[...] tall buildings are still sold on the basis that they are good for the environment. Mostly the argument is about density – if you pile a lot of homes or workplaces high on one spot, it is said, then you can use land and public transport more efficiently. There’s some truth in this, but you can also achieve high levels of density without going above 10 or 12 storeys. — The Guardian
The Observer's Rowan Moore dissects a list of the usual arguments in favor of ever taller buildings around the world and concludes that not much of it passes the reality test of urgent climate crisis, resource scarcity, wealth distribution, city planning, global pandemic, and ultimately, good design.
Rowan writes: "It has been deemed acceptable – by the building regulations, by architects, by the professional media – to rip untold tonnes of matter from the earth and to pump similar tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, in order to produce magical architectural devices that might, if all their wizardry were to function as promised, pay back some of their carbon debt some time in the next century. By when it might be too late."
4 Comments
why do we build skyscrapers?
Mmm... Skyscraper I Love You
I guess it will still be a battle over the cost of the project and return on investment? I also wonder how much overlap there is between embodied energy concerns and clients building tall structures. Either way, I hope this article helps tilt our culture (inside architecture and out) towards embodied energy concerns.
That's why wooden tall buildings are being designed and built...or concrete that captures carbondioxide and needs much less cement has been developed. If only CO2-emissions would be taxed there would be a great financial incentive to change old habits.
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.