>>4152342>That's your best example of structural steel home? It's a cheap yuppie shed with a plywood ceilingYes, that's a normal example that gets build all the time, if i threw you a cherrypicked example it would've been in bad faith
>Not sure what you mean by "smash it often"Lamp posts and pier structures, when a boat bumps into a concrete pillar it chips it away little by little, wood pillars just bounce them as the tensile and impact resistance is better. Reason why a car gets all fucked up when crashing into a tree while the latter gets scot-free
>I had to stop reading.Many such cases when there's no arguments buddy, let the builders build
>Reinforced concrete is high maintenance Not really, after curating it carefully for two weeks there's nothing you should do because it just works unless you are retarded enough to leave rebar ends without protective shells IF you plan to adapt a new store.
>which is why it's used sparingly in residencesNot everywhere in the world it doesn't, it's widely used actually and that's the whole point of the discussion, americans got shafted into thinking reinforced concrete needs special attention when it's literally petrified sands with steel inside
>I inspect and replace components for this:>CanadaI think the discussion is pretty much over bro, you live in tundra and have a shitty housing industry akin to the U.S., you are conditioned into eating shit but you are excellent shit eaters so shit looks as good as the real thing often
>it's just not how things are done in the real world where money dictates everythingI agree, you guys get jewed out all the time and eat it up, we cannot change that no matter how good we design a structure
>The point is, most existing brick structures are less resilientWrong and you will be always be wrong.
>You just have to engineer it accordingly. This isn't a game, this is implicit in every part of the discussion
>>4152353They can of course, cement-only structures too, 1800 years in fact
