3 ms·

One benefit in building lower is that one can built a substantial part in wood. This leads to better carbon capture and lower carbon prices. [1] Here is a mode

One benefit in building lower is that one can built a substantial part in wood. This leads to better carbon capture and lower carbon prices. [1] Here is a modern example in Sweden, in Västerås. https://www.e-architect.com/sweden/swedens-tallest-timber-building-in-vasteraas https://www.e-architect.com/sweden/swedens-tallest-timber-bu... If you really like to build taller, here is a twenty storey building in Skellefteå, Also in Sweden. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/oct/14/skelleftea-swedish-plywood-eco-town-20-storey-wooden-skyscraper-worlds-tallest https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/oct/14/skellef... [1] “the study found that the CO2 intensity (tons of CO2 emissions per dollar of output) of lumber production is about 20 percent less than that of fabricated metal products, under 50 percent that of iron and steel, and under 25 percent that of cement. In addition, shifting construction toward lumber products lowers the GDP cost of meeting the emissions cap by approximately $500 million and reduces the carbon price.” https://news.mit.edu/2019/taking-carbon-out-construction-with-engineered-wood-1211 https://news.mit.edu/2019/taking-carbon-out-construction-wit...

kolinko 5y ago
This is an oversimplification. Building lower you get lower population density, and need to spend way more co2 on transportation and infrastructure. If you’re comparing a 4-story building made of wood compared to comcrete then sure it has less emissions. But if you want to build four 4-story wood instead of one 16-story concrete, it’s not mecessarily so.
- Scandiravian 5y ago
  Not necessarily. One of the problems with high density is how to handle peak loads, like for rush hour. There's a limit to how many people can be on a metro, grocery store, etc. There's also a hard limit on how much you can scale the infrastructure before residents start choosing transportation options, that make the issue worse (like cars). The infrastructure also have to support a significant increase in garbage creation and resupplies for stores. If one of the main traffic arteries are blocked, the spillover to alternative routes might exceed the capacity and create delays, which are incredibly expensive. A lower density neighborhood, might not use the infrastructure as close to its maximum capacity on a day to day basis, but that creates redundancy for when a road is closed for maintenance and significantly lowers the risk of expensive delays. As with everything, there's several trade-offs between the options, and I think it's hard to give a definitive answer on what has the lowest emission, etc in a cradle to grave analysis. My personal preference is to take all such estimates with a significant "milage may vary" disclaimer
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > This is an oversimplification. Building lower you get lower population density, and need to spend way more co2 on transportation and infrastructure. There are diminishing returns with density and (transportation) energy use: * https://www.grida.no/resources/5414 https://www.grida.no/resources/5414 * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... IMHO getting to 50-75 inhabitants per hectare, which gives <15GJ/person/year (where most EU cities are at), is a good place to aim for. Once you're at 100ppl/ha then there's not much improvement going to 125, 200, or more.

kolinko 5y ago

This is an oversimplification. Building lower you get lower population density, and need to spend way more co2 on transportation and infrastructure. If you’re comparing a 4-story building made of wood compared to comcrete then sure it has less emissions. But if you want to build four 4-story wood instead of one 16-story concrete, it’s not mecessarily so.

Scandiravian 5y ago
Not necessarily. One of the problems with high density is how to handle peak loads, like for rush hour. There's a limit to how many people can be on a metro, grocery store, etc. There's also a hard limit on how much you can scale the infrastructure before residents start choosing transportation options, that make the issue worse (like cars). The infrastructure also have to support a significant increase in garbage creation and resupplies for stores. If one of the main traffic arteries are blocked, the spillover to alternative routes might exceed the capacity and create delays, which are incredibly expensive. A lower density neighborhood, might not use the infrastructure as close to its maximum capacity on a day to day basis, but that creates redundancy for when a road is closed for maintenance and significantly lowers the risk of expensive delays. As with everything, there's several trade-offs between the options, and I think it's hard to give a definitive answer on what has the lowest emission, etc in a cradle to grave analysis. My personal preference is to take all such estimates with a significant "milage may vary" disclaimer
throw0101a 5y ago
> This is an oversimplification. Building lower you get lower population density, and need to spend way more co2 on transportation and infrastructure. There are diminishing returns with density and (transportation) energy use: * https://www.grida.no/resources/5414 https://www.grida.no/resources/5414 * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... IMHO getting to 50-75 inhabitants per hectare, which gives <15GJ/person/year (where most EU cities are at), is a good place to aim for. Once you're at 100ppl/ha then there's not much improvement going to 125, 200, or more.