• cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    The cost argument is probably the more correct one, i don’t think that the temperature fluctuation excuse holds water. In Eastern Europe we have some pretty extreme temperatures too, in a continental climate you can easily go from double digit negative temperatures in the winter to 30-40 in the summer. And the use of concrete and bricks and so on is still very widespread.

    • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        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