Residential tower blocks in the UK have thrown up plenty of social, environmental and economic issues since the 1970's. High-rise apartment blocks are currently the centre of much debate and often the solution has been to demolish them. But in the last few years there has been growing recognition of the value of refurbishment - in terms of 'whole cost' economic efficiency, environmental impact, and the need to provide homes. see: www.sustainingtowers.org for more information on sustainable refurbishment of tower blocks
What are your comments on the subject?
Interesting... I always love to save something from demolition but in this case I'm just not sure. High rise design has come quite a way since the 1960's. The new residential towers I see rising in American cities are vast improvements over the "projects" of the 1960's & 70's. I'm also not a huge advocate of Corb's plan of the "towers in the park." If people are going to live in the sky I just feel we as designers should provide more to the residents than some new technology on an old building. How about some sky gardens...things along those lines.
There is so much energy embodied in any building that is already in place that I'm usually a huge advocate for saving and renovating where possible. That said, this really becomes a case-by-case issue, balancing the existing amounts of toxic/hazardous materials, the proposed new use, the effect of demolition on surrounding environment, etc., etc. Even a building which looks awful (and some of those do) can be given new life through a complete transformation of its skin, space-planning, and systems, leaving the critical structure and core in place and reducing the amount of new material and waste.
This is, of course, usually more time and labor intensive but most of our industrialized economies right now are looking for more jobs, right? Making more work for people doesn't have to mean using more non-renewable resources.
Thanks for your comments... the reasons looking renewing tower blocks are many; 4.4million homes in the UK required by 2015; 4000 existing towers, which embody 40million tonnes of material = 16millon tCO2; land unavailable in the inner cities; growing suburbia causing traffic congestions...
The problem is its used to house poor people, building have poor heating and community facilities, etc...
Sky gardens sounds good! We could also tap into the high wind to generate electricity… must say the views are fantastic!
Nov 19, 04 11:54 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
sustainable refurbishment of tower blocks. Is it worth doing?
Residential tower blocks in the UK have thrown up plenty of social, environmental and economic issues since the 1970's. High-rise apartment blocks are currently the centre of much debate and often the solution has been to demolish them. But in the last few years there has been growing recognition of the value of refurbishment - in terms of 'whole cost' economic efficiency, environmental impact, and the need to provide homes. see: www.sustainingtowers.org for more information on sustainable refurbishment of tower blocks
What are your comments on the subject?
Interesting... I always love to save something from demolition but in this case I'm just not sure. High rise design has come quite a way since the 1960's. The new residential towers I see rising in American cities are vast improvements over the "projects" of the 1960's & 70's. I'm also not a huge advocate of Corb's plan of the "towers in the park." If people are going to live in the sky I just feel we as designers should provide more to the residents than some new technology on an old building. How about some sky gardens...things along those lines.
There is so much energy embodied in any building that is already in place that I'm usually a huge advocate for saving and renovating where possible. That said, this really becomes a case-by-case issue, balancing the existing amounts of toxic/hazardous materials, the proposed new use, the effect of demolition on surrounding environment, etc., etc. Even a building which looks awful (and some of those do) can be given new life through a complete transformation of its skin, space-planning, and systems, leaving the critical structure and core in place and reducing the amount of new material and waste.
This is, of course, usually more time and labor intensive but most of our industrialized economies right now are looking for more jobs, right? Making more work for people doesn't have to mean using more non-renewable resources.
Thanks for your comments... the reasons looking renewing tower blocks are many; 4.4million homes in the UK required by 2015; 4000 existing towers, which embody 40million tonnes of material = 16millon tCO2; land unavailable in the inner cities; growing suburbia causing traffic congestions...
The problem is its used to house poor people, building have poor heating and community facilities, etc...
Sky gardens sounds good! We could also tap into the high wind to generate electricity… must say the views are fantastic!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.