I didn’t say it was impossible, it’s not like if you use concrete it’s going to instantly vaporize and explode.
However it will require significantly more upkeep and repair, and will become dilapidated quickly without proper maintenance.
Just look what happened to all the khrushchevki after the Union fell. Many stop receiving support and fell apart quickly.
Also I don’t know what you mean by the reason not holding water. It’s not the end all be all, but it’s simply science. Concrete expands and contracts to much in the face of water and temperature to make a viable long term building material without constant upkeep.
Except Khrushchevki were never designed to be long-term solution. They were a stopgap measure and have in fact outlived their projected service time by decades
Yes and no. They would have been built different, but not from wood. Don't have to go far for examples either: here's a house that was built to last in Stalin period. ComradeSalad does raise valid points regarding temperature jumps and the need for upkeep - but the latter is an issue with the economic mode, not the materials.
Besides, it's the XXI century. Surely we can build things with materials a tiny bit more advanced than basic concrete
I didn’t say it was impossible, it’s not like if you use concrete it’s going to instantly vaporize and explode.
However it will require significantly more upkeep and repair, and will become dilapidated quickly without proper maintenance.
Just look what happened to all the khrushchevki after the Union fell. Many stop receiving support and fell apart quickly.
Also I don’t know what you mean by the reason not holding water. It’s not the end all be all, but it’s simply science. Concrete expands and contracts to much in the face of water and temperature to make a viable long term building material without constant upkeep.
Except Khrushchevki were never designed to be long-term solution. They were a stopgap measure and have in fact outlived their projected service time by decades
I agree, but that doesn’t dent the fact the millions still live in them to this day.
Does that support ComradeSalad's point? I.e. because if they were meant to last longer, they'd have been built differently?
Yes and no. They would have been built different, but not from wood. Don't have to go far for examples either: here's a house that was built to last in Stalin period. ComradeSalad does raise valid points regarding temperature jumps and the need for upkeep - but the latter is an issue with the economic mode, not the materials.
Besides, it's the XXI century. Surely we can build things with materials a tiny bit more advanced than basic concrete