[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...