Since the arrival of the Spanish in the New World, people have laid cobblestones for street pavement. In eastern USA before widespread use of asphalt, many towns also originally laid down cobblestone and brick streets. Some of those brick streets underlie asphalt today. In some areas, the original cobblestone or brick streets are still exposed and useful. Unlike asphalt, they aren’t prone to potholes, though some stones or bricks might have sunk a bit with respect to their neighbors.
In Antigua, Guatemala, the original cobblestone streets easily support car and truck traffic, even though the streets are now hundreds of years old.* The streets look as though they were laid just yesterday. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, some brick and cobblestone streets, once overlain by asphalt, were stripped and rebuilt with new cobblestones. There’s little denying the long life of such materials and their superiority over the more easily laid asphalt.
It takes time and lots of people to lay a cobblestone or brick street, but by comparison with the rapidity and number of people required to lay asphalt, the economics seem to work well for city streets. Of course, running over cobblestone or brick can be a bit bumpy and noisy by comparison with a newly laid asphalt. But the tradeoff is between durability and slight discomfort. The Appian Way, built thousands of years ago to serve Roman soldiers and commercial traffic is still useable, and it supported military vehicles during the Second World War.
Cobblestone and brick streets serve as analogs for the way we have paved our life’s paths, and they beg questions: Do we take the fast and easy way to pave or the long and arduous one? Do we take the time to lay individual stones and bricks, or do we use whatever machinery and materials we can to pave rapidly? And, what’s the tradeoff? Do we choose convenience over durability?
Is it better for us to use materials that develop potholes within a few years or materials that develop only some annoying, but small, pits over tens to hundreds of years? Is fast but very temporary better than slow but very permanent?
You would probably argue: “Depends. It depends on economics, needs, and availability of materials and manpower. Sometimes I just don’t have time to do the more permanent thing.”
Yes, you have probably built both kinds of “life paths.” Can you look back to see which has served you better? Which kind are you now constructing to lead you into your future? And from your youth till now, has there been a difference in your choice of materials?
*https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=pics+o0f+cobblestone+strets+in+antigua+guatemala&fr=yhs-Lkry-SF01&hspart=Lkry&hsimp=yhs-SF01&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fantiguadailyphoto.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FCoobled-stone-streets-in-the-villages-of-Antigua-Guatemala.jpg#id=4&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fantiguadailyphoto.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FCoobled-stone-streets-in-the-villages-of-Antigua-Guatemala.jpg&action=click
In Antigua, Guatemala, the original cobblestone streets easily support car and truck traffic, even though the streets are now hundreds of years old.* The streets look as though they were laid just yesterday. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, some brick and cobblestone streets, once overlain by asphalt, were stripped and rebuilt with new cobblestones. There’s little denying the long life of such materials and their superiority over the more easily laid asphalt.
It takes time and lots of people to lay a cobblestone or brick street, but by comparison with the rapidity and number of people required to lay asphalt, the economics seem to work well for city streets. Of course, running over cobblestone or brick can be a bit bumpy and noisy by comparison with a newly laid asphalt. But the tradeoff is between durability and slight discomfort. The Appian Way, built thousands of years ago to serve Roman soldiers and commercial traffic is still useable, and it supported military vehicles during the Second World War.
Cobblestone and brick streets serve as analogs for the way we have paved our life’s paths, and they beg questions: Do we take the fast and easy way to pave or the long and arduous one? Do we take the time to lay individual stones and bricks, or do we use whatever machinery and materials we can to pave rapidly? And, what’s the tradeoff? Do we choose convenience over durability?
Is it better for us to use materials that develop potholes within a few years or materials that develop only some annoying, but small, pits over tens to hundreds of years? Is fast but very temporary better than slow but very permanent?
You would probably argue: “Depends. It depends on economics, needs, and availability of materials and manpower. Sometimes I just don’t have time to do the more permanent thing.”
Yes, you have probably built both kinds of “life paths.” Can you look back to see which has served you better? Which kind are you now constructing to lead you into your future? And from your youth till now, has there been a difference in your choice of materials?
*https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=pics+o0f+cobblestone+strets+in+antigua+guatemala&fr=yhs-Lkry-SF01&hspart=Lkry&hsimp=yhs-SF01&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fantiguadailyphoto.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FCoobled-stone-streets-in-the-villages-of-Antigua-Guatemala.jpg#id=4&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fantiguadailyphoto.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FCoobled-stone-streets-in-the-villages-of-Antigua-Guatemala.jpg&action=click
RSS Feed
