6 ms·

Skyscrapers specifically (tall buildings depends on definition of height), but they’re very energy intensive. You can only operate, construct, and maintain them

Skyscrapers specifically (tall buildings depends on definition of height), but they’re very energy intensive. You can only operate, construct, and maintain them with cheap oil. The problem isn’t density (most European towns are perfect here actually) but too much density. Manhattan is the opposite spectrum of suburbia, and neither are very desirable. France actually does this well in Paris, as you mentioned. The American thing to do would be tear down every arrondissement and replace with skyscrapers. Paris sort of made that mistake with part of the city before they stopped. I have to imagine that it's not that skyscrapers are great for emissions, but that the suburbs are just abysmal and so everything looks good in comparison. Walkable neighborhoods and bike-friendly development in mixed-use medium density areas is probably the best. The main issue with suburbs is that you have to drive everywhere, not necessarily the density.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Operating them is not that expensive. A building's heating and cooling needs are proportional to surface area, not volume, and in a given apartment building the vast majority of walls are shared with other units instead of outside. So a taller building is more and more efficient with regards to climate control, unless it doesn't contain a whole lot of volume. The Burj Khalifa is obviously not ideal but at least judging by, say, Hong Kong the optimal sweet spot for a building is 30-40 stories, where you're not running into massive extremes of either cost or carbon emission. The reason the suburbs perform so poorly is, among other things, transport very quickly becomes the largest contributor to emissions. Hong Kong is so dense that not only is the "fifteen minute city" more than a reality for non-work trips, but most people are within a 15 minute walk or bus ride of massive shopping malls with department stores. That being said, the end picture looks fuzzy after some more searching, mostly because it's hard to isolate variables about cities (their wealth, their climate, etc.) and also because the definition of what a "city" is varies globally. Other than "very car oriented suburbs with large lots and home sizes are big carbon emitters per capita."
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Ask people where would they rather live Hong Kong or Auckland (being second worst sprawl after LA)...
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Ask people if they would prefer to work or win the lotto. It's impractical for everyone to win the lotto.
- ericmay 5y ago
  The building's heating and cooling are just one part of the equation - you also have massive amounts of construction materials, lack of tree coverage, maintenance, transportation of materials to and from the building, etc. You did call these things out a bit in your post toward the end. I'd also argue the lack of local agriculture and the need to ship massive amounts of materials to skyscraper cities is an unaccounted for c02 emissions problem as well. > Hong Kong is so dense that not only is the "fifteen minute city" more than a reality for non-work trips, but most people are within a 15 minute walk or bus ride of massive shopping malls with department stores. I bet Munich or Amsterdam are 15 minute cities too and you don't need the skyscrapers (or at least as many). You also rightly called out that the car-oriented suburbs are big time carbon emitters. How will this change with electric cars? Will suburbs become more competitive with cities on a per-capita emissions basis? Idk. If they get close to parity that would be an alarming development for proponents of cities. I think the suburbs have a lot of potential if we could relax zoning laws and more people did things like have suburban gardens. The ideal state IMO are mixed-use, walkable and bike-able neighborhoods. They should incorporate the local environment well. If you live near the Mediterranean you paint your house white to keep it cool ad develop architectural characteristics. If you live in Ohio you have lots of tree cover, etc. Suburbs are undesirable for obvious reasons, but I think cities will be/are undesirable for other less understood reasons. Right now people in America look to them and say hey look they have great c02 emissions but it depends on what you compare them to. Do small towns and villages in Normandy have worse per-capita c02 emissions? We also have to consider there is an acceptable level of c02 emissions either way, we don't need to race to the bottom. Overall I'd say if we focus on living sustainably, and reduce the need for nation-state level manufacturing and support, we'd be better off.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    I have the opposite opinion; skyscrapers minimize the amount of land used for housing, so they are fantastic at reducing land impact. Disconnected lawns or apartment courtyards and single street trees are far too small to provide a meaningful, thriving ecosystem, particularly for roaming animals. Hong Kong's extreme density, meanwhile, allows 40% of the territory's land to be uninterrupted natural habitat. The lack of local agriculture is a far greater issue than just what skyscrapers enable. At least in the US (I'm sure in Europe as well) the seasonality of food is no longer a huge deal for availability because we're willing to ship produce halfway around the world, and that's a problem for both cities and suburbs. I'm not super confident that the timeline for our electricity getting green is going to proceed at the pace required. And there are also lots of other things electric cars don't fix, like extensive amounts of roadway runoff from roads and parking lots, impact to physical habitats, higher energy use, etc. There still isn't a great heating or cooling solution that is both low energy and works in temperature extremes, and your US suburban homeowner would balk at buying a property without AC.

bobthepanda 5y ago

Operating them is not that expensive. A building's heating and cooling needs are proportional to surface area, not volume, and in a given apartment building the vast majority of walls are shared with other units instead of outside. So a taller building is more and more efficient with regards to climate control, unless it doesn't contain a whole lot of volume. The Burj Khalifa is obviously not ideal but at least judging by, say, Hong Kong the optimal sweet spot for a building is 30-40 stories, where you're not running into massive extremes of either cost or carbon emission. The reason the suburbs perform so poorly is, among other things, transport very quickly becomes the largest contributor to emissions. Hong Kong is so dense that not only is the "fifteen minute city" more than a reality for non-work trips, but most people are within a 15 minute walk or bus ride of massive shopping malls with department stores. That being said, the end picture looks fuzzy after some more searching, mostly because it's hard to isolate variables about cities (their wealth, their climate, etc.) and also because the definition of what a "city" is varies globally. Other than "very car oriented suburbs with large lots and home sizes are big carbon emitters per capita."

dzhiurgis 5y ago
Ask people where would they rather live Hong Kong or Auckland (being second worst sprawl after LA)...
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Ask people if they would prefer to work or win the lotto. It's impractical for everyone to win the lotto.
ericmay 5y ago
The building's heating and cooling are just one part of the equation - you also have massive amounts of construction materials, lack of tree coverage, maintenance, transportation of materials to and from the building, etc. You did call these things out a bit in your post toward the end. I'd also argue the lack of local agriculture and the need to ship massive amounts of materials to skyscraper cities is an unaccounted for c02 emissions problem as well. > Hong Kong is so dense that not only is the "fifteen minute city" more than a reality for non-work trips, but most people are within a 15 minute walk or bus ride of massive shopping malls with department stores. I bet Munich or Amsterdam are 15 minute cities too and you don't need the skyscrapers (or at least as many). You also rightly called out that the car-oriented suburbs are big time carbon emitters. How will this change with electric cars? Will suburbs become more competitive with cities on a per-capita emissions basis? Idk. If they get close to parity that would be an alarming development for proponents of cities. I think the suburbs have a lot of potential if we could relax zoning laws and more people did things like have suburban gardens. The ideal state IMO are mixed-use, walkable and bike-able neighborhoods. They should incorporate the local environment well. If you live near the Mediterranean you paint your house white to keep it cool ad develop architectural characteristics. If you live in Ohio you have lots of tree cover, etc. Suburbs are undesirable for obvious reasons, but I think cities will be/are undesirable for other less understood reasons. Right now people in America look to them and say hey look they have great c02 emissions but it depends on what you compare them to. Do small towns and villages in Normandy have worse per-capita c02 emissions? We also have to consider there is an acceptable level of c02 emissions either way, we don't need to race to the bottom. Overall I'd say if we focus on living sustainably, and reduce the need for nation-state level manufacturing and support, we'd be better off.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  I have the opposite opinion; skyscrapers minimize the amount of land used for housing, so they are fantastic at reducing land impact. Disconnected lawns or apartment courtyards and single street trees are far too small to provide a meaningful, thriving ecosystem, particularly for roaming animals. Hong Kong's extreme density, meanwhile, allows 40% of the territory's land to be uninterrupted natural habitat. The lack of local agriculture is a far greater issue than just what skyscrapers enable. At least in the US (I'm sure in Europe as well) the seasonality of food is no longer a huge deal for availability because we're willing to ship produce halfway around the world, and that's a problem for both cities and suburbs. I'm not super confident that the timeline for our electricity getting green is going to proceed at the pace required. And there are also lots of other things electric cars don't fix, like extensive amounts of roadway runoff from roads and parking lots, impact to physical habitats, higher energy use, etc. There still isn't a great heating or cooling solution that is both low energy and works in temperature extremes, and your US suburban homeowner would balk at buying a property without AC.