Why We Should Build With STONE (Again)

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Head to squarespace.com/theaestheticcity to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code THEAESTHETICCITY

[@valle_4ustral]

Great video as alwats!

[@NicholasFadow-o4q]

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

[@NicholasFadow-o4q]

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

[@custardcatcher5195]

stone is compacted minerals just like they used in the pyramids! u dont need to shape a bolder u can mold stone

[@Nightowl_IT]

You want to have a look at basalt rebar.

[@09conrado]

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]

How long did it take for that stone to be created?

[@09conrado]

​@@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.

[@false-zd5uj]

that's basically foreever compare to concrete

[@salmansa3467]

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

[@SomeoneCalledRob]

@@salmansa3467 This very video discusses other things besides aesthetics!

[@Jin88866]

As a Japanese I want to point out that a multi floor building like the one shown in the video wouldn't last long in the event of a strong earthquake. Reinforced concrete in Japan lasts a lot longer than in western countries because pillars are (indicatively) 3 or 4 times thicker with more rebar and more cement used (in order to meet anti seismic criteria). Also the distance between the rebar and the outside elements is greater and Ive never seen spalling in Japan. We use spacers and build with very high quality inert aggregate materials, so only pre WW2 structures show signs of degradation while I've seen buildings from the 60s and 70s that should already be demolished in Europe, as the rebar is already exposed.

[@drecksaukerl]

Well put. Masonry buildings readily collapse in earthquakes due to horizontal dynamic load causing tension in stone walls. This is followed by collapse as stone is very weak in tension. Many of the horrendous casualties in earthquakes are caused by people being buried alive in stone buildings that collapse too quickly for occupants to escape. There is nothing wrong with reinforced concrete (RC) as a building material. As with all construction, durability depends on material quality, design, and construction practice.

[@HenryMidfields]

Apart from the occasional and exceptionally shoddy or old examples, I have to agree with Japan's RC structures ironically lasting well.

[@harrissocal]

As a Californian, you have answered the question I had. Thank you.

[@no_alias_for_me]

@@drecksaukerl Is that the reason why Japan had this single story wooden method before modern era? I'd think that flat wooden buildings are kinda resistant to earthquakes but I could be wrong. Maybe for big cities in Japan reinforced concrete is the best choice but in smaller towns and villages you could try to go back to wooden homes like in the old days (with modern technology obviously).

[@YaliBomaye]

Rome is in a region that is prone to earthquakes and those buildings are still standing because they were engineered to withstand and absorb seismic activity. The people who built those structures had an understanding of engineering that is beyond our modern day capabilities

[@Dont_Tell_Anyone_Its_Me]

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.

[@glass-yuzu]

I was just about to say this. Even going town to town in Scotland, you see very different aesthetics just based on the local choice of stone.

[@puffinjuice]

Fully agree. I love Neuchatel, Switzerland because it has warm yellow stone buildings. I can also appreciate the greenish stone in Bern, but it feels colder and more serious.

[@NickAndriadze]

I agree! Meanwhile, in Armenia, most buildings are made from the locally available Pink Tuff, giving the buildings and as a result, basically the entire country, extremely chracteristic orange appearance.

[@mikaelbohman6694]

Very good point. In Sweden we have red granite from the Bohuslän region and limestone in Gotland, sandstone from Roslagen and marble from Östergötland. This is reflected in buildings in the different regions.

[@recompostion]

3:02 Just after the going over the 7 types of building stone. It is only a sentence or two , but it is an acknowledgement of the observation to which you are referring.

[@valije]

I live in the NW of Spain, where is warm, very humid and 150 km/h winds are the norm every winter. Unifamiliar houses make of wood (like in the USA) are unthinkable here. Insted we like to build our houses with stone. Since this is "granite land" that is the stone we use. There is even a variety of granite named after one of the quarry locations (pink Porriño). On the old times, the walls were load bearing with wood beams to support the flooring and roofing, and all is covered withe either clay or slate tiles. Hard wood was used, either oak or chestnut. Nowadays reinforced concrete is used as a skeleton and roof support and almost everything else in the exterior side is made of stone (or bricks if you can't afford the granite/labour). Houses are not the only use of granite either. Fences and retaining walls made exclusively with granite are very common too. Just check Google street view near the coast in Galicia and you will see the huge amounts of granite used on almost everything that can be made of stone.

[@myuselessMind-g8m]

Neat.

[@rifa.3307]

You are using wood the wrong way. Look chinese or japanese wood structure, or for simple wood structure that can last at least 50-100 years, you can look at JOGLO construction. It can easily withstand 7.0 earthquake. Can be dismantled and rebuilding somewhere else.

[@dbabdbbbghbb]

It’s “unthinkable” to build a house from stone while also saying they live in “Granite land” Those things are related my dude. My state alone has forested areas equal to the size of European nations, we have tornadoes (stone, concrete won’t help if you get hit, nothing above ground and built by humans survives direct contact with big ones) and we have earthquakes, which will crack every wall in your house. We build from wood because it’s suited to our climate and it’s a highly available material. The exact same reasons Europe uses stone

[@lunawense6288]

@@dbabdbbbghbb Concrete will absolutely survive a big tornado. It's just absolutely no one bothers to build a reinforced concrete structure. What's a sin is that life saving measures like using the correct materials could save lives and homes would indeed not collapse. Tornados have a tendency to rip wood homes apart because they're not anchored properly. A reinforced concrete structure is completely connected the whole way through straight into the ground. Nothing short of a explosion would move it. Infact that's how the tornado shelters are made.

[@dbabdbbbghbb]

@@lunawense6288 we don’t do that because tornadoes are not straight line winds. The roof coming off is a feature not a bug, if you’re inside a building with reinforced walls and you get hit by a tornadoe, any breach in that wall can allow wind to vortex in and blend you up along with all of your furniture and possession’s.

[@OscarBorrem]

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.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Amen!!

[@JohnSmith-lf4be]

A lot of stone facades are really just concrete blocks made to look like stone.

[@steelcrown7130]

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 ....

[@linkhidalgogato]

i think u are very confused architects basically only think about the beauty and longevity of buildings its like the one thing they do.

[@abrahambobst4602]

@@linkhidalgogato No, it they did they wouldn't be designing ugly post modernist buildings that are also poorly made and have water issues.

[@RextheRebel]

Traditional architecture is a testament to what true diversity looks like. Its the unique differences from the various locations/regions that give them their identity. Diversity is not mix matching a bunch of different types of stone in one building (that would not be a stabilized structure), its ensuring a variety of cultures and customs that remain around the world. I don't want a sterile, bland, muddy society that cant be differentiated from another. Ppl are different and unique because of their own separate societies that are explicitly theirs.

[@Squat5000]

Yes people are different. And most don't belong in the West

[@harmoney-tk5wd]

I hope we're not comparing rocks to actual humans

[@Squat5000]

@@harmoney-tk5wd good point. It's an actual insult to rocks that are probably worth more

[@Derzull2468]

@@harmoney-tk5wd I'm surprised you can type with that brain power.

[@Ernesto_Da_Faneda]

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.

[@Game_Hero]

also need less quarries as he stated since you don't need iron or extra limestone.

[@stormveil]

​@Game_Hero except the video then mentioned post reinforced stone which requires iron and then concrete floor plates...

[@SkywalkerWroc]

"If that's not actually true, more people need to know about it" - but the thing is that it *is true.* Despite of what the video states, cut stone is anything but cheap, and the costs of building with reinforced concrete went massively down over the last 3 decades. Not to mention that a huge appeal of reinforced concrete is its flexibility, an ability to build stuff that's just not physically possible out of the interlocked stone slabs.

[@Ernesto_Da_Faneda]

@@SkywalkerWroc I don't disagree with your points, but in my comment I was specifically referring to slabs of rock being used for ornamental purposes (like kitchen countertops). And yes, flexibility is an issue there too: natural stone is harder to work on than fake stone, part of the price difference is certainly due to that. What people don't realize, I think, is the difference between a granite slab sourced from a local quarry vs. one from half way across the world. They're not the same item, but they are treated as such in that market, and that may well be why artificial rock is perceived as much cheaper, when in fact it isn't, in terms of costs of production.

[@BLAQFiniks]

@@Ernesto_Da_Faneda I agree with you on the local slab is cheaper than the imported one - but using kitchen countertops as an example - local often is not "beautiful enough" for your kitchen: a) kitchen countertops are usually light in colour and have specific pattern repetition - local natural stone usually is not that, therefore it is why natural stone countertops are always more expensive; b) heat & stains & chipping resistance of faux stone is superior to natural stone as well as lack of pores in faux stone to accumulate pathogens (I had natural granite window ceilings... and an accidental placement of a cuppa on it resulted in a permanent stain; my faux stone countertop withstands every blow of a kitchen in heavy daily use). So no, local stone for kitchen countertops is not a good option at all~

[@sparking023]

Before watching, I'll make a guess that the reasons why we stopped building with stone are: cost of production and transportation, requirement of skilled labor, and material structure (at least to sky scrapers). Okay, after watching it, I believe I was mostly correct. I'm no engineer, architect or material researcher, but I believe stones will weigh a lot more than concrete and rebar. At some point the load will surpass the tensile strenght of the material, and even if the cathedral made of stone is built that high, notice that a good part of it is not built with usable space. The shape of the spire also gives it extra structural integrity, but you can't really use that space. An argument can be made that maybe we don't want skyscrapers, but if the talk is about materials alone, reinforced concrete has an advantage here. Another thing I noticed, an argument was made for the cost effectiveness of stone and how it can be on the same range of concrete, but the start of the video gave me a clue as to why that wouldn't be the case. Look at how the cities close to the quarries are made of the stone they cut. Obviously, they source from the nearest stone because it's the closest, and stone is hard to transport. Not only because of the weight, but because it can be damaged during transport over long distances. And if you try to source local everywhere, the point of having "less holes" is rendered null. But one thing I found interesting is the modularity aspect. Here in Brazil, pre-molded concrete is getting very popular, mostly in large buildings, but some house options are available. And it's sort of a middle of the road, large pieces of concrete that you can slot together like LEGO pieces, increasing construction speed. You can make basically any shape you need, often entire walls and floors, or just make the structural frame. Overall the topic is very interesting, but to the average person, it still sounds prohibitively expensive.

[@matejmacek5784]

And earthquake. You can not build with stone in 1/3 of Europe.

[@LLlAMnYP]

Or just place yourself in the shoes of a prospective homeowner, planning to build himself a single-family home. I honestly doubt he'll manage to find a contractor willing to pick up an order that small, let alone for a reasonable price.

[@wifegrant]

How do you do demolition with stone... since implosion would not be an option in a controlled demolition. Furthermore, concrete and steel is recyclable. Stone not so much. Just sounds way to costly and inefficient.

[@charonstyxferryman]

@@wifegrant Stones are also recyclable. As stones aren't building garbage, just throw them out where they came from, the nature.

[@wifegrant]

@@charonstyxferryman Stones do not reconstitute into bigger stones. I can take a ton of rubble from concrete and reform it into a new block of concrete.

[@thijmenpopma1552]

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!

[@r.guerreiro140]

I suggest you take a deep dive into wood After carbon fibre, wood is simply the most effective weight/strength material we have today Norwegian engineers are proud to have built the tallest structure ever made of wood

[@robhersey1796]

As an unemployed underachiever, I also find it very interesting. Cheers.

[@larryc1616]

Wouldn't last in earthquakes. Use stone on the outside as easily replaceable decorative cladding

[@thijmenpopma1552]

@@robhersey1796 touche

[@andynz7]

This channel does some excellent videos on the architecture schools trying to fix this :)

[@Anastasis-is-here]

Here in Greece we have many places where we use stone and they are FANTASTIC, some include Pileon, Kalymnos, Nymfeo, Arnea etc.

[@elizabethdavis1696]

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.

[@gm2407]

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.

[@exchangAscribe]

whats the video called? and does he do other such videos?

[@elizabethdavis1696]

Why are modern condos ugly

[@elizabethdavis1696]

About half of his videos are about city planning

[@Danji_Coppersmoke]

Do those people who support exterior cladding also support to pay more for their rent?

[@user-lp7ym7er7n]

While I do not much care for modern concrete and glass and hope stone would be used more, the unexamined belief that buildings should last thousands of years is a major oversight of this video. There is a reason Pierre Bidaud points out that stone buildings become quarries, it is because they all do. Even the Egyptian pyramids have all been used as quarries, at least one down to its foundations. Buildings are built to last 50 years because there is little to no incentive to build them to last longer. A person, or company will have different needs and requirements in 50 years, and there is no way to know what those needs will be. It is often much more difficult to retrofit an existing building that no longer meets your needs than to build one that does, especially a building built to purpose such as a factory. There is an implicit survivor bias in ancient monuments as most were great public works, and public buildings are frequently built to imply permanence, a thousand years, but that makes them very difficult and therefore expensive to update. There is a reason property owners do not wish their property to be on a historical registry; the costs for maintenance skyrocket, and upgrades such as enough cooling to run those newly required servers in the basement will take years, if approved at all. So, the building will become a quarry, if not in fifty years, then in a hundred if not protected. And if protected, you will need a second building with a matching facade to account for the new requirements and museum gift shop. Also, saying that you can just "disassemble" a stone building is disingenuous. Quarrying buildings is more dangerous than demolition because the quarrying is attempting to recover material with minimal damage which adds a significant layer of complexity and therefore risk to the process. Adjacent to this, and also not addressed in the video, 13 years ago a moderate earthquake caused $38 million in damage to the National Cathedral, and it is still being repaired. Modern buildings in earthquake zones are now built to very stringent codes that create real technical challenges. While the complex interlocking stonework of lighthouses prove that it is possible there will be additional costs, loss of interior space, and flexibility. None of this is reason not to use stone. But trying to convince a board that there is savings in building a building to last 200 years when the ROI may take 50 or more years is a losing argument when they are looking at profits for the next business cycle. Architects would love to have their work stand as a monument to their skill and artistic prowess forever, but generally they are not the ones paying the bill.

[@IshtarNike]

One would hope our profit focused economic system will also change and evolve. Much like the buildings and requirements you talk about, human economic systems and societies evolve. Perhaps as we transition to a more sustainable economy (infinite growth is impossible so a growth focused model cannot go on indefinitely) we will have the ability to build for reasons other than financial ROI.

[@mostlyguesses8385]

Besides profit, stone buildings take more energy to heat each year, vs plastic and wood walls. There's a reason entire world and all countries left stone behind. I suspect a tent w running electric heater is probably better way not a 1 million pound house, so truly archicture is still on wrong track. I live in 2000lb fiberglass sailboat, a Hunter 260, again seems architecture is dumb. I cld be wrong.

[@c6h5choh-cn82]

Concrete is still cheaper and 90% of people in the world are poor. Think 3rd world public buildings budgets. Many people in my 3rd world country don't mind if the hospital their government provided for them is made of steel and concrete and looks cold/bland like any modern building constructed today (sometimes they look really bad it makes me wince) as long as the hospital is functional, staffed with sufficient doctors, nursers, personnel and stocked with at least basic medicines.

[@user-sx9hq7qwert]

"...the unexamined belief that buildings should last thousands of years is a major oversight of this video." Yes. We r sick n tired of e idea that every single structure needs 2 b built 4 1000s of years. If it lasts 4 10 years, u get 2 rebuild it often. If it lasts 4 30-50 years, each generation gets 2 build sth that suits THEM, rather than being condemned 2 caring 4 a building that may not suit them.

[@matts8791]

Stone, brick, and wood are S tier!

[@ITBEurgava]

Coming from humid tropical place, I don't know about finding quality wood. What about steel for the pillars? Edit: Okay, turns out, it's all explained in the video.

[@korakys]

@@ITBEurgava Coming from a temperate earthquaky place I'm really not a fan of bricks at all, wood on the other hand sounds great.

[@TaLeng2023]

​@@ITBEurgavayou just gotta pick a wood that's good. In my country for example, pterocarpus is considered a pest-resistant wood

[@SkywalkerWroc]

Or F tier, depending on the application and environmental conditions. Also, note that wood, stone and bricks are of a different properties (including the rate of deterioration), some of which might be amazing, other might be disastrous for a given application. The versatility of concrete is grossly underestimated.

[@Georgeqaws]

Only old growth wood is S tier.

[@nicholaidajuan865]

From the perspective of a Civil Engineer with 2 decades of experience as a consulting designer, I love to hear the perspective of a youtuber with NO experience on how and why the industry should change. There is a reason that the world only uses stone for decorative facades, and for architectural features. Are you clever enough to figure it out as un-reinforced concrete has the same issues. You should also be aware that engineering professors are good at maths but are not practicing engineers, and architects are impractical engineers that are good at drawing

[@t4t4s0l]

Just 3 years ago i finished rebuilding my house, originally built around Napoleonic era. Basically i bought property with ruin, where my original intention was to build modern house. But after inspection i decided to renovate and rebuild. That building "belonged" there. Now i live in it. Walls thickness 80cm to 1meter. Fantastic living in it. Cool in summer, warm in winter and that feel if you just lay a hand on the walls, it is incredible. Anyone who visits me is stunned. And the price was basically same like for a new house, because all building material - stone - was already here, so i paid just labor - which was of course more expensive, as finding the right people to work with stone is hard. After 2 years i learnt basics myself and now i started to repair the barn, which is also stone built - but now ruin. To summarize, stone is incredible and in right circumstances does not have to be more expensive than modern materials, so it is good to keep an open mind.

[@azerty123qw]

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.

[@erianpena2908]

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…

[@MrAdsghf]

And on the other end of the long list with challenges, real winters. 4+ months of snow and 1-4 weeks with temperatures close to -40… the walls would need to be 6 meters thick for every 100mm of insulation it replaces if my quick search is correct 😂 Thermal mass only works for day/night cycle

[@howardlibauer3021]

True. I had a 240 year old stone house in Malta for ten years. We used to say “the stone is sick”.

[@howardlibauer3021]

You don’t see many comments here that are not afraid to approach the real issue: money. In America, we find that the builders can pocket much bigger paychecks if they build houses made of popsicles sticks. I think people in Florida may finally have to face this question.

[@mikaelbohman6694]

Maybe use granite instead? Limestone is about as dense as water.

[@Solarchitects]

This video ROCKS! 😁

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Hehe thanks!

[@wclifton968gameplaystutorials]

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.

[@mostlyguesses8385]

I suspect a wood and plastic building weighs 10x less than stone building and insulates better. There are reasons everyone in all countries stopped using stone. Stone also has random defects, random failures crush children if you know Italian history. Good riddance to natural stone, cement is predictable, would you let your family live in a stone house and take the 1 in 100000 risk of random sudden collapse as flaw in rock matrix takes effect. Yes or no? I love videos that fight against progress leaving out all the reasoning for the change, so fun to see.

[@weed...5692]

@@mostlyguesses8385 There are ways to integrate stone into buildings, bud. The "progress" you mentioned is also about the ability to understand materials and design in a way that benefits us, beauty being a benefit. You can use concrete for certain parts and stone for other, so as to avoid the repeating of Italian history.

[@mostlyguesses8385]

1 out of 1000 ancient Romans died in house collapse, cuz national stone has natural unpredictable weaknesses. Cement avoids that, a cement column can be 25% the mass of stone collumn, no need for as big a safety margin to deal with risk of natural defects... I like ideas but some ideas have more negatives than positives... For better mental health we literally all should live in transparent walled buildings, a greenhouse, glass has gotten good enough to do that, with steel posts for strength. .. dark houses are dumb, we do them cuz our ancestors had no choice.. ... Really light fiberglass with big windows is best, 2000 pounds for cottage vs 200000 pounds for wood, plastic, steel, brick normal house. To save earth we can change big, or we can let earth fry, , , oh well humans are clearly idiots and to avoid thinking deserve to fry... Lets not deny we had options and chose to do little change.... I live on hunter 260 sailboat, 1900 pounds, you live in 200000 pound polluting mansion, , , , I don't care but God gave us options and better ways and we declined, we this have to accept blame, , , , I have no kids so I really don't mind us driving world into collapse, oh well is my motto, but it's a choice... Fun!

[@daveweiss5647]

I dream this will happen... I know I shouldn't, but this channel really makes me hope.

[@dr.coole.]

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_aesthetic_city]

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

[@1121494]

Just make them rigid enough to be stronger than the earthquake. In the wise words of Jeremy Clarckson: How hard can it possibly be?

[@TomasSab3D]

@@1121494 - historically, stone structures were notorious for their ability to "move"... if the ground failed (settlement) they would just disassemble and re-assemble. Similarly, you can have energy absorbing joints that dampen the structure. And reinforced stone can have some "smart joints" that are flexible / damping also. So... there is no real reason why it would be any more or less complicated than any other material. But... "rigid" is not the way to go in seismic zones, normally. They normally make things that "move in controlled manner"... reducing energy transfer first, and dissipating the remaining energy safely - after... not "rigid", but "energy absorbing"...

[@anterogradus]

In former Soviet block there are whole city districts, which were build from cheap reinforced concrete panels. Many of them were built more than 50 years ago, and most of them are absolutely fine. Well, from structural point of view - from other points it could be easily argued they are not. When they're demolished, structural reasons are very rare. Those are kind of buildings, that are usually cheaper to demolish and rebuild from scratch than to renovate, so it is hard to make an argument that they are maintained in expensive way (and in reality I know for sure that they are not at least where I lived). There are examples of buildings, which are older than that and are in good shape. Including the type I mentioned - non-significant buildings, which could be easily demolished if needed. I am not trying to say that concrete is great and we shouldn't look for replacement. From decarbonization point of view it is an unsolved problem right now, so new technologies of building should be welcome. But using false arguments to support the effort is bad and it hurts the whole idea in the long run.

[@valle_4ustral]

is this true?

[@anterogradus]

@@valle_4ustral It is. You can see examples from Eastern Germany to Russia's Far East.

[@kelaarin]

Yes, but they suck to live in (having lived in several of them for two years).

[@anterogradus]

@@kelaarin Well, it depends. Those kind of building I'm talking about do suck. But later iterations don't suck as much. Even nowadays such kind of building are built. Anyway, my comment was mostly about longevity of concrete,

[@kelaarin]

@@anterogradus Not the structure, the "living in" part.

[@glass-yuzu]

This video has inspired me to look into how to make stone buildings earthquake-proof, as that's a real reason for many countries to go all-in on reinforced concrete

[@kdeuler]

Right. Not many stone buildings on the west coast of the USA.

[@edi9892]

I had the ultimate Aesthetic City experience yesterday: I was on the road to an appointment only to get a phone call cancelling it, after I was already 200km from home. I was angry and hungry and looked for the nearest town to find something to eat. What I found was a picturesque town with an excellent Italian restaurant. Suddenly, I felt on vacation and my negativity subsided. That town had burnt down 1635 almost completely and vast parts of it today stem from the rebuilding phase almost 400 years ago. Thus, it has countless examples of peak Fachwerk. It was pretty much in the middle of nowhere and far from mass tourism. All this made it a hidden gem. Did anyone else make a similar experience?

[@pawelparadysz]

woow what's the town called?

[@edi9892]

@@pawelparadysz Herrenberg in Germany.

[@youcandoworse]

@@edi9892 I just googled it, wow, what a beautiful place. Danke!

[@brett76544]

One of the times I lived over in Germany it was Rottenburg just south of there. Been through it many times to Stuttgart and Nuremburg where my kids, stepkids and nieces and nephews live from my 1st and second wife and a wife and son's graves. Still, I have seen photos from my father in law of the rebuilding of the walls in Nuremburg along with the cathedral in the center of the city. I wish more photos would come out of the rebuilding of Germany, still not all was rebuilt to the old ways. Funny as an American that learned German and English growing up, funny now in my 50's I split my time between both worlds of how things were and are built. Now it is more in and around Nuremburg due to so much of my family being here.

[@Real_Tim_S]

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...

[@daveknight336]

Iv been working on a way to use electricity to mold granite in order to make it air tight and disaster proof. I think it will be mainstream by the end of the decade

[@TS-jm7jm]

​@@daveknight336mold granite??? do you mean by partially melting it at contact points???

[@daveknight336]

@@TS-jm7jm yeah. I think it will take like 10,000 voltz but it could also require a frequency feedback machine that feeds its core frequency back into itself exponentially

[@SkywalkerWroc]

Vast majority of the brick & stone buildings do not survive ">400 years". The once you see still standing is a classic case of survivorship bias. There are many "> 400 years" old wooden buildings as well, doesn't mean that wooden houses are inherently long-lasting - they're really not. It's just yet another case of survivorship bias.

[@TS-jm7jm]

@@daveknight336 that sounds like you have to be very careful not to melt your own equipment, how have your experiments fared so far?

[@daarya]

Totally agree, amazing video! I stand for starting the use of stone once again, support the local economy and support and respect the planet we all live on 💎

[@alexstefan8479]

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!

[@Hoonters-goona-Hoont]

I love that a competently-made video on this topic exists now. This thought has been cooking inside of me for a long time as well. Strolling through the little Villages full of Stone houses in southwest England I never understood how this material went out of fashion. I also firmly decided that, should I ever have the opportunity to build a house, I would try to build as much of it as possible from local stone. So yeah, thanks for kind of confirming tiny little wishes of mine that I always felt were quite good hunches.

[@AbrahamCasillas-t3o]

Finally, a KZbinr talking about how even tall buildings can be beautiful and be made out of stone!

[@guerreiro943]

Many people seem to take for granted that skyscrapers need to be bland glassy buildings when that is not true at all.

[@bruno_kid_]

Well, one of the problems to solve before starting to build with stone is: people who know how to build with stone. Not the architects or engineers, the guy at construction site. Here in Brazil you will find only people between 50 and 70 years old working with this type of construction

[@cashbonanza963]

Robots will handle it

[@user-sx9hq7qwert]

That n e local climate has 2 b conducive 2 that type of stone...

[@Atlantjan]

Well, at least that means that all the ugly buildings have a natural expiry date, so those "modern architects" made at least one good choice.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Haha very true indeed!

[@UnsortedSeeds]

They'll just replace them with even uglier buildings.

[@JTonson]

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.

[@CMVBrielman]

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.

[@km14081]

@@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

[@rhasani4372]

Thank you for that food for thought. As an Architect I ve always struggled with the current building philosophy of cheap housing and ugliness of it all. Happy to see that there is a glimpse of understanding longterm.

[@tradarchistudent]

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!

[@stormveil]

In the UK we also have many brick/wood buildings that were reinforced with iron ties at some point in their life. Usually to stop bowing walls.

[@whitebeans7292]

His name is pierre and he's a stonemason. Were his parents psychic?

[@kasnickijakub]

I love this channel! I started Architecture school a month ago. I will be using the things that I have learnt from these videos in my studies. Thank you so much!

[@bannol1]

We should build more with timber, especially when it comes to residential dwellings. Timber is natural, strong, flexible, durable, a good insulator and it is sustainable. It stores carbon and ticks many environmental boxes. Not only that, timber buildings, whether traditional or modern, exude a certain warmth. It is a great material in cold climates, the tropics and any climate in-between. Timber can be painted, or not and construction methods are extremely flexible ranging from log construction, shingle or tongue in grove siding, to timber composite exteriors. What most people really want is a variety of materials and styles. Traditional designs are preferred over modernism and minimalism. Most importantly, housing has to become affordable and accessible to most people and be something more than just provide the utility of shelter. There has to be relatable and aesthetically pleasing aspect to all architecture regardless of function.

[@carlosdgutierrez6570]

Timber is horrible in the tropics and any warm climate with higher moisture. Mold and thermites are a maintenance nightmare for timber. Tinker is full of crevices that can hide all kinds of pests, from roaches to bed bugs and make them near impossible to completely eradicate those pests with pesticides. And they are fire traps, they catch fire really easily and can't be repaired after a fire is extinguished.

[@c6h5choh-cn82]

I love timber. It's warm and easy to work with. Unfortunately the termites in my tropical country loves timber more than I do. They love it so much they eat it. And imported anti-termite chemicals are so expensive here. A liter would cost a quarter of a common worker's weekly pay. Besides the government has restricted the cutting, sale and use of lumber trees.

[@cpcreit]

So simple, yet so elegant of a solution!!! The comments section is so full of experts and craftsmen in the field, very rare to see on KZbin. Thank you for such a wonderful video...

[@Thomas-gs8ug]

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 belgian bricks. I hope we'll be building like this again in the future. I'm so tired of those ugly glass boxes

[@koenraadprincen7212]

In some places of Wallonia (B) it's mandatory to build with natural materials (rock stone walls, slate roof, zinc gutters,...).

[@Thomas-gs8ug]

@@koenraadprincen7212 in the city of Mons, it’s mandatory in the historical center (which is quite large)

[@바보Queen]

nothing beats natural building material... its soulful

[@infj5196]

We are forced to use concrete because of politicians and corporations who want artificial perpetual "economic growth"

[@abdelrahmanmohammed9405]

the old pharaonic towns in Egypt were built with stones which got reused to build medieval Egypt

[@Energine1]

All made affordable by slave labor :/ ....

[@user-tz5uq2bt1s]

Don't know your channel, but as soon as I read the title I went "I'm in." Stone buildings are timeless and I freaking love them.

[@likes-yv3lj]

I’ve been thinking about this topic for many years now glad to see a video about it. Can’t wait for my stone house to live in

[@mohammadshareef5789]

I feel like the video maker didn’t do any research in the structural use of stone, or the use of stone in general First the “ugly” stone is most of the time extremely weak stone, as the same ugly ununiform line passing the stone are usually weak point were foreign materials separates two rock layers or former cracks in the stone that were filled with dirt carried by water passing through the stone, so every ugly line is a crack waiting to happen Second when trying to design a structure with stone, there is almost no cheap way of knowing if there are any internal cracks in the stone, so the structural engineer can’t assume that there are no cracks in the stone, so they are left with considering that there are crack in the stone, this makes the design strength of the stone really weak, like a fifth (20%) of the strength of the weakest concrete, so a concrete wall that’s is load bearing with a thickness of 20cm (8”) if made out of stone needs to be 1 meter (3’) thick, and that is not considering that the concrete wall needs to carry a 20 cm thick wall above it while the stone one needs to carry 1 meter thick wall. Third most natural stone is not that resilient, it’s weak , chemically unstable, full of cracks, full of pours, so it’s far worst than reinforced concrete in longevity, and the pours are a perfectly environment for mold to live (that looks disgusting), and the same mold will accelerate the breakdown of the stone. Finally steel reinforced concrete isn’t actually that bad, it can be built to last(use sulfur resistant concrete when near salt water or a salty soil, and to have proper cover of the steel rebar with concrete to prevent the rusting of the steel rebar 3-7 cm (1”-3”)), concrete can look beautiful if it’s polished or have a good surface finish, but these cost money and arguably less money that building with stone, and environmentally it’s also better as quarry to dig a 0.2 meter thick concrete wall worth of material is smaller than one that cuts a 1 meter thick stone wall, and most of concrete’s mass is aggregate that can be locally sourced so lower emissions from transport compared to stone that needs to be 5 times as big to have the same strength and cant be sourced locally in all costal cities (costal cities usually have a really thick dirt or sand layer covering the bed rock, and if you try to dig until you find rock you are greeted with water filling the hole you dug faster than you can pump the water out, and the majority of big cities are also costal)

[@divoulos5758]

Insulting and false. Stone has about 7 to 10 times the compressive strength of concrete while being about 2 to 3 times denser. And you want to argue about extraction? All you need is a big saw or a water cutter while in concrete you need grinding machines and heat treatment to produce. And cracks don't matter much in compression and if you care that much you can cut stone into big bricks to avoid crack propagation. You can also put rebar in stone like in concrete with drilling

[@electrosyzygy]

@divoulos5758 Insulting? Step away from the keyboard and touch grass. You need it.

[@CharlesKruger1942]

with the requirements of a modern wall assembly stone has little use beyond a cladding material.

[@jonaskussama]

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

[@gusplaer]

Stone Quarry onwer here. I completly agree! I love natrual stone.

[@MuzorewaRatshikuni]

Agree based on the merits of the material in terms of suitability for the application or based on the potential financial gains it may mean for business?

[@gusplaer]

Agree based on, stone is more apealing to the eye and lasts tens if not 100's of times longer than wood and modern composits.

[@petervarley3078]

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?"

[@the_aesthetic_city]

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

[@petervarley3078]

@@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.

[@1258-Eckhart]

Danke! Bitte weiter so! 👍👍❤

[@JohnSmith-lf4be]

Talk about bricks next

[@Game_Hero]

Half as interesting is getting a PTSD reaction from this comment

[@edi9892]

I'd combine the topic with Klinker and Azulejos.

[@deanwakley8357]

You seem a little confused, Bathstone is a sedimentary limestone not fired, look around central Bath or central London it’s all stone predominantly Portland limestone in London. The main issue with stonemasonry is pay, it’s terrible, it takes ten years to be productive in an independent capacity, there’s an enormous amount to learn and physically demanding…the rewards are simply not worth it, I am the last of a family generation, when asked why my son never became a stonemason I reply “because I love my son”.

[@tonym3309]

@@deanwakley8357 Sad but true. I've spent most of my working life laying bricks producing those red box houses you now see all over England. Years ago looking for something more fore fulling I looked into switching to stone masonry. Despite the obvious up grade in the skill once trained I was dismayed to discover my wages would have almost halved if I had taken that route.

[@akarayan]

This which rises in France built with stone blocks for the walls are absolutely amazing. The feel and environment inside will be akin to the feeling of being inside a gothic cathedral. I wish we could do that here in America. I’m a huge advocate of this sort of thing, walkability, traditional architecture, etc. But we have just so many problems that people are focused on other things and I can’t get their attention.

[@Mlk-Al-Halabi]

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?

[@SlayerBG93]

As an architect, trust me I would love nothing more than to build with stone. However, stone and insulation do not mix. Sure it has collosal thermal mass but you need insulation to come anywhere close to modern requirements. So the issue becomes how does one integrate load bearing stone with insulation cheaply while keeping its attractive exterior visible. Its a tought nut to crack.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

In Switzerland they did it somehow with a real, multi level apartment buliding: www.stone-ideas.com/105029/archiplein-perraudin-architectes-solid-stone/ "The exterior walls do not require thermal insulation. The thermal inertia of the stone keeps the heat peaks outside in summer and the heat inside in winter."

[@svtinker]

I lived in a limestone house in Austin in the early eighties. 🥶🥶🥶

[@stormveil]

​@@the_aesthetic_citythey say that but i need to see the residents fuel and rent bill 😅

[@tasia2174]

@SlayerBG93 Couldn't a natural/breathable insulation material be used on the interior of the building? Like wood fibre board, or aerogel insulation? A lot of folks like to have plastered interiors anyway, so why couldn't that be done? Or, if you want to keep the stone exposed both on the interior and exterior, why not add a cavity for insulation? As long as the material is breathable I would imagine it'd work (but then I'm not expert and this is just conjecture).

[@snokehusk223]

just insulate on the interior side

[@ocellaris1]

Great, really appreciate your content!

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you!!

[@Bluemjm7]

This Should be a series were you go over all the traditional building materials that have been neglected since the beginning of Modern architecture

[@tradarchistudent]

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.

[@sebastianm.6669]

really interesting to me as a bachelor student in Architecture. Id like to say its a game changer, but it‘s rather a going back to our roots

[@jakobresas3427]

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

[@snokehusk223]

well stone and wood go together you build roof and floor framing with wood

[@marcoziervogel6957]

How Interesting I'm in the process of planning my home and decided about 20 years ago to build from local stone once I'm ready I came across this interesting video all about what I'm fully interested in and I can almost say I was NEVER interested in building using anything else but stone It's great to see I was ALWAYS right

[@thesermontis]

With all sincerity, thank you very much for bringing more attention... best regards. R.

[@NeetchianQueen]

I am so glad I found this site, I LOVE the Old stone bldgs, and I want to build a stone home so badly, also incorporating the interlocking methods the ancients used to make it earthquake proof with nicely decorated windows, doors etc. Think weights and levers, Stone is almost indestructable I love it!

[@jdg9999]

There are tons of awesome "new" things we could do with stone too. For example "mega" sized stone blocks are now possible with modern construction equipment, we could build IMMENSE structures now.

[@c6h5choh-cn82]

Concrete is still cheaper and 90% of people in the world are poor. Think 3rd world public buildings budgets. Many people in my 3rd world country don't mind if the hospital their government provided for them is made of steel and concrete and looks cold/bland like any modern building constructed today (sometimes they look really bad it makes me wince) as long as the hospital is functional, staffed with sufficient doctors, nursers, personnel and stocked with at least basic medicines.

[@bannedmann4469]

Been wanting stone back just cause I liked it. All the rest was just icing on the cake.

[@ShankhajitSinghaRoy]

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

[@pirateluffy01]

I hope you come back and make your beautiful home here one day.

[@c6h5choh-cn82]

Concrete is still cheaper and 90% of people in the world are poor. Think 3rd world public buildings budgets. Many people in my 3rd world country don't mind if the hospital their government provided for them is made of steel and concrete and looks cold/bland like any modern building constructed today (sometimes they look really bad it makes me wince) as long as the hospital is functional, staffed with sufficient doctors, nursers, personnel and stocked with at least basic medicines.

[@verajavi12]

India can't complain.

[@GreenLeafUponTheSky]

The people who fund these constructions are greedy penny pinchers. They don't want to contribute anything to the community, like making a more beautiful street. Aesthetics are the least priority.

[@taimurmalik2792]

This video has blown my mind!!! Love love love it!! IVE BEEN A CLT fan for years and now I’m all in on Stone with a smattering of CLT!!! Thanks you!!!!!🙏🏼

[@BuildNewTowns]

Let's build with stone!!

[@R777-RLM]

I live in a small mountain west town in the US, with many homes and churches that were built in the late 1800's using cream-colored oolite limestone, that was quarried east of town. There's nothing more beautiful than stone, and I'd love to see more of it.

[@gt4654]

it's just a matter of cost. where I live, most people can't even afford a granite top in their kitchen due to high cost.

[@MoneyballUSA]

How is this not a top comment?! 💸

[@assasin101011]

I think the costs will go down if we start using stone right now. It’s currently seen as a niche or high-end material.

[@gt4654]

@assasin101011 we never stopped using it, but it became less and less common due to high cost. A recent example. I changed the outside doors and windows with modern 3 glass aluminum. On the bottom of each one, I put a slab of marble with dimensions of 30cm by 120cm by 2cm thickness. Four marble slabs like this cost around 300 usd, which is ridiculous for a low quality marble....

[@farmpite]

Very important topic. I would love to see a shift towards using stone. The reciprocity between the philosophy of using stone and the environment build by stone influencing the philosophy of social conduct is huge. Thank you for creating this beautiful documentary

[@andrewmcfarland57]

In the post-industrial world, planned obsolescence is king.

[@vernongandy9026]

Everything is temporary to create enteral jobs.

[@lagringa7518]

So true and it's getting worse and of less and less quality every day!

[@mvphasser2]

My farm is built with brick and is older than napolion. Modern brick is far better. If maintained we could keep houses hundreds of years, but we dont

[@InvestmentJoy]

It's a question of how affordable do you want things to be? Are banks and lenders willing to break the cost over a century versus a few decades? Or should the price of everything just be higher? There are techniques that are becoming more popular in the US that are 1/10th to 1/20th the price of some of these stone buildings.

[@jack504]

Some concrete structures can last a long time, the hoover dam is estimated to last for thousands of years. It is mass concrete though, no rebar. Rebar is the main issue with concrete, once water penetrates and corrodes the steel it's game over, hence the 50 year life for some structures. This would also be a problem for post tensioned stone. This can be counteracted by using stainless steel or anti corrosion coatings and a greater depth from surface to rebar. I do see greed as a problem, the system isn't building for longevity it's building for the lowest price and highest profitability today. Buildings reaching end of life in 50 years is someone else's problem.

[@Danji_Coppersmoke]

Agree... Basalt fiber rebar are good. (but pricy) if one worry about nickel (relative rare materials). Basalt is 90% of volcanic rock so basically pretty much all rock (practically Hawaii).

[@anordenaryman.7057]

You have raised a very valid point. Concrete is basically man-made stone. It can be used as stone blocks without rebar. Putting a decorative face on a concrete block during manufacture can make this a good looking building material. Making a long lasting "stone" building out of concrete is entirely possible.

[@joeljohanssonlyberg6787]

I really like stone as buildning material but as some people allready mention its a very expensive material, today its hard enough do build your own house to get the economic part working. Im now buildning a house in light concrete but i would prefer natural stone and get a finished surface but the light concrete is self-isulating so with plaster inside and outside with the isolated light concrete between (no plastic) you get a quite economic and homogenues solution. You can also fairly easy decorate your facade with This material because its soft. This example is a self-build not a commersial buildning in a bigger scale, there is different circumstances.

[@EasyGameEh]

9:25 this is bs argument. we aren't counting "holes" in the ground. it's all about the volume. reinforced concrete is very strong and being versatile it mean more strength for less volume especially on longer spans. concrete columns, beams and slabs are often pretty fine all things considered. so at the end of the day it's irrelevant how many holes if they in total are smaller than one huge hole.

[@luckuijken5451]

I agree with you, although he might mean that you then have to transport your materials from a bunch of different locations. That might be an issue, as with stone, you just have your one site and transport it all from there.

[@kevingross7082]

My house is granite stone in CT. About 1200 sqft. It is a balloon frame with the roof construction of full size lumber and bolted to the walls. Full basement with 8ft ceiling and an attic with about 75% of floor space. I like this house alot.

[@chiptenor]

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.

[@hermannkorner3212]

10:32 :Thermal mass works fine to balance out cold nights whith hot days, when the median heat loss to the outside is compensated by internal heat sources. For longer lasting deveations, you simply can't do wthout insulation.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Yes it seems like that would be needed for some areas... It should be possible to insulate it though

[@sunkings5972]

It's not as much about insulation as it is air movement. So if the stone building is airtight and thick enough, once you get the inside temp to the right temp it will do a decent job of holding in the heat or cold. This can also be fixed but creating a gap between the stone. For example if u need a 10" stone wall to support the load, u could put two rows of 5" stone and inch apart with beams spanning both. If the airflow in the gap is minimum it would insulate better than anything we typically put in walls. Can't beat our current baseline construction methods for cost/performance ratio tho.

[@hermannkorner3212]

In my neck of the woods houses were built this way using bricks- up to about 60 years ago. The main reason however wasn't insulation, but to keep moisture from winddriven rain from creeping through the wall. They even left some holes for ventilation to dry back the outer wall! Nowadays many people fill up the gap whith blow in insulation to reduce heating bills. This is very cost effective, but risks humidity damages. By the way: according to DIN ISO 9646 an inch airgap only gived a R value of 0.18 m x m x K / W . I dont know what this is in imperial, but it equals about a 1/4" of e.g. styrofoam. Way to little for our climate !

[@foobar9220]

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.

[@JohnnyMotel99]

I was going to make the same comment about the R value of solid stone walls, they will all lose heat to the outside eventually.

[@levybenathome]

Stone is terrible insulation! Don't even bother calculating the stone's input to the insulation. Per unit thickness, stone has only a few % of the insulation value of mineral fiber insulation, so just face the interior with some insulation, studs and gypsum board and you wlll have almost all the insulating value coming from the insulation. However... stone's density makes it a natural heat reservoir. In an environment with sunny days and cool/cold nights, the stone will absorb heat from the sun in the daytime and radiate at night, which can reduce energy consumption. It is very important to provide a interior insulation and finish for the stone wall anyway. Unless you want the stone interior to have the damp, moldy look of a medieval castle. This is because of what we call the "dew point" in the wall. If cold stone is exposed to warm, humid interior air there will be condensation on the wall. So it is best to create a gap with afore mentioned insulation, air barrier, and gypsum board.

[@JohnnyMotel99]

@@levybenathome I lived for 18 months in a solid stone french farmhouse, it was modernised but no wall insulation. In the summers it was delightful, in the winter months it was baltic! Houses designed to be well ventilated.

[@bigjay875]

I work as a boilermaker years back i was ar a lead smelter in Florida. We were demolishing the old plant and building a modern plant. Most of the plant was made of concrete. The old walls were busted in to manageable size chunks then fed in to a crusher, rebar and all the machine took it all. It pulled all metals out, sized the pieces sent back the bits to big to be recrushed and the sand size was pulled out and the 1 in chunks were piled to be used as in place of stone in the new cement and the sand sized bits was used as fill. Everything was contaminated so nothing left the site but scrap metal after being power washed. Pretty environmentally friendly considering the toxicity of the site.

[@AetherXIV]

oh please start building with massive stone blocks again. I'm tired of concrete boxes. Make architecture beautiful again!

[@c6h5choh-cn82]

Yeah sure let's build with stone again. It's a great natural material. And who is gonna pay the huge additional construction cost? What? Oh, we'll just send you the bill and you'll pay for it? That's nice to hear.🤣🤣🤣

[@AetherXIV]

@@c6h5choh-cn82 the video's point was that it doesn't always have to be that more expensive. also I'd prefer a culture that valued beauty and endurance more than what is cheapest in the moment.

[@c6h5choh-cn82]

@@AetherXIV Something tells me you've never lived in a 3rd world country 😁 Oh what a pampered comfortable life you have. Must be a bliss to be igno.....😄

[@AetherXIV]

@@c6h5choh-cn82I'm American and have zero interest in visiting the "3rd World". Civilization is inherited and can be built on any dirt whether that is Australia, South Africa or the Americas. eg. build your own comfortable life.

[@armandsmeirans1]

I’m 100% on board! I'm not an architect or a builder, but to me, this seems like a simply brilliant idea and a genuine call for current and future generations to truly transition to a stone renaissance. A few questions in this context though. What solutions exist for thermal insulation in northern countries? And what type of foundations did our ancestors build under stone structures? As far as I recall, I’ve noticed cracking in the walls of most old stone buildings (at least in Europe). Given today’s technology, reinforced concrete foundations wouldn't seem like the best choice for constructing new stone buildings, would they?

[@JohnSmith-lf4be]

One problem with stone is that it doesn't handle earthquakes well.

[@johnhill8887]

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.

[@raymondpeters9186]

Pumicecrete is by far the best building material on the planet Pumicecrete is a mixture of pumice cement and water mixed and poured into a set of reusable forms walls are poured from 12"to 24" thick pumicecrete is fireproof termite proof rust rot and mold proof non toxic and has a high R value and good sound attenuation solid poured walls means no critters can live in your walls Pumicecrete can be built for a fraction of the cost and time and pumice is one of the few building materials that can go directly from the mine to the job site ready to use without any additional possessing and zero waste Google all the walls of my house are made of pumicecrete Take care Ray

[@romainc8866]

The Romans pre-cut their marble in the quarries before shipping it to its destination where the pieces were refined

[@levybenathome]

Exactly how we do it today for stone coming to NYC from quarries!

[@schemage2210]

Love this, love the idea. Perhaps the one thing that should be noted is that, while stone has many benefits, aesthetically it needs to be styled for the times. Renaissance and Gothic architecture isn't going to appeal to the masses these days. Not in most parts of the world.

[@sanniepstein4835]

The "modern" look has been around for a long time at this point, long enough to be as stale as any classical style.

[@schemage2210]

@@sanniepstein4835 Fair, but if you survey people on the streets in places like America, Australia, etc etc (as in not the EU), I wager 9 out of 10 people have absolutely no interest in Renaissance/Gothic/Victorian era architecture. I appreciate it, but it's not for everyone.

[@elizabethdavis1696]

Can you make stone buildings earthquake resistant for places like Japan and California?

[@erianpena2908]

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.

[@nielstenbrink]

This was incredibly interesting and well made. Thanks for the great video! 👍

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Thank you so much!!

[@elizabethdavis1696]

Or brick

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Brick will come in a later video ;)

[@josepheridu3322]

What about stone bricks? 😨

[@Joe-po9xn]

If we went back to it, I’d love to see a revival of serious (not postwar, and definitely not postmodern) architecture. I’d love to see people incorporate their respective cultural designs and aesthetic influence in construction again. Stone seems like a wonderful means to do that long term.

[@terreonnhenry5778]

Literally talked about this in my Master's Thesis but I focused on wood. Loved this ❤

[@LuigiMason]

Stonemason/carver here, totally agree! And definitely suits me 💰💰

[@perfectpiano1871]

Did they seriously add Minecraft sandstone into real life??! ‏‪2:44‬‏

[@lovebaltazar4610]

Thanks for developing the course, you're king!

[@lynb1022]

Most modern day developers don't want to build anything to last, because doing so would effectively result in developing themselves out of jobs, i.e. wealth. We live in societies that don't see the value in humans having increased leisure time to create things for the sake of creation, as opposed to constantly rebuilding out of necessity (which results in "economic growth") because the 1% and their minions (e.g. politicians and law enforcement required to protect their financial interests) would no longer be necessary either. They require a permanent underclass that's always struggling to survive (through displacement, rebuilding and migration), because people who are always struggling to survive don't have time or energy to overthrow their oppressors.

[@matthewraphael]

Exactly

[@shinjiikari5174]

Wouldcha look at that, someone who actually uses their brain and did their homework! Couldn't have explained it any better, myself.

[@GreenLeafUponTheSky]

It's more so wanting to build as cheaply so they can make as much profit, because land is expensive. This is even worse in suburbs, which are a waste of space and look ugly.

[@dragonkinss]

Isnt this the case for most things this days,quality down = breaks faster = buy agane x100 times instead of x5 if better quality = more $$$$$

[@lynb1022]

@@dragonkinss yes, it's a form of planned obsolescence, and I suppose rent (and multi-decade amortizations) equates to software subscriptions - we pay for 'x' thing but are never allowed to own it outright, and the people being paid make off like bandits.

[@perryallan3524]

A few options and some information about use of concrete and stone: 1st the corrosion of rebar issue has been solved if you use SS rebar and tie wires. That adds about 10% to the cost of a concrete structure; but typically at least triples its life. You can get thousands of years of life from SS rebar if you chose the right alloy for your application (depends on local chemical contaminants in air, rain, water as those will eventually be carried to the rebar). If you are going to post tension stone blocks for strength - you need to use SS connections and cables if you want long life structures. The next problem with concrete is that modern Portland cement is by its very nature also a relatively short term material. The cement past is not chemically stable and reacts with moisture and chemicals in the air, rain, ground, etc and looses key strength as it ages (starting with the surface layer and eventually penetrating the entire thickness if the structure does not collapse or is not torn down before then). Note this is why a lot of surface concrete spalls off even if there is not rusty rebar under it. Maximum life of Portland cement under the best scenario is likely in the range of 150 years, with a lot of modern construction only likely lasting 100 years. There are long life concretes (or mortars); but those take typically a month or more to set up as hard enough to walk on (if used as a sidewalk or driveway) and then a year or two to gain what would be considered full strength. Very old buildings took years to build, and back then these mortars and concretes were quite acceptable. Modern construction wants concrete and mortars to set up in days and really good strength in a month due to the time and interest cost of construction. I've been studying how to build a house that would structurally last 1000 years or more (including the concrete foundations). My design is based on ancient long life concretes and mortars, SS rebar, and heavy stone block facade/structural walls. I figure it would take at 2 years to build the structure of a 2 story house with a full basement to allow time for the long life concretes and mortars to gain enough strength to support the next level. Interior finishing is at least 6 months as there are slow setting long life plasters as well which do not crack with minor house movement like the modern fast set plasters do. I would run all electrical wiring in metal conduit so the house could be rewired without opening the walls in 70-100 years. I would build in lots of empty metal electrical boxes with conduit runs for future communication or other technology applications; or just a desire to have an electrical outlet in a different location (with space in ceilings, basement, or attic to run whatever you wanted in those conduits and boxes. Expensive to build... but would look fantastic and last likely at least a 1000 years as long as some minimal maintenance is done periodically, Edited to add: A Portland cement foundation or pure compressive structure might last longer than about 150 years if it is lightly loaded. Depending on the contaminants that have seeped into the concrete and the aggregate the final strength of very old fully reacted stable Portland cement might well be in the range of 1/4 - 1/3 of its initial compressive strength at 1-2 months old.

[@BrianWilliam-m6l]

Thank you for your videos mate.. . Crypto education is what the world needs the most right now. I don’t think that buy and hold is a valid investment strategy anymore. Not too diluted and to a degree, follows Evelyn’s trading ideas and signal tips for your portfolio growth and aggressiveness. She is a woman who has not only taught me what the cryptocurrency trading world looks like but a secret to uplift my finance. Buying crypto and waiting for the price to shoot up is not the best way to invest in the market but buying and trading is. Evelyn Infurna’s trade signaIs does the heavy lifting, generating competitive returns for crypto traders and investors in the form of money and peace of mind. Time in the market vs. timing the market. If you keep that mentality as an investor, you will stay calm during the storm! Within some months I was making a lot more money and have continued on that same path...

[@StephanieMoore-oj7vz]

The market has gone berserk! whether you're a newbie or a veteran trader, everyone needs a sort of coach at some point to thrive forward.

[@JeremiahHoward-ys4pt]

bitcoin does not pay any yield but will reward you with growth that you can't find in any other asset class

[@SandraElliot21]

I appreciate the professionalism and dedication of the team behind Evelyn’s trade signal service.

[@DavidMartins-y1c]

Evelyn Infurna Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's

[@NianLisa]

Well this is not my first time of seeing her name on social platform. I think she's extremely brilliant and lucrative at the same time.

[@leilalessia]

I live in a stone house in central Italy. The walls are 80 cm in width, with 3cm of anti-seismic reinforcement and, 3cm of thermal insulation outside. During last summer, with 35°C outside, it was 23°C inside without air conditioning and one window opened day and night. During this autumn, with 10°C outside, I have 21°C degrees without turn on the gas boiler, and one window opened day and night.

[@the_aesthetic_city]

Wow!! I hope some people in the comments who are skeptical about the thermal properties read this. I guess it works really well in some climate zones, but interesting that there is some thermal insulation applied, what material is used?

[@glass-yuzu]

Its a shame people have the worry that "oh we'll destroy an area of land with a quarry if we use stone" since they can visualise a quarry, but they pay no attention to the horrendous sand dredging in the oceans that's needed to provide the sand for concrete and the untold ecological damage that's doing.

[@Cigmacica]

Not even talking about all the industries you need to transform those materials into concrete

[@Species-lj8wh]

While there is dredging for sand on the coast. Most everywhere else we just make sand from the aggregate pits. Rather it's a byproduct of processing rock into the different sizes needed by other industries.

[@JTL1776]

Stone and Brick is the most beautiful building material.

[@matts8791]

Stone inherently increases the sense of place and identity. French postwar architects knew this and hated it.

[@henrymach]

I wholeheartedly agree. Stone is amazing

[@Pixelsoep]

Hello internet. Dad here. It seems we've come to take stone for granite.

[@goldengoat1737]

I would love to see a video breaking down the of building with stone. Let’s start a movement to build with stone again!!!! I agree the even if it is considerably more expensive the beauty alone makes it worth it!

[@96phatom93]

7:55 what sett even is that.... wait is that a AI generated image

[@the_aesthetic_city]

It is the set I've always wanted but never found, the Parisian Haussmann set - had to make it with AI (unfortunately)