• Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does that support ComradeSalad’s point? I.e. because if they were meant to last longer, they’d have been built differently?

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes and no. They would have been built different, but not from wood. Don’t have to go far for examples either: here’s a house that was built to last in Stalin period. ComradeSalad does raise valid points regarding temperature jumps and the need for upkeep - but the latter is an issue with the economic mode, not the materials.

        Besides, it’s the XXI century. Surely we can build things with materials a tiny bit more advanced than basic concrete