A great idea, but given the cost of construction, isn't this more of a novelty for millionaries at this point in time? Don't get me wrong, I'd live in a lovingly designed and constructed masonry house in a heartbeat if I could.
It's currently a novelty not because it is impossible, but because most of the industry (including the code-writers, lobbyists, and municipalities) have relentlessly pushed "new" forms of complex construction assemblies as the standard. Most of the construction industry, down to the carpenter/mason/knocker on the job site, has simply forgotten how to make things that last at the century timescale. The reason that Austin's approach tends to be a bit more "expensive" is not fundamentally because it is extravagantly costly (and there are numerous ways to measure cost) but because the knowledge supply is low. What used to be an easy job for a mason 200 years ago would be incredibly difficult for a lot of masons today. Ultimately, it's not a novelty at all. Structural masonry construction-along with many other traditional methods of building-is present in so many regions of the world because it works. What many don't realize is that the charm of very old cities is often a result of the fact that they have been stable for centuries. Their built forms are set, and then minute changes are made over time. This creates the harmonious, highly tuned environments which millions of tourists flock to old cities to see. And at a deeper level, it is one of the foundations for a healthy culture.
Great question! Every healthy society certainly needs cheap, temporary housing. But it also needs permanent housing. That typically starts at the “upper class”, it’s true. But we live in the wealthiest, most advanced, prosperous civilization in the history of the world. We just choose not to build permanently. We instead build bigger, and fill our paper-thin walls with more and more luxuries, while perfectly content it will all end up in a landfill shortly after our death. Our homes have almost doubled in size in the last 50 years. Also I’d say: if we had more industry focused on structural masonry, it would bring innovation, scale, and lower costs. So, it’s a long road ahead! But one we believe in
@@maxwellstarcevich I would love to live in that world, but I just can't believe we're going to put the urban blight Genie back in the bottle. If anything, current geo political trends are pushing humanity into progressively more dense urban enclaves. That said, I'm all for keeping the dream alive, maybe it'll find fertile dirt in future generations.
That’s a fair question. One answer is to consider having enough versus having more than enough. Everyone wants giant cheap homes with underutilized space. I would much rather have a beautiful and enduring home even if it meant being “small”. We would all potentially have different views if we knew our home would be passed on to our families but that era is gone as well.
🌟 p♥r♥o♥m♥o♥s♥m
Yes yes yes! This is a brilliant little speech!
Hey thanks!
100% brother!!
"Durability is the real sustainability!"
I would love to hear what you have learned regarding structural masonry in cold four season climates. Love to see more brick homes in Colorado.
Will post link to lecture once they post! We discuss that a bit.
A great idea, but given the cost of construction, isn't this more of a novelty for millionaries at this point in time? Don't get me wrong, I'd live in a lovingly designed and constructed masonry house in a heartbeat if I could.
It's currently a novelty not because it is impossible, but because most of the industry (including the code-writers, lobbyists, and municipalities) have relentlessly pushed "new" forms of complex construction assemblies as the standard. Most of the construction industry, down to the carpenter/mason/knocker on the job site, has simply forgotten how to make things that last at the century timescale. The reason that Austin's approach tends to be a bit more "expensive" is not fundamentally because it is extravagantly costly (and there are numerous ways to measure cost) but because the knowledge supply is low. What used to be an easy job for a mason 200 years ago would be incredibly difficult for a lot of masons today.
Ultimately, it's not a novelty at all. Structural masonry construction-along with many other traditional methods of building-is present in so many regions of the world because it works. What many don't realize is that the charm of very old cities is often a result of the fact that they have been stable for centuries. Their built forms are set, and then minute changes are made over time. This creates the harmonious, highly tuned environments which millions of tourists flock to old cities to see. And at a deeper level, it is one of the foundations for a healthy culture.
Great question!
Every healthy society certainly needs cheap, temporary housing. But it also needs permanent housing. That typically starts at the “upper class”, it’s true. But we live in the wealthiest, most advanced, prosperous civilization in the history of the world. We just choose not to build permanently. We instead build bigger, and fill our paper-thin walls with more and more luxuries, while perfectly content it will all end up in a landfill shortly after our death.
Our homes have almost doubled in size in the last 50 years. Also I’d say: if we had more industry focused on structural masonry, it would bring innovation, scale, and lower costs.
So, it’s a long road ahead! But one we believe in
Exactly!! Great explanation. Thanks.
@@maxwellstarcevich I would love to live in that world, but I just can't believe we're going to put the urban blight Genie back in the bottle. If anything, current geo political trends are pushing humanity into progressively more dense urban enclaves. That said, I'm all for keeping the dream alive, maybe it'll find fertile dirt in future generations.
That’s a fair question. One answer is to consider having enough versus having more than enough. Everyone wants giant cheap homes with underutilized space. I would much rather have a beautiful and enduring home even if it meant being “small”. We would all potentially have different views if we knew our home would be passed on to our families but that era is gone as well.