I
iseidon
Guest
I did not find a similar specific thread on the site. Only «Alternative explanation for floors below ground: buildings GREW, not built». Which doesn't quite fit my intent.
During the dispute with user @kd-755, the topic of hypothetical underground foundations came up. @kd-755 rightly noted that there is not enough evidence to consider that the building (Palace of Farmers in Kazan) was built on old underground foundations.
I totally agree with him in this, so I decided to open this thread, so that any user can post photos which show (preferably during the global redevelopment) that the "new", much taller than old buildings were built either on the old foundations or on the lower floors of the old building.
Since users from all over the more or less developed world sit here with examples of "ancient" architecture, I think there is an opportunity to collect in one place a large number of examples of such superstructures.
Especially interesting will be those buildings that were built on a large height, but before this building was not carried out capital work to strengthen the foundation. Such work cannot be hidden from the observer, because it is necessary to dig out the ground around the perimeter of the building to make the reinforcement.
If no such work was done, then it is obvious that the foundations of 1-2-3-story "ancient" buildings, which grew in height by 1.5 and more times, were obviously not meant for low-rise buildings.
The generally accepted version, explains this discrepancy more often so - "Ancestors built qualitatively and for centuries". In my humble opinion, it is very close to delirium. Because by the level of architectural performance of "ancient" buildings it is clear that they were built by specialists of high level and qualification.
This in turn suggests:
1) a developed system of training (wherever such buildings are found; especially, not in isolated cases).
2) the developed system of standardization of both building materials and tools or their analogues. Moreover, this system of standards was quite flexible, as it allowed the construction of buildings with building materials of different sizes in the same style from Chile to Siberia and from Australia to Canada.
3) about well-developed logistics in the broad sense of the word, which includes developed and coordinated organization of production and production cycles from manufacturing of machines to commissioning of the building.
I'm sure there are other traits, but I think these traits are enough.
Without all of the above attributes, the construction of buildings in a single style around the world is impossible. Official versions about conditional semi-literate (or even graceless; depending on your region and its specifics) peasant workers, who built all these masterpieces observing such a high level of performance, do not withstand any criticism.
Today, it is enough to walk through the cities of the world to see how unskilled or low-skilled construction workers work. Brickwork (for example) of the highest level is achieved only by employing workers of the highest qualifications.
In the global metropolis (USA+CA+UK+AUS+NZ+partly South Africa, Western Europe, Japan+South Korea+Taiwan, and the richest metropolises in the world), the human resources situation is better, so most buildings there are built at a fairly high level of workmanship.
In other countries, however, the level of construction work often leaves much to be desired.
On the example of Yekaterinburg (a typical city of millionaires in the colony of modern metropolis with traces of "ancient architecture"), it is clearly visible.
The brickwork in pre-revolutionary buildings is of the highest level. After the revolution and up to the 60's - more often than not - awful. Since the 1960s, on average, acceptable (depending on who the building is built for).
The main conclusion that emerges from all of the above is that the social system that was able to provide such buildings around the world was able to calculate the right foundations for these buildings. And if we see that on the conditional two-storey building five more are built on - this indicates that the foundation under the "ancient" building was designed not for two floors. Hence, questions immediately arise. How high were these buildings and where are the real foundations of such buildings.
In a previous thread, I pointed out the building for which the excavation was dug and ground consolidation to preserve the nearby historic buildings. On the link (ru), there are photos of foundation reinforcement of the neighboring historical building (Central Department Store (ru) in Voronezh), built in the 1950s, but on the site of a pre-revolutionary building.
The photos in the basement clearly show that the level of masonry is very different.
In my opinion, the following has happened. There was an old building with a smaller perimeter and fewer floors. And on top of that building (with a strong foundation) were built up several floors, as well as expanded on a number of sides. That's why we see that, when working in the basement, the closer to the center of the building, the better the masonry. And vice versa.
Later I will publish an example of a superstructure from Yekaterinburg (Glavpochtamt and Central Gastronome).
During the dispute with user @kd-755, the topic of hypothetical underground foundations came up. @kd-755 rightly noted that there is not enough evidence to consider that the building (Palace of Farmers in Kazan) was built on old underground foundations.
I totally agree with him in this, so I decided to open this thread, so that any user can post photos which show (preferably during the global redevelopment) that the "new", much taller than old buildings were built either on the old foundations or on the lower floors of the old building.
Since users from all over the more or less developed world sit here with examples of "ancient" architecture, I think there is an opportunity to collect in one place a large number of examples of such superstructures.
Especially interesting will be those buildings that were built on a large height, but before this building was not carried out capital work to strengthen the foundation. Such work cannot be hidden from the observer, because it is necessary to dig out the ground around the perimeter of the building to make the reinforcement.
If no such work was done, then it is obvious that the foundations of 1-2-3-story "ancient" buildings, which grew in height by 1.5 and more times, were obviously not meant for low-rise buildings.
The generally accepted version, explains this discrepancy more often so - "Ancestors built qualitatively and for centuries". In my humble opinion, it is very close to delirium. Because by the level of architectural performance of "ancient" buildings it is clear that they were built by specialists of high level and qualification.
This in turn suggests:
1) a developed system of training (wherever such buildings are found; especially, not in isolated cases).
2) the developed system of standardization of both building materials and tools or their analogues. Moreover, this system of standards was quite flexible, as it allowed the construction of buildings with building materials of different sizes in the same style from Chile to Siberia and from Australia to Canada.
3) about well-developed logistics in the broad sense of the word, which includes developed and coordinated organization of production and production cycles from manufacturing of machines to commissioning of the building.
I'm sure there are other traits, but I think these traits are enough.
Without all of the above attributes, the construction of buildings in a single style around the world is impossible. Official versions about conditional semi-literate (or even graceless; depending on your region and its specifics) peasant workers, who built all these masterpieces observing such a high level of performance, do not withstand any criticism.
Today, it is enough to walk through the cities of the world to see how unskilled or low-skilled construction workers work. Brickwork (for example) of the highest level is achieved only by employing workers of the highest qualifications.
In the global metropolis (USA+CA+UK+AUS+NZ+partly South Africa, Western Europe, Japan+South Korea+Taiwan, and the richest metropolises in the world), the human resources situation is better, so most buildings there are built at a fairly high level of workmanship.
In other countries, however, the level of construction work often leaves much to be desired.
On the example of Yekaterinburg (a typical city of millionaires in the colony of modern metropolis with traces of "ancient architecture"), it is clearly visible.
The brickwork in pre-revolutionary buildings is of the highest level. After the revolution and up to the 60's - more often than not - awful. Since the 1960s, on average, acceptable (depending on who the building is built for).
The main conclusion that emerges from all of the above is that the social system that was able to provide such buildings around the world was able to calculate the right foundations for these buildings. And if we see that on the conditional two-storey building five more are built on - this indicates that the foundation under the "ancient" building was designed not for two floors. Hence, questions immediately arise. How high were these buildings and where are the real foundations of such buildings.
In a previous thread, I pointed out the building for which the excavation was dug and ground consolidation to preserve the nearby historic buildings. On the link (ru), there are photos of foundation reinforcement of the neighboring historical building (Central Department Store (ru) in Voronezh), built in the 1950s, but on the site of a pre-revolutionary building.
The photos in the basement clearly show that the level of masonry is very different.
In my opinion, the following has happened. There was an old building with a smaller perimeter and fewer floors. And on top of that building (with a strong foundation) were built up several floors, as well as expanded on a number of sides. That's why we see that, when working in the basement, the closer to the center of the building, the better the masonry. And vice versa.
Later I will publish an example of a superstructure from Yekaterinburg (Glavpochtamt and Central Gastronome).