenage with a hammer, he'd have the place leveled to the ground before the town council could say thank you.
honestly I love bricks and hate concrete blocks.
btw what's the most (not necessarily among these two) sustainable building material, lemmings?
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
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.
The A-frame is peak house design in cold environments and I refuse to hear otherwise.
there's a reason we have the stereotypical red house with white detailing here in sweden, that shit just fucking works
OPs brother is an undiagnosed autist.
You've got the spirit, but its right there in like the 2nd word
Lemmy Shitpost
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker