stone/brick cement buildings

in a recent podcast Paul and the made a comment that thy thaught cement buildings wouldent last long and this confused me as here where i live in south africa i currently live in a brick cement house that is over 150 years old and is still in almost perfect condition after all that time the only isue being some of the wood roofing timbers that had been atacked by insects that we are busy replacing. when I was in England i also visited some places built in stone and cement that were over 1000yers old again with very little sign of wear  is there something im missing maybe somthing spicific to the north american climate that would lead yall to belive cement buildings dont last from what i see your timber homes seem to need to be replaced or repaired much more frequently not to mention them just disapearing with floods or hurricanes where cement buildings stay put.

I under stand the argument against them in terms of energy ect to build but i dont understand the longgevity argument.

Maybe he means concrete buildings rather than brick/stone bound with mortar? They don't seem to last very long.

people often transpose the words for cement and concrete.
Cement is an ingredient of concrete, just as flour is an ingredient of bread or cakes.
Its annoying to me as a Civil Engineer.
There are times and places that products with cement in them do create problems.
A portland cement based render over mud brick or cob will cause flaking and degradation of the earth.
Cement does tend to draw in moisture.
Lime based renders do not have that problem.

Thanks for that rundown John. I’m a terrible builder so I’ve never given it much thought. I think it would be awesome if you started a thread about it one day. Maybe the differences and best ways to use each? Trust me, I have no clue about such things.

Scott,

started a thread about it one day.

Which particular idea?