3 ms·
The “one plus five” buildings you’re talking about typically have concrete first floors.[1] You make good points about sidewalks etc. but at the same time that
by abalone 8y ago
The “one plus five” buildings you’re talking about typically have concrete first floors.[1]
You make good points about sidewalks etc. but at the same time that stuff needs to be built bigger and stronger and renewed more in dense urban areas. All I’m arguing for is let’s run the numbers. Don’t just assume city living is more ecological because it’s denser.
[1] http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-five-is-shaping-american_27.html http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-f...
- Kalium 8y agoThe technology now exists to construct buildings in excess of 80 meters entirely out of wood. With that in mind, it's now possible to construct dense urban areas without relying on carbon-emitting concrete or steel going into the structure. Only wood, which is a carbon sink and can be sourced sustainably. Given that this is fairly well-known - and that the impact of concrete on the environment well-studied - what is it that leads you to think that the numbers have not in fact been run?
- abalone 8y agoI would not say any of that is fairly well known. Nor that it’s clear whether you’re claiming the general consensus urbanist vision is all wood, or that it’s concrete but the emissions are ok because they’ve been “well-studied”.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]