but it’ll cost way way more, and the budget isn’t unlimited.
I wish things weren’t always so short-sighted by default. I mean sometimes things evolve so maybe it’s better to leave room for teardown and improvement or whatnot.
But it seems if you’re not thinking in “quarterlies”, infrastructure that’s built once and simply maintained should cost a lot less in the long run.
But then I guess the contractors would dry up if they didn’t have to come rebuild it a dozen times a decade. :p
I feel, for the hard to replace stuff an interstate bridge in a dense city for example, aiming for a three digit life span should be considered.
Just because it kinda sucks having to replace infrastructure like that. And the city is most likely still going to be there and need that infrastructure.
I wish things weren’t always so short-sighted by default. I mean sometimes things evolve so maybe it’s better to leave room for teardown and improvement or whatnot.
But it seems if you’re not thinking in “quarterlies”, infrastructure that’s built once and simply maintained should cost a lot less in the long run.
But then I guess the contractors would dry up if they didn’t have to come rebuild it a dozen times a decade. :p
Yhea, it is better to build infrastructure that lasts, but 2000 years?
that is a bit overkill, and more of a vanity project for billionaires which is more of a cry for help (by help I mean guillotine)
I feel, for the hard to replace stuff an interstate bridge in a dense city for example, aiming for a three digit life span should be considered.
Just because it kinda sucks having to replace infrastructure like that. And the city is most likely still going to be there and need that infrastructure.
Golden gate is almost 90, empire State building also approaching a 100,
I think we can do that.