OP should send his brother to Stevenage with a hammer, he’d have the place leveled to the ground before the town council could say thank you.
German flag
I would’ve been surprised if it had been different, lol.
okay, i would like to talk to oops brother. I say bricks are cool for houses but for buildings and bridges and etc, you need concrete
I’m guessing they don’t love tall modern buildings either
I wonder what they think about affordable concrete housing
Ask him… From a distance.
Well at some point you have to stop and ask yourself, are bricks really the answer to modern civil engineering problems?
Pretty sure they’d bite your ear off for saying such a thing
Sounds like he wanted to do a 1 man blitz, in order to reverse the outcomes of the actual ‘blitz’, but thankfully he turned out to be more of a V1 doodlebug.
OPs brother is an undiagnosed autist.
You’ve got the spirit, but its right there in like the 2nd word
Dang I’m blind xD
Did you read that link before posting?
In comparison with other construction materials (aluminium, steel, even brick), concrete is one of the least energy-intensive building materials.[2]
Except it isn’t just about the energy intensity, but specifically the CO2 emission from the concrete process itself.
From the link’s sources:
The issue isn’t concrete or cement inherently but how much of is used. And it’s used because it’s either the most cost-effective material or just the only one able to deliver the required specs.
Cast concrete is best.
Concrete is a major driver of CO2 emissions. Fuck concrete.
It’s a major driver because of how much it is used. It’s the building material, nothing else even really comes close. If we used bricks to the same degree, that would be the major driver.
There’s often no good alternative to concrete. There’s lots of newer less CO2 intensive cements and cement replacements out there though. Often comes at a cost on something else though.
Bricks would be much more efficient co2 wise, they don’t have the curing process that pollutes
Don’t you have to fire bricks in a kiln? Surely that puts off some CO2?
You just cook them up electrically, I haven’t seen a charcoal kiln in ages
And where does that power come from
They also put out a lot of CO2 and you’d have a hell of a lot of issues scaling the brick production to the same level. Not to mention all the othe associated issues that bricks have.
It’s just a poor replacement for concrete at the same scale. But that’s not to knock bricks specifically, since nothing really is a good replacement at that scale.
Best we could do is to not build as much or in such a big scale, but that has issues too.
You can bake bricks using clean energy but the chemical process for creating cement itself creates co2… Y’all down voting and never held a brick in yer lives
You can also cpature the CO2 and use it in chemical processes where it is needed. Bizarrely often they’re buying the CO2 for high price even though if capture methods were common we’d have loads of stock. And lower CO2 emission cement is already a thing that’s happening, but being able to scale brick production to meet even close to the scale of concret construction is nowhere near reality.
I like bricks as a facade element but it’s just not a good replacement for concrete on the whole. It will be much much easier to try and mitigate the issues concret has than to get bricks to the level of concrete construction globally.
Also I work in construction with both concrete and bricks and have been involved in mass production of both. But go off lol
An interesting document comparing both https://www.brick.org.uk/uploads/downloads/Clay-v-Concrete-Brick-A-Comparative-Guide-2022-v.3.f1675190626.pdf
>brick.org.uk
Reminds me of when in uni all these industry reps would come in and praise their material over everyone else’s with convincing arguments and next week someone from a competing industry would come in and do the same.
I wonder how the co2 from drying/making bricks compares
Must not know about asphalt yet…
I’m sorry, is this asphalt over baked paving stones? And if so, why?
Or is this a pothole filled up with stone? And if so, why?
It’s a lovely street made of brick pavers that has been paved over with asphalt because it provides a smoother ride for vehicles and pleasant aesthetics are for losers.
It is indeed paved over. I’m sure there are reasons, but probably not good ones given potholes like this. Aside from initial cost, for large vehicles+higher speeds. IMO seems a bit like gluing carpet over wooden floorboards (which is another anger-inducing thing, especially if you’ve lived in a house with a carpeted bathroom).
Not Just Bikes has a video on brick roads in the Netherlands (the bricks being called Klinkers, video called
Natural Handcrafted Artisanal ... Streets?!), how they allow easier maintenance/re-use, brick designs instead of painting the surface after, worn klinkers used in historic areas etc.Our driveway is made from the same kind of thing, rain never pools on it as it goes down the gaps
Oh yeah, klinkers (if they’re baked clay) or the much less inspired sounding betonstraatstenen (concrete street stones) definitely have their benefits, but that video really skips over what a literally backbreaking job it is to pave a street like that, or how slippery these stones get when wet (less so for concrete or textured baked clay).
It’s mandatory to do anything over 2 hours of bricklaying by machine now, but that requires packaged stone. And packaging stone is even worse than relaying it from a pile, so you end up loading it into a truck, shipping it off for packaging and then moving it back.
You can design around that, most of the time, but we haven’t been doing that, so lots of handwork remains, which is not great for your health.
Of course, running asphalt over a street like this gets you the worst of both worlds, and its begging for potholes since the two materials match up really poorly. You do occasionally see it in the Netherlands on old roads on top of dikes that were “modernized” in the 70s and 80s.
(Edit: it’s actually more a synergy of shittyness, because you can’t really reuse most of the asphalt, because you don’t brickdust in it, and you can’t reuse the bricks because there’s asphalt on them)
Source: am dutch, took a year of civil engineering, ended up doing lots of safety and regulatory stuff for roadworks.
Since you have expertise in this maybe you can answer this question for me.
Do brick or stone roads last longer than asphalt or concrete roads?
It seems to me like they should, given the higher hardness of the material and the presumably greater resistance to freeze/thaw cycles. I have also seen a few brick roads near me that I can only imagine have gone a very long time with no maintaince (as I think the government here would rather cover it in asphalt than try to work with the bricks). The ground underneath the bricks has shifted over time forming depressions in the path that car tires take, but it is still fine to drive over at low speeds, as the slopes are smooth unlike the holes that form in asphalt.
I’ve tried googling this before but haven’t been able to find a straightforward answer as to how long a road like that can go between rounds of maintenance.
Do brick or stone roads last longer than asphalt or concrete roads?
That’s a solid “it depends”. And in this case, it depends on the definition of “lasting” and the definition of “road”.
Klinkers are near immortal, but they’re laid on what we call a “street layer” of 3cm of compacted, specifically graded sand, on top of some 25cm of less expensive sand. That sand can shift, compress and ruin the stability of the bricks. That usually happens due to heavyweight transport, or external factors (settlement of the soil underneath, tree roots, etc). If you run just passenger cars in a suburban area on steady ground, it could last 50 years. If you supply your stores on a road like that, it’s more like 10 years. But you can remove the brick, regrade/replace the sand and rebuild it from mostly the same bricks. Concrete bricks don’t last as long, and they break more when removed/packaged/relaid, I don’t really know the numbers.
Asphalt is different. Assuming we’re talking about a road that could also be made in bricks, asphalt has a surface layer of some 3-5cm, then between 10 and 20 cm of underlayers in layers of around 5 or 6cm. Then some 20-30cm of gravel, and up to half a meter of sand. That top layer lasts something like 10 to 15 years, and it suffers most from frost/thaw, UV light, etc. You don’t have to replace al of it at once though, you can patch it.
The underlayers generally fail due to traffic weight, but that can be 2, 3 or maybe even 4 cycles of surface layer replacement later. Generally, for busier (non high-way) roads, they replace the surface layer twice and the third time they do parts of the underlayers, or all of it, depending on damage. Asphalt can be 80 or 90% recycled though, but it takes quite a bit of heat (something like 3 to 6 cubic meters of gas for each ton of asphalt).
So, all in all, not all brick roads are equal, not all asphalt is equal. And “how it lasts” is a complex question too. It’s also a tough comparison, because we generally don’t build roads for the same purposes. If it’s very busy, we usually don’t use bricks.
Thanks
We pave over brick in New Orleans too. Not sure why
It was the cheapest way to improve noisy cobble or other stone roads with fancy newer asphalt technology. Until it got patchy, then it gets expensive after all…
Better keep this kid far away from any bulldozers.
I really wonder how he would feel about Roman concrete.
deleted by creator
Autist here, while brick houses are nice, I actually own a 100+yo one, they’re also not the most ideal material for anything bigger that a midrise.
Wanted to have better insulation for shits and giggles? We have a tool for that: putting proper insulation on the concrete.
Some people have some real bad ideas about insulation. No, the air gap in your brick building isn’t good. Air gaps are cheap and easy, not good. They do belong in certain strategic locations, but they can’t compete with the R-value of filling the space with blown fiberglass. Not even close.
Windows, too. The best, most energy efficient window on the market is at least 3 times worse than a few inches of blown fiberglass. Industry marketing has confused customers on that one.
Yeah, the intuition of wanting air in the cavity is a correct one. it’s just that what we actually want is a vacuum. This creates a thermal gap a d is why cups with vaccum keep shit warm/cold awesomely. We cant, realisticly achieve this so instead we shove shit into the walls to protect or little air gap from being tampered with. Fiber glass works OK, but foams work better.
Don’t know why, but I totally get this. Like, 100%, I just have it as a general feeling of disgust that I can ignore.
Edit: specifically cement blocks like the one pictured. That exact shape and texture of cement is the worst for me.
I understand the distaste for the aesthetics. But it’s a pretty inarguably better material from a structural, cost, sound blocking, etc. standpoint.
Don’t get me wrong, I love red brick, and personally want a red brick house, but I also recognize the sheer practicality of concrete blocks and would probably pick that with a brick veneer if I actually had to pay for it to be built new.
That’s literally how many German private houses are built: Autoclaved aerated concrete with a brick cladding. Looks nice and provides a lot of thermal insulation.
Your MOM looks nice and provides a lot of thermal insulation!
Good on her for taking care of herself and her home.
Oh no, far more visceral. Nothing about the aesthetics.
The brick pictured makes my hands feel dry and papery. That’s from when I was a kid, so I know what that’s about. Buuuut…
There was a period where cement was used on wire frames to do sculpture - makes me want to gag. Fully repulsive to me. A tree made from cement angers me. It’s all trash to me, zero redeeming elements.
A large cement column in a building under construction? I intentionally avoid it so as not to touch it. They smell bad, too. Once painted, I’m totally fine with them.
Dry cement powder? I would rather touch fire.
It’s a sensory processing thing. Can’t explain it more than that I guess.
I find differences in how people react to sensory inputs fascinating. I don’t have any problems with concrete or concrete powder. For me hell on earth are lenticular prints (not viewing them, but touching them) even hearing someone glide their finger over one makes my skin crawl
Huh. Yeah, I have no problem with that, but I get you.
There’s a kind of not refined pulp paper stock that was used to make cheap paperbacks, I’ve only seen it in older books from the 50s-70s, that does that to me. Only ever ran into it a few times, but if my fingernail touches it, it’s worse than being electrocuted. Full body shivers and chills. Even thinking about it tenses me up.
You got that ASMR? Seems like there’s some overlap between things like this, like you have some things you can’t stand, some that send you into a trance, and they’re infuriatingly close sometimes.
I feel you on this. Helping with the family’s construction projects still makes me writhe years later.
Aww that sounds sad 😔
