> too much water, not enough cement, etc.

I wanted to mention that Concrete is far more complex and regional than folks might imagine. The quality of gravel and sand, local impurities - these all contribute massively. It's probably best to think of it like a wine's terroir - except, unlike a bottle of wine, it's prohibitively expensive to ship both the components and the finalized mixture to different areas. If a region's limestone has a massive clay impurity then it may simply be unsuitable for large structures or require extensive filtering to the point of being uneconomical.

It's important to be aware of just how much the local geological mix can impact the viability of building with concrete because while theoretically we could use perfect concrete for every project - at that point most projects would simply be too expensive to consider undertaking. There is a very large field of engineering around establishing the realism required in settling for what you've got for the price you can afford in. It can absolutely mean that the materials required to build a high rise in Philly might be priced starkly differently from the same structure planned in Milan even with adjustments for the labor impact on pricing.

▲

bluGill an hour ago | parent [-]

> it's prohibitively expensive to ship both the components and the finalized mixture to different areas.

We could do this if it is important. There are mines in Wisconsin the export sand to the middle east because that is known to work well for fracking and they don't want to risk a local sand not working well. (AFAIK they have never tested local sand properties, but it is possible they have and it doesn't work). In this case the value of the "perfect" is well worth the high shipping costs.

	▲	munk-a an hour ago \| parent [-]
		We certainly could - it's absolutely possible. The question is if it's economical and so far the market has ruled in most cases that it isn't. Either the project doesn't need such a perfect amalgamation of materials (maybe there is an expected deprecation that doesn't justify such an outlay - possibly earthquake risk would minimize any expected lifespan gain - possibly the materials contractor just can't internally justify the added material cost while remaining attractive to local contractors). It's all a balance. Imagine a scenario where you can ship in specialized materials to build a bridge with an expected lifespan of 100 years and it'll cost 50M - or you could use local concrete that has an expected lifespan of 15 years and materials would cost 5M. This is a vast simplification of the math but, assuming those expected costs it'd be cheaper to build using local materials and just schedule replacement every 15 years. And, of course, there'll be egg on your face if you build the 50M bridge and then suffer a massive tsunami in two years that destroys the foundations anyways. To paraphrase a Grady quote: "Engineering isn't a study of building the best thing - it's optimizing the quality we can get for the cost outlay."