this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
503 points (98.5% liked)

Funny

14871 readers
1074 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

To me, it feels like a depressing underfunded public university

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

the public university i went to had lots of funds. the part of it i went to looked like this. for some reason it always felt like i was in an underfunded classroom. it bothered me.

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I love that aesthetic personally, especially compared to hyper clean hospital looking buildings

[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Not to mention, the Brutalist architecture interior will look the same in 20 years, while any other kind would just look dilapidated and aged as shit. As long as someone is living in there, concrete don't age, son. And even if it falls apart, just make some more concrete to fill it in.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago

It seems to me that concrete definitely does age and it eventually leads to collapse.

But, even ignoring the structural issues. Concrete is especially bad at looking discoloured over time. It's not that that doesn't happen to stone. But, stone starts off with its own patterns and colours which hide any discolouration. Concrete starts as some even shade of grey, which makes any discolouration much more visible. So, rust stains are more obvious, growth of mold or mildew is more obvious, efflorescence is more obvious.

If people actually did paint the concrete, like in the picture, it would help a lot. It's probably much easier to paint concrete than other things too. Because it's a manufactured material that's very even, it probably handles being painted a lot better than other kinds of stone, and especially than stone joined by mortar.

[–] Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Maybe this is just my Northeast prejudice, but brick is so much classier. Also concrete doesn't age, but rebar sure does

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Tell that to the romens, concrete ags fantastically if built for the purpose of lasting a long ass time.

[–] Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Roman concrete is unreinforced, meaning no rebar inside to rust. You can't use modern construction techniques with unreinforced concrete. It can't handle tension well.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Seriously, there's a reason we don't "build like the Romans". We would be using 10x the concrete that we use now. We can't even keep up with concrete demand now, I can't even imagine how much worse the environment would already be if we needed 10x the concrete.

[–] PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

If we needed 10x the concrete, we wouldn't have built so many cheap ugly concrete buildings.

[–] Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 15 hours ago

Yes I've been to the Pantheon and those walls are thicc