What's the new technology?Well that is the case with old ones. the technology has improved a lot
The important discussion is about what we should build now, when we build new.
The question being whether we should build things that imitate, cosmetically, things designed for different purposes, or build things that are suitable for what we want them to do now.
It's built to last (500 years or something crazy like that, in the spec)
Because he spends his life mending them, and they just don't work.
Well, I can't speak for what he actually uses, because I don't know, but he says that they never last, and that his answer to the question "what can I do to stop this from keeping on happening?" is: get a pitched roof.Felt roofing (if that is literally what he does) is now quite an old-fashioned way of waterproofing roofs.
Can't we? As a country, we're much richer than 200 years ago.Bath was built a couple of hundred years ago.
We can't afford to build the same thing now.
True.
That's the ghost of Corbu speaking. Everything is different now, so we need to build differently.
At the planning level, things are different to how they've been perceived to be for the past fifty or so years. We are returning to a society where mobility of both people and goods is expensive and becoming more so.
Can't we? As a country, we're much richer than 200 years ago.
There's a lot of false economy about the horribly unambitious building that goes on at the moment – we're making houses that almost certainly won't be around in 100 years' time. We're already knocking down and rebuilding stuff that was only put up in the last 50 years, and we're making the same mistakes again with what we're putting up.
I would say that it is closer to the truth to say that the current economic system makes it unprofitable to build the same thing now – more 'won't do' rather than 'can't do'.
Spend money on houing not arms for a start 
This is the point, isn't it? Good concrete buildings are expensive, and the terrible examples of social housing built out of concrete were done on the cheap.Nothing special really. Just better materials, better design, quality control by using all-in-one roof design and build companies.
Can't we? As a country, we're much richer than 200 years ago.
There's a lot of false economy about the horribly unambitious building that goes on at the moment – we're making houses that almost certainly won't be around in 100 years' time. We're already knocking down and rebuilding stuff that was only put up in the last 50 years, and we're making the same mistakes again with what we're putting up.
I would say that it is closer to the truth to say that the current economic system makes it unprofitable to build the same thing now – more 'won't do' rather than 'can't do'.
Modern membrane-type systems are much more reliable; they are much less prone to blistering and splitting if exposed to the sun for example. Generally they will come with a twenty-year guarantee if properly specified.




"Upside Down" roofs
Yes & we have just ripped out & entirely replaced at vast cost, the super-expensive, environmentally efficent, high-tech, membrane & grass flat roof that planners foisted on us for one of our new buildings about five years back, so they could look good environmentally & so the local laird could retain an uninterupted view of his estuarine estate policies.![]()
Ok, fair dos. I misunderstood.I'm not saying we can't build something equally as good. Just that we can't build a facsimile.
most of those 'green' roofs are a sham![]()
1. They're as thin as possible, which means that only scrawny bollocks will grow on themIn what way?
1. They're as thin as possible, which means that only scrawny bollocks will grow on them
2. That scrawny bollocks often dies and what you're left with is essentially 'brownfield' and it just gets colonised by weeds
If you want a truly 'green' roof, then you have to go the full distance - a proper depth of soil, a wide range of plants, and of course the large increase in structure to support it all.

This guy has some shots of that Corbusier abbey& Firminy - the French new town that features many late period buildings, some still incomplete IIRC:
www.flickr.com/photos/vladimirvulenin/
That seems silly to me. Of course it would have looked different if he'd been alive to tweak it. But he's dead, so he can't. That's no reason not to build something based on an idea of his that you think is good.Some have questioned whether it's really right to do that - given that any buildings' design changes somewhat during the construction period and this was particularly the case with Corbusier. In other words, if it had been built while he was still alive, he might have tweaked it a bit and ended up with something a bit different. Still looks good though; I'd like to visit it some time.
That seems silly to me. Of course it would have looked different if he'd been alive to tweak it. But he's dead, so he can't. That's no reason not to build something based on an idea of his that you think is good.
![]()
That's the church that was built just a couple of years ago, based on what drawings still existed.
Some have questioned whether it's really right to do that - given that any building's design changes somewhat during the construction period and this was particularly the case with Corbusier. In other words, if it had been built while he was still alive, he might have tweaked it a bit and ended up with something a bit different. Still looks good though; I'd like to visit it some time.
There is a nice big model of it in the Barbican exhibition.

Err - IIRC the church was contemporary with Corbusier's other work in Firminy. Which of course as one of his last projects, did end-up as a mainly posthumous scheme.
The concrete shell was poured & largely complete to the roof but sat derelict for many years due to some dispute - I remember various campaigns/calls from architectural groups to finish it from the early 80s onward.
ETA - Here we go. The foundation stone was laid in 1970 and construction continued in a stop-start manner after that. Indeed, the entire project seems to have been marred by partners blowing hot & cold, then pulling out & sometimes reinvolving themselves plus various financial problems & disputes. Even Corbusier himself seems to have quit at one point.
Chronology here:
http://www.sitelecorbusier.com/en/chronologie.php
The rest looks interesting too.
http://www.sitelecorbusier.com/
Also interesting to see that it has not been finished as a church internally nor consecrated - The French State being forbidden to fund religious projects. It is now a venue with a Corbusier museum in the offices beneath.