[Endama]

Is there a middle ground where new buildings could be made with old-school aesthetics? I understand there is a strange Ship of Theseus situation here, but it seems that if the aesthetics are the concern, there shouldn't be any reason why a larger capacity building could be built in the old style.

[bobthepanda]

The problem is that during the wave of modernization we had an entire generation of buildings that didn't need stonemasons, intricate woodwork, etc. As a result, no one replaced existing workers in those fields, and now we have nothing to draw from, at least in the US.

[Endama]

Excuse my ignorance here, but couldn't we just create molds and pour concrete to create the same columns accent pieces? Surely there are technological advancements that have allowed us to mimic stonemasons?

[bobthepanda]

The problem is weathering. Weathered stone looks much the same as current stone; weathered concrete looks absolutely horrid. The Brutalist buildings that were all concrete have aged very poorly, with water and rust stains and moss present.

You'd also need someone to actually make custom molds for every project; if you have nobody willing to do it at a reasonable price for stone, what makes you think they'll do it making molds?

Plaster molds have been used to mimic this effect, but mostly it looks very bad and is used for things like tacky McMansions.

Right now, the only material that works and looks good for the purpose is stone. There is a reason why stone countertops have remained a central piece of home furnishing throughout the years.

[gamblor956]

You don't mold stone, you chisel it to detail. Concrete is molded, and sanded to detail.

The cost of the mold is proportional to the level of detail required. A plaster mold can be had for a few dollars. A finely detailed mold mimicking a Grecian sculpture...a few tens of thousands. But that is simply because more work goes into preparing the detailed mold, i.e., laser scans of the original, the 3D print and finishing of the negative. This is still much, much cheaper than paying a sculptor for the hundreds of hours it would take to recreate the sculpture by hand.

Concrete buildings have aged poorly because they receive minimal maintenance. That was kind of the point of Brutalist architecture. Stone buildings receiving the same level of maintenance have the same water and rust stains, and mold, but generally because stone buildings are older historic buildings, they receive above-average levels of maintenance and therefore look like they are in better shape.

[oh_sigh]

You probably wouldn't want to build buildings with those elements - just have facades which make it look that way.

[bobthepanda]

The question is what material you'd use. Plaster looks cheap. Concrete doesn't age well in the elements. Steel doesn't have that look.

I'm not saying build entirely stone structures; no one has done this for centuries. But you do need a stone mason to do the kind of facade detail work you'd see on, say, the Empire State Building.

[gamblor956]

Concrete has the virtue of being relatively easy to replace. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether it ages well on the scale of millenial.

Though of note--Roman concrete structures, even unmaintained one, have aged far better than their all-stone counterparts from the same era.

[amanaplanacanal]

They used a lot different/better concrete than we use now.

[Thrymr]

> I'm not saying build entirely stone structures; no one has done this for centuries.

Well, almost no one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/world/europe/barcelona-sa...

[chrisseaton]

I think the older style of building relied on a lot of labour (masons) and the cost of labour has gone up much more than other costs, so it's not tractable any more.

[rootsudo]

Cost and promise.