25 ms·

Building future cities out of timber could save 100B tons of CO2 emissions

149 points by cheinyeanlim 4y ago

Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
that would make some spectacular burnings
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Sprinkler systems and redundant fireproof stairways solve this problem.
- randtrain34 4y ago
  It actually doesn't, mass timber is extremely hard to ignite, see https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/21058051/climate-change-building-materials-mass-timber-cross-laminated-clt https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/2105805... (advantages section)
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    5-over-1 buildings have been known to burn pretty well while under construction, when the building is bare timber with no fire suppression. But once the walls and sprinkler system go in, they resist fire well.
    - jtlisi 4y ago
      5/1 buildings in the US don’t usually use Mass Timber. They use traditional light framing techniques for the 5 wooden floors.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Exactly! what would happen next time riots break out in the US? Potentially near entire cities burning down to the ground, if it's a windy day. The way fire spread in wood built Japanese cities like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_fire_of_Meireki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_fire_of_Meireki
idiotsecant 4y ago
Timber high rises seem somewhat dangerous from a fire perspective, surely
- ericmay 4y ago
  That’s a good reason not to build them, and keep building heights lower so that neighborhoods, towns, and cities have a good level of density.
  - itake 4y ago
    That is basically what LA did and they ended up with a traffic nightmare.
    - swlkr 4y ago
      LA has a traffic nightmare because most of the "city" is single family housing.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      not that low
      - galangalalgol 4y ago
        What is. Agood number? 20 stories? 10?
        bombcar 4y ago
        I’d say five or six for residential - preferably mixed use.
    - j16sdiz 4y ago
      I believe it is a zoning problem. We need more mixed use land.
    - ericmay 4y ago
robomartin 4y ago
> if at least 90 percent of the world’s new urban population is housed in buildings made from wood I put this in the category of my favorite joke with regards to physics in the classroom vs. real-world physics. It goes something like this: "Assume a cow is a uniform sphere of milk, one meter in diameter" Anyone who has studied physics to a reasonable depth understands the great disparity between the "assume..." constraints of classroom teaching (which are necessary to be able to learn) and what happens with real-world problems. This is at that level. At least NINETY PERCENT? C'mon. I thought Disney was where fantasies are made for entertainment, not in scientific research. We've just experienced several very large fires in California. Just one of these probably emits more CO2 than all internal combustion vehicles in the state in a day. I remember reading vegetation fires in California, in one year, emit the equivalent of 25% of the CO2 emitted by the entire transportation sector in the state during the same year. In other words, if internal combustion engine cars went away tomorrow, we would still produce so much CO2 from fires it would almost be pointless. Now add to this the additional fires we would have to contend with if we plant millions/billions of trees. The fires would be larger and likely more frequent. They would probably destroy more property and wild life. And now, add to this entire cities built out of timber, rather than concrete. In other words, in a sense, storing the CO2 containing wood in a structure full of electrical wiring, gas lines, and other fire hazards. Yes, that would be intelligent. Instead of creating less fire danger, increase it. Exponentially. Like a I said, assume a cow is a uniform sphere of milk one meter in diameter and everything is possible. EDIT: The irony, of course, is that massive reforestation around the world is likely the only realistic way to capture CO2 at scale.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  Except forest fires do not produce CO2. They release carbon that has been temporarily stored in trees and is part of the carbon cycle. On the other hand, by driving a car, you are adding to the atmosphere carbon that has not been in the cycle. Btw, for the same reason, neither planting trees nor building cities out of wood will do anything. It is awfully hard to preserve wood forever in any large quantities that would make any difference.
  - 4y ago
renewiltord 4y ago
Had a relative who was an executive at a timber-only structural design firm and I visited them a few times so I know a little bit more than a layman. Comments here are kinda low-brow, honestly. A little disappointed by that. Anyway, there are all sorts of timber-based products these days. I'll pick one, cross-laminated timber, and just link a bunch of basic stuff: - fire resistance, measured by the Forestry Service https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVTCOmRGd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVTCOmRGd0 - structural integrity code https://shop.iccsafe.org/mass-timber-buildings-and-the-ibcr.html https://shop.iccsafe.org/mass-timber-buildings-and-the-ibcr.... (high-rises approved in the International Building Code) - structural integrity example https://www.ascentmke.com/ https://www.ascentmke.com/ 25 story building in Milwaukee (strictly uses both CLT and glulam, but well, give me a little slack)
- gonzo41 4y ago
  That fire resistance video is impressive.
- trinovantes 4y ago
  I'm more concerned about noise isolation Concrete buildings seem to isolate my neighbors' noise far better than wooden structures
  - thewebcount 4y ago
    Yeah, I lived in a wood frame building. The first week we were there, we heard some young kids right outside our door making noise. I opened the door to ask them to quiet down and there was nobody there. But I can still hear them. So I go up one floor. No kids, but they’re still just as audible as before. I go up one more floor to the top floor. Sure enough that’s where they were, 2 floors above us. It sounded like they were at our doorstep. Needless to say we moved out after just under a year because of the noise problems.
    - BirdieNZ 4y ago
      Note that this isn't a problem in wood frame buildings built with proper sound insulation, so it's more that regulations in many municipalities allow weak sound insulation, and developers build to the cheapest spec possible if there's no compelling reason not to.
jacknews 4y ago
I think the new processes for smelting steel are carbon neutral, and steel is highly recyclable. I think it would make sense to have hybrid steel-wood buildings, using a steel superstructure. And also use MgO cement where something mineral is needed or desired, as I think that is also carbon neutral.
- SECProto 4y ago
  We're working towards carbon neutral steel, but not there yet. Here's an article https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-promise-of-carbon-neutral-steel https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/th...
  - jacknews 4y ago
    Yes maybe it's not quite full production ready yet, but it looks like it's very close, going by for example this https://www.treehugger.com/boston-metal-electrifies-steel-manufacturing-5703606 https://www.treehugger.com/boston-metal-electrifies-steel-ma...
    - diordiderot 4y ago
      How long will it take to rebuild or refurbish every steel manufacturer
      - jacknews 4y ago
        Probably quicker than a wholesale transition to 'wooden skyscrapers'. Don't get me wrong I do like the idea, but I also see a place for 'green steel'.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  > I think it would make sense to have hybrid steel-wood buildings Why? What advantages do you imagine come from not using wood?
  - 4y ago
donatj 4y ago
My sister lived in a very new timber apartment building on the 3rd floor. I'm not sure if there had been a water leak or what but the whole floor of her apartments main living area notably drooped in the middle and was kind of bouncy. She claimed she couldn't notice it but I found it really unnerving.
- ocbyc 4y ago
  Also it allows you to participate in your neighbors arguments without even being invited over.
  - sparsely 4y ago
    This is totally untrue IME of modern mass timber buildings. The sound isolation is excellent.
    - ocbyc 4y ago
      I lived in a 6 story building in Santa Monica. I disagree wholeheartedly.
      - sparsely 4y ago
        Given that Santa Monica is in the USA, my suspicion is that it's wood frame rather than mass timber as deployed elsewhere, with thick heavily insulated flooring, see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZGuSC7KNvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZGuSC7KNvM
        ocbyc 4y ago
        Ah, gotcha. I was indeed incorrect.
- kkfx 4y ago
  The issue with wood based homes is that they are really good for SMALL individual homes. NOT for tall buildings despite theoretically xlam and co allow to build them... It's not only a matter of water-leaks but also of noise, low thermal mass with the need of more effective ventilation and precise heating hard to get in a large building etc. In ecological terms it's a matter of scale: trees keep growing IF we do not cut them too much. So at a certain level of demand wood is renewable, above it's not. In human terms pushing revolutions is not much good because anything have and EOL and if we build much in a short period of time we need to rebuild en mass when it will reach it's EOL and we do not know up front in what kind of situation we will be at that point in time. So better a slow evolution, sparse, to have backups and low "new generation" demand in the timeline... The real points though are IMO: - who need apartments? People or those who sell them/sell the land since selling many apartments means much more profit than single-family homes? - how can dense city/big buildings evolve? We know that they have a limited lifecycle, however no one seems to care up-front about it. Single family homes with a bit of land around can be rebuilt for instance at a generational change, it's easy to reach the decision as a single owner with a single family impacted, it's nearly impossible with MANY families in a single building. - can dense area evolve well? For instance few decades ago cars was not that spread, so cities was not built for them. Cars arrive. Dense cities have struggled enormously to add them and nowadays we mostly agree that in dense are the sole option is public transports for nearly all since there is no physical place for cars for all. Cities built for cars for all on contrary struggle to maintain their road networks, their economy need a continuous growth witch works ONLY until old infra reach their EOL. Again not evolutionary plans was made up front. We are talking about flying cars nowadays, where to land tomorrow? We have seen the shift from shopping centers to on-line retails where to adapt to receive large boxes when we are not at home in a tall building? Spread enough single-family homes with small scattered buildings for work/service purpose on contrary CAN evolve. No matter much if we foresee well or not. Well... IMVHO cities have reached the point of "too much density", there is no more economy of scale in them respect of their many issues. We still need a bit of density, we still are social animals, but instead of evolving toward bigger and bigger dense area, hubs in the middle of nothing, we need to spread, in a partially interconnected and mixed network. Like who? The classic internet vs today's one? In the end actual research shows that "any kind of network" tend to behave similarly... And those seems to be lessons no one want to take...
skybrian 4y ago
They mention mass timber, but lots of buildings in the US already use wood framing, and 5+1 apartment blocks (with the top 5 floors using wood framing) are going up everywhere.
- noobermin 4y ago
  Mass timber is a specific type of building type which is distinct from wood framing. From this[0] article: >If the primary load-bearing structure is made of either solid or engineered wood, it’s a mass-timber building. A building that uses mass timber as an accent and not a primary structural element isn’t mass timber. [0] https://www.constructiondive.com/news/mass-timber-101-understanding-the-emerging-building-type/443476/ https://www.constructiondive.com/news/mass-timber-101-unders...
  - skybrian 4y ago
    Yes, I agree. I think mass timber is only used in fancy commercial or institutional buildings, though? So it seemed worth pointing out the more common, ordinary kind. It seems doubtful that "future cities" will be primarily skyscrapers when quite high densities can be achieved with buildings that don't go above five stories or so and are cheaper to build.
    - diordiderot 4y ago
      > I think mass timber is only used in fancy commercial or institutional buildings Very common in new apartment buildings in Europe and becoming more so. They're built (more like assembled) faster than concrete or metal
      - skybrian 4y ago
        What do the typical ones look like? I only see the fancy architectural renderings.
        diordiderot 4y ago
credit_guy 4y ago
For context, humanity produces about 50 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. This estimate of 100 billion tons is between now and 2100, so about 1.2 billion tons per year savings. That's not nothing, but it's not that impressive either. And if it turns out the assumptions in the estimate are a bit optimistic, then it becomes more or less a rounding error.
- ido 4y ago
  2.4% savings in emissions is massive. It obviously not on its own the only measure we need to take.
  - shepherdjerred 4y ago
    It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the other changes we need. Of course we can do things in parallel, and I’m not saying this isn’t worth doing, but this is one of the least important things we could do to curb emissions.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Two hundredth is far from a drop in the bucket. It's huge. You would just need fifty things of a similar magnitude to be done with the issue. A lot of actions which are definitely worth taking (all of them are anyway) have a far smaller impact.
    - hugh-avherald 4y ago
      More like 5000 drops of water in the bucket.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    The impact of cutting a military budget worldwide to half of today's spending would bring up to 8% percent. If we still need to have wars worldwide, why not take a look at the current China India conflict as an example. There they agreed to fight only with sticks and clubs, and it's working great for both sides.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jjallen 4y ago
This would be a great solution, if we could reliably prevent them from going up in flames, for two obvious reasons. How many times have we heard about [old-town] burned in [year]? This would happen again negating any environmental benefits and obviously costing a ton of money to rebuild. Maybe if we could get the burn rate down to 1% a year it would be a benefit?
- viraptor 4y ago
  I don't think that really applies here. The article concentrates on replacing cities and concrete with timber. Old towns burning down have different issues than downtown office buildings. Also in general, processed timber can be made more fireproof than many usual materials.
- herbst 4y ago
  I am not sure why. But this is really uncommon here in Switzerland. Sure sometimes there is an old house burning down somewhere but nether do we talk about spreading fires nor do I have to pay more insurance for living in a 100% wooden house.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  That isn't a problem with CLT, which is so dense it usually just chars the outside. Only at temperatures that could destroy concrete and steel buildings does it really burn.
blippage 4y ago
Great Fire of London 2.0
- mschuster91 4y ago
  For what it's worth: wood actually has better properties in the case of a structural fire than today's usual stuff - it gradually loses its rigidity, compared to the iron in reinforced concrete which suddenly snaps [1]. [1] https://www.hilti.de/content/hilti/E3/DE/de/business/news-und-events/magazine/directory/trends/firestop-wood.html https://www.hilti.de/content/hilti/E3/DE/de/business/news-un...
  - notahacker 4y ago
    On the other hand, the reinforced concrete itself isn't combustible, and gradually losing rigidity whilst burning isn't exactly a desirable structural property. And building entirely from timber implies using a whole lot of combustible woods, not just glulam beams. (Then again, this is pretty standard practice in housing anyway...) Construction solely in reinforced concrete might be undesirable for other reasons, including environmental impact, but does tend to isolate household fires so they burn themselves out long before the structure is threatened
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      > Construction solely in reinforced concrete might be undesirable for other reasons, including environmental impact, but does tend to isolate household fires so they burn themselves out long before the structure is threatened So what? Then change building codes to - mandate fire suppression systems like sprinklers in wooden houses - require a licensed electrician to review the condition of the electrical wiring every ten to twenty years and to bring it up to code at least every twenty years - ban space heaters and force landlords to provide state of the art heating systems instead These are the most common causes of house fires not related to cooking [1], so forcing landlords to actually do their job and not be slumlords should cut down on a very high amount of fires. [1] https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/residence/protect-your-home-against-these-common-causes-of-house-fires https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/residence/protect-...
rsecora 4y ago
Not enough timber in the world. There is a risk of deforestation and ending as Easter Island inhabitants.
- mauvehaus 4y ago
  I have an Outside In episode for you[0]. Turns out, the inhabitants of Rapa Nui didn't clear-cut the island to build the moai. [0] https://www.nhpr.org/environment/2021-10-21/outside-in-rapa-nui-easter-island https://www.nhpr.org/environment/2021-10-21/outside-in-rapa-...
deepdriver 4y ago
Rammed earth is more abundant, potentially cheaper, and has far better sound and thermal insulation properties: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220705-the-sustainable-cities-made-from-mud https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220705-the-sustainable-... It is more labor-intensive but easily automated, at least one start-up has worked/is working on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TXj5IIkUIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TXj5IIkUIY Rammed earth panels can also be prefabricated and delivered to build site via truck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFddMSRel4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFddMSRel4A The city of Shibam in Yemen shows how a high-rise rammed earth/adobe city might look. It's possible to adapt this technique to wet climates with appropriate plasters and maintenance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm8OGIZ7tag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm8OGIZ7tag
- jaclaz 4y ago
  Past thread about rammed earth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32042797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32042797
pelasaco 4y ago
Sure, 2020/2021 the prices of Timber exploded due higher demand. This variable is simply not taken into account. "And there are also big question marks over the safety implications of shifting to predominantly wood-based construction. While the paper states that engineered wood is “associated with fire resistance,” the jury is still out on whether it is truly as safe as traditional building materials." Not just that. Aging and Maintenance, warping, pest infection and other benefits from concrete like durability, energy efficiency... I guess the authors never read the 3 little pigs. You just need a Wolf with some Howitzer trying to free your country from the West, to you understand the advantage of Concrete vs Timber..
- vpilcx 4y ago
  Alright, engineers, let's reference that seminal work: 3 Little Pigs.
  - pelasaco 4y ago
    I just used this seminal work to make clear why people build houses/castles and walls from concrete and not from Timber/Lumber...
- lordswork 4y ago
  >Sure, 2020/2021 the prices of Timber exploded due higher demand. This variable is simply not taken into account. Indeed, the article ignores costs entirely. According to a 2020 study, mass timber buildings costs 2.4-12% more than concrete buildings over their lifetime[1]. That said, if carbon emissions were taxed to account the destruction they cause to the world (and consequently the global economy), I bet wood timber buildings would be way cheaper to build, even in the middle of supply shortage like we saw during the pandemic. [1]: https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2020/fpl_2020_gu001.pdf https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2020/fpl_2020_gu001....
ETH_start 4y ago
This seems like a bad idea..
ACV001 4y ago
Cut the trees to save CO2 emissions. Somebody forgot that trees consume CO2 themselves and if this type of housing gets adopted widely, some companies will not wait for 10-20 years for the planted trees to grow, but will look for less ethical sources like existing wild forests.
- gtvwill 4y ago
  May I introduce you to Forestry Corp NSW. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-07/anti-logging-protests-koala-habitat-mid-north-coast-nsw-forestry/101391074 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-07/anti-logging-protests...
- s8s8discourse 4y ago
  Trees only have a finite lifespan. Even "wild" forests reach end of life stage and that's when responsible logging and forestry management can promote healthier forests. Using those trees sequesters the captured carbon into structures. Leaving them to stand and die in the forest releases that captured carbon.
  - Gravityloss 4y ago
    Trees can grow over a century and stay up for centuries. Large old trees over here have scars from multiple survived forest firest etc. Cutting down a 50 year old tree and putting it to a building instead of letting it grow is not an obvious carbon sink to me. The branches might be used for energy nowadays, but the bark and roots will release CO2 etc. The new sapling will grow very slowly (kg carbon per year) for the first 15 years.
    - s8s8discourse 4y ago
      Some trees can grow over a century. Some can't. Some trees growth top out by 50 years and then grow incredibly slowly (sequestering carbon at a much slower rate). Some grow for 300 years and sequester carbon at a constant rate. Which is why it's called woodland _management_. "Having survived multiple forest fires" says a lot to me. Surviving a forest fire still invokes a huge release of otherwise captured carbon for no gain. Harvesting trees for timber means the bulk of the tree sequesters carbon into the structure, and the waste byproduct can be utilised to provide energy for the process. With the correct tooling and processes, it's as close to carbon neutral as you can get.
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Has the sand issue been resolved? It'd been reported that we're running out of sand suitable for concrete. Yes, I know, "Sand? Are you crazy? The world is full of sand!". But river-polished coarse sand is no good for concrete. It has to be of a particular size and roughness to be any use. And the easy sources had run out. Sure, you could find a process to 'make sand'. But it by definition is more expensive than 'drive a truck to where the right kind is lying on the ground and load it up'. So the price of concrete went through the roof. The 'age of concrete' may be over. So this issue may be moot.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Lime is even more of a problem than sand. We cannot cheaply or energy efficiently make it.
aaasss333 4y ago
How about bamboo?
jschveibinz 4y ago
Some parameters to consider in the discussion: 1. We need buildings to live in 2. It takes materials to make buildings. What are the potential materials? A. Wood B. Metal C. Concrete D. Soil E. Rock F. Plastic G. Ceramics (brick) H. Others? 3. It takes energy to process materials for construction. 4. It takes energy to construct buildings. 5. Energy sources: A. Sun B. Wind C. Water/Ocean D. Nuclear E. Fossil fuels F. Others? 6. Other parameters? e.g. cost, speed, labor, quality, durability, aesthetics, etc. If one takes all of the parameters into consideration, a model (with weighting) can be developed and one can attempt to optimize the model for either net CO2, or convenience, or whatever. It's a decision problem. Calling all math/physics/engineering folks in this forum: please propose a way to help figure this out. And thank you.
- throwaway787544 4y ago
  You forgot politics in your parameters, arguably the single biggest factor in building.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    And personal preferences. People wanting bigger, fancier houses/condos/etc are a huge factor.
    - at-fates-hands 4y ago
      And those people want tear down the old house and build a bigger, fancier house where the smaller, less environmentally impactful houses stood. In my old upper middle class neighborhood, our entire block of houses on our small cul-de-sac were all California ramblers. Small (under 3K sq ft), but on larger lots (some were 1/4 or 1/2 acre lots) near several natural ponds and wetland areas. Over the course of the last 15 years, out of the two dozen or so houses, only four or five are left as original. Thee rest were all bought, torn down and had huge, multi-million dollar houses which took up almost the entire lot built instead. You're right, personal preference is a big one, and there are other obvious mechanisms at work here such as the city letting this happen because they benefit from the increased taxes they collect, but its not helping the environment at all.
jannw 4y ago
Many cities were originally built mostly in wood (e.g. London, Amsterdam). There's a good reason that they aren't any more. They burnt down - quickly and spectacularly. Typically laws were then made to require only re-building in stone e.g. After the great fire of London "The Rebuilding of London Act 1666 banned wood from the exterior of buildings"
- danielfoster 4y ago
  Modern timber buildings have superior fire resistance. I am sure sprinkler systems and fire hydrants have changed the equation since 1666, too.
throwaway787544 4y ago
Timber isn't the answer. The system is complex, and we need holistic solutions, not single-factor ones. I think the answer is to stop building so dense, reduce our population, and reintroduce more nature to our deforested, inefficiently farmed, overly-paved modern world. The more we have 12-story buildings, the harder they are to build and maintain. 3 and 4-story buildings are much easier, can be made with timber easily, etc. But we need to spread them out more. This would be good, as we could create more small businesses to service the people, less dense areas would require less intense civil management, communities would be smaller and more familiar. The more people we have, the worse things get. You need more homes, cities get more dense, you require more resources / food / consumer goods / land, create more CO2. Quite simply, we have a shitload of people, and that causes us all kinds of headaches. If we just had fewer people, we'd have fewer headaches. We don't need to live like bunnies/rats/cockroaches constantly multiplying. And quite frankly, the planet would do much better with fewer of us. We would also thrive more in a world closer to nature. You notice how there's fewer insects, fish are mostly disappeared, invasive species are rampant, and cities are increasingly hot and polluted? Most of that changes if we undo most of our "developing" and let nature come back. Replace concrete sidewalks with forest trails, grass lawns with trees and weeds and bushes. Remove [at least] half the roads and replace them with canopy and gardens. Grow only sustainable multicultures of foods on a quarter of the existing farmland (and stop growing so much fucking corn!) and pay a decent wage to work the land. Bring rivers and streams back. You will notice cities get cooler, biodiversity increase, CO2 emissions decrease, and our health will improve. Not to mention fewer car accidents, less noise pollution.
- pnutjam 4y ago
  OK, now show your work where you propose a solution that ends in "fewer people". Where do all those extra people go?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
devX3 4y ago
I'll take the massive concrete bunker in my concrete house over any wooden structure as I'm way to close to Russia.
vidarh 4y ago
And it doesn't need to mean low density housing. This is a ~80 meter, 18 storey hotel built out of wood: https://prismpub.com/mjosa-tower-brumunddal-take-title-worlds-tallest-wooden-building/ https://prismpub.com/mjosa-tower-brumunddal-take-title-world... https://thetravelbook.world/2020/10/17/wood-hotel-brumunddal/ https://thetravelbook.world/2020/10/17/wood-hotel-brumunddal... (It's also on booking.com; search for the location "Brumunddal" and/or "Wood Hotel")
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Provided we grow as much as we cut, and let the ecosystem regenerate where we cut. Which is a huge if.
egberts1 4y ago
Sounds great except for that marginal gain and perhaps a pending doom by “Great Fire of London”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London
enviclash 4y ago
I have heard a lot of propaganda against this, without a clear or solid basis, from professionals in the industry.
theptip 4y ago
> Nonetheless, the researchers admit that there is still likely to be some impact on biodiversity due to the replacement of virgin woodland with timber monocultures.” Is there something preventing us from replenishing the natural woodland after harvesting wood without making it monocrop? Presumably it’s more expensive to thin out an area vs. just clearcutting. But even then if you just cut blocks inside a larger area and replant the trees, won’t everything else come back too?

149 points by cheinyeanlim 4y ago

Iwan-Zotow 4y ago

that would make some spectacular burnings

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Sprinkler systems and redundant fireproof stairways solve this problem.
randtrain34 4y ago
It actually doesn't, mass timber is extremely hard to ignite, see https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/21058051/climate-change-building-materials-mass-timber-cross-laminated-clt https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/2105805... (advantages section)
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  5-over-1 buildings have been known to burn pretty well while under construction, when the building is bare timber with no fire suppression. But once the walls and sprinkler system go in, they resist fire well.
  - jtlisi 4y ago
    5/1 buildings in the US don’t usually use Mass Timber. They use traditional light framing techniques for the 5 wooden floors.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
Exactly! what would happen next time riots break out in the US? Potentially near entire cities burning down to the ground, if it's a windy day. The way fire spread in wood built Japanese cities like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_fire_of_Meireki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_fire_of_Meireki

idiotsecant 4y ago

Timber high rises seem somewhat dangerous from a fire perspective, surely

ericmay 4y ago
That’s a good reason not to build them, and keep building heights lower so that neighborhoods, towns, and cities have a good level of density.
- itake 4y ago
  That is basically what LA did and they ended up with a traffic nightmare.
  - swlkr 4y ago
    LA has a traffic nightmare because most of the "city" is single family housing.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    not that low
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      What is. Agood number? 20 stories? 10?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        I’d say five or six for residential - preferably mixed use.
  - j16sdiz 4y ago
    I believe it is a zoning problem. We need more mixed use land.
  - ericmay 4y ago

robomartin 4y ago

> if at least 90 percent of the world’s new urban population is housed in buildings made from wood I put this in the category of my favorite joke with regards to physics in the classroom vs. real-world physics. It goes something like this: "Assume a cow is a uniform sphere of milk, one meter in diameter" Anyone who has studied physics to a reasonable depth understands the great disparity between the "assume..." constraints of classroom teaching (which are necessary to be able to learn) and what happens with real-world problems. This is at that level. At least NINETY PERCENT? C'mon. I thought Disney was where fantasies are made for entertainment, not in scientific research. We've just experienced several very large fires in California. Just one of these probably emits more CO2 than all internal combustion vehicles in the state in a day. I remember reading vegetation fires in California, in one year, emit the equivalent of 25% of the CO2 emitted by the entire transportation sector in the state during the same year. In other words, if internal combustion engine cars went away tomorrow, we would still produce so much CO2 from fires it would almost be pointless. Now add to this the additional fires we would have to contend with if we plant millions/billions of trees. The fires would be larger and likely more frequent. They would probably destroy more property and wild life. And now, add to this entire cities built out of timber, rather than concrete. In other words, in a sense, storing the CO2 containing wood in a structure full of electrical wiring, gas lines, and other fire hazards. Yes, that would be intelligent. Instead of creating less fire danger, increase it. Exponentially. Like a I said, assume a cow is a uniform sphere of milk one meter in diameter and everything is possible. EDIT: The irony, of course, is that massive reforestation around the world is likely the only realistic way to capture CO2 at scale.

twawaaay 4y ago
Except forest fires do not produce CO2. They release carbon that has been temporarily stored in trees and is part of the carbon cycle. On the other hand, by driving a car, you are adding to the atmosphere carbon that has not been in the cycle. Btw, for the same reason, neither planting trees nor building cities out of wood will do anything. It is awfully hard to preserve wood forever in any large quantities that would make any difference.
- 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

Had a relative who was an executive at a timber-only structural design firm and I visited them a few times so I know a little bit more than a layman. Comments here are kinda low-brow, honestly. A little disappointed by that. Anyway, there are all sorts of timber-based products these days. I'll pick one, cross-laminated timber, and just link a bunch of basic stuff: - fire resistance, measured by the Forestry Service https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVTCOmRGd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVTCOmRGd0 - structural integrity code https://shop.iccsafe.org/mass-timber-buildings-and-the-ibcr.html https://shop.iccsafe.org/mass-timber-buildings-and-the-ibcr.... (high-rises approved in the International Building Code) - structural integrity example https://www.ascentmke.com/ https://www.ascentmke.com/ 25 story building in Milwaukee (strictly uses both CLT and glulam, but well, give me a little slack)

gonzo41 4y ago
That fire resistance video is impressive.
trinovantes 4y ago
I'm more concerned about noise isolation Concrete buildings seem to isolate my neighbors' noise far better than wooden structures
- thewebcount 4y ago
  Yeah, I lived in a wood frame building. The first week we were there, we heard some young kids right outside our door making noise. I opened the door to ask them to quiet down and there was nobody there. But I can still hear them. So I go up one floor. No kids, but they’re still just as audible as before. I go up one more floor to the top floor. Sure enough that’s where they were, 2 floors above us. It sounded like they were at our doorstep. Needless to say we moved out after just under a year because of the noise problems.
  - BirdieNZ 4y ago
    Note that this isn't a problem in wood frame buildings built with proper sound insulation, so it's more that regulations in many municipalities allow weak sound insulation, and developers build to the cheapest spec possible if there's no compelling reason not to.

jacknews 4y ago

I think the new processes for smelting steel are carbon neutral, and steel is highly recyclable. I think it would make sense to have hybrid steel-wood buildings, using a steel superstructure. And also use MgO cement where something mineral is needed or desired, as I think that is also carbon neutral.

SECProto 4y ago
We're working towards carbon neutral steel, but not there yet. Here's an article https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-promise-of-carbon-neutral-steel https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/th...
- jacknews 4y ago
  Yes maybe it's not quite full production ready yet, but it looks like it's very close, going by for example this https://www.treehugger.com/boston-metal-electrifies-steel-manufacturing-5703606 https://www.treehugger.com/boston-metal-electrifies-steel-ma...
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    How long will it take to rebuild or refurbish every steel manufacturer
    - jacknews 4y ago
      Probably quicker than a wholesale transition to 'wooden skyscrapers'. Don't get me wrong I do like the idea, but I also see a place for 'green steel'.
diordiderot 4y ago
> I think it would make sense to have hybrid steel-wood buildings Why? What advantages do you imagine come from not using wood?
- 4y ago

donatj 4y ago

My sister lived in a very new timber apartment building on the 3rd floor. I'm not sure if there had been a water leak or what but the whole floor of her apartments main living area notably drooped in the middle and was kind of bouncy. She claimed she couldn't notice it but I found it really unnerving.

ocbyc 4y ago
Also it allows you to participate in your neighbors arguments without even being invited over.
- sparsely 4y ago
  This is totally untrue IME of modern mass timber buildings. The sound isolation is excellent.
  - ocbyc 4y ago
    I lived in a 6 story building in Santa Monica. I disagree wholeheartedly.
    - sparsely 4y ago
      Given that Santa Monica is in the USA, my suspicion is that it's wood frame rather than mass timber as deployed elsewhere, with thick heavily insulated flooring, see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZGuSC7KNvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZGuSC7KNvM
      - ocbyc 4y ago
        Ah, gotcha. I was indeed incorrect.
kkfx 4y ago
The issue with wood based homes is that they are really good for SMALL individual homes. NOT for tall buildings despite theoretically xlam and co allow to build them... It's not only a matter of water-leaks but also of noise, low thermal mass with the need of more effective ventilation and precise heating hard to get in a large building etc. In ecological terms it's a matter of scale: trees keep growing IF we do not cut them too much. So at a certain level of demand wood is renewable, above it's not. In human terms pushing revolutions is not much good because anything have and EOL and if we build much in a short period of time we need to rebuild en mass when it will reach it's EOL and we do not know up front in what kind of situation we will be at that point in time. So better a slow evolution, sparse, to have backups and low "new generation" demand in the timeline... The real points though are IMO: - who need apartments? People or those who sell them/sell the land since selling many apartments means much more profit than single-family homes? - how can dense city/big buildings evolve? We know that they have a limited lifecycle, however no one seems to care up-front about it. Single family homes with a bit of land around can be rebuilt for instance at a generational change, it's easy to reach the decision as a single owner with a single family impacted, it's nearly impossible with MANY families in a single building. - can dense area evolve well? For instance few decades ago cars was not that spread, so cities was not built for them. Cars arrive. Dense cities have struggled enormously to add them and nowadays we mostly agree that in dense are the sole option is public transports for nearly all since there is no physical place for cars for all. Cities built for cars for all on contrary struggle to maintain their road networks, their economy need a continuous growth witch works ONLY until old infra reach their EOL. Again not evolutionary plans was made up front. We are talking about flying cars nowadays, where to land tomorrow? We have seen the shift from shopping centers to on-line retails where to adapt to receive large boxes when we are not at home in a tall building? Spread enough single-family homes with small scattered buildings for work/service purpose on contrary CAN evolve. No matter much if we foresee well or not. Well... IMVHO cities have reached the point of "too much density", there is no more economy of scale in them respect of their many issues. We still need a bit of density, we still are social animals, but instead of evolving toward bigger and bigger dense area, hubs in the middle of nothing, we need to spread, in a partially interconnected and mixed network. Like who? The classic internet vs today's one? In the end actual research shows that "any kind of network" tend to behave similarly... And those seems to be lessons no one want to take...

skybrian 4y ago

They mention mass timber, but lots of buildings in the US already use wood framing, and 5+1 apartment blocks (with the top 5 floors using wood framing) are going up everywhere.

noobermin 4y ago
Mass timber is a specific type of building type which is distinct from wood framing. From this[0] article: >If the primary load-bearing structure is made of either solid or engineered wood, it’s a mass-timber building. A building that uses mass timber as an accent and not a primary structural element isn’t mass timber. [0] https://www.constructiondive.com/news/mass-timber-101-understanding-the-emerging-building-type/443476/ https://www.constructiondive.com/news/mass-timber-101-unders...
- skybrian 4y ago
  Yes, I agree. I think mass timber is only used in fancy commercial or institutional buildings, though? So it seemed worth pointing out the more common, ordinary kind. It seems doubtful that "future cities" will be primarily skyscrapers when quite high densities can be achieved with buildings that don't go above five stories or so and are cheaper to build.
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    > I think mass timber is only used in fancy commercial or institutional buildings Very common in new apartment buildings in Europe and becoming more so. They're built (more like assembled) faster than concrete or metal
    - skybrian 4y ago
      What do the typical ones look like? I only see the fancy architectural renderings.
      - diordiderot 4y ago

credit_guy 4y ago

For context, humanity produces about 50 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. This estimate of 100 billion tons is between now and 2100, so about 1.2 billion tons per year savings. That's not nothing, but it's not that impressive either. And if it turns out the assumptions in the estimate are a bit optimistic, then it becomes more or less a rounding error.

ido 4y ago
2.4% savings in emissions is massive. It obviously not on its own the only measure we need to take.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the other changes we need. Of course we can do things in parallel, and I’m not saying this isn’t worth doing, but this is one of the least important things we could do to curb emissions.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Two hundredth is far from a drop in the bucket. It's huge. You would just need fifty things of a similar magnitude to be done with the issue. A lot of actions which are definitely worth taking (all of them are anyway) have a far smaller impact.
  - hugh-avherald 4y ago
    More like 5000 drops of water in the bucket.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  The impact of cutting a military budget worldwide to half of today's spending would bring up to 8% percent. If we still need to have wars worldwide, why not take a look at the current China India conflict as an example. There they agreed to fight only with sticks and clubs, and it's working great for both sides.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jjallen 4y ago

This would be a great solution, if we could reliably prevent them from going up in flames, for two obvious reasons. How many times have we heard about [old-town] burned in [year]? This would happen again negating any environmental benefits and obviously costing a ton of money to rebuild. Maybe if we could get the burn rate down to 1% a year it would be a benefit?

viraptor 4y ago
I don't think that really applies here. The article concentrates on replacing cities and concrete with timber. Old towns burning down have different issues than downtown office buildings. Also in general, processed timber can be made more fireproof than many usual materials.
herbst 4y ago
I am not sure why. But this is really uncommon here in Switzerland. Sure sometimes there is an old house burning down somewhere but nether do we talk about spreading fires nor do I have to pay more insurance for living in a 100% wooden house.
akvadrako 4y ago
That isn't a problem with CLT, which is so dense it usually just chars the outside. Only at temperatures that could destroy concrete and steel buildings does it really burn.

blippage 4y ago

Great Fire of London 2.0

mschuster91 4y ago
For what it's worth: wood actually has better properties in the case of a structural fire than today's usual stuff - it gradually loses its rigidity, compared to the iron in reinforced concrete which suddenly snaps [1]. [1] https://www.hilti.de/content/hilti/E3/DE/de/business/news-und-events/magazine/directory/trends/firestop-wood.html https://www.hilti.de/content/hilti/E3/DE/de/business/news-un...
- notahacker 4y ago
  On the other hand, the reinforced concrete itself isn't combustible, and gradually losing rigidity whilst burning isn't exactly a desirable structural property. And building entirely from timber implies using a whole lot of combustible woods, not just glulam beams. (Then again, this is pretty standard practice in housing anyway...) Construction solely in reinforced concrete might be undesirable for other reasons, including environmental impact, but does tend to isolate household fires so they burn themselves out long before the structure is threatened
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Construction solely in reinforced concrete might be undesirable for other reasons, including environmental impact, but does tend to isolate household fires so they burn themselves out long before the structure is threatened So what? Then change building codes to - mandate fire suppression systems like sprinklers in wooden houses - require a licensed electrician to review the condition of the electrical wiring every ten to twenty years and to bring it up to code at least every twenty years - ban space heaters and force landlords to provide state of the art heating systems instead These are the most common causes of house fires not related to cooking [1], so forcing landlords to actually do their job and not be slumlords should cut down on a very high amount of fires. [1] https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/residence/protect-your-home-against-these-common-causes-of-house-fires https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/residence/protect-...

rsecora 4y ago

Not enough timber in the world. There is a risk of deforestation and ending as Easter Island inhabitants.

mauvehaus 4y ago
I have an Outside In episode for you[0]. Turns out, the inhabitants of Rapa Nui didn't clear-cut the island to build the moai. [0] https://www.nhpr.org/environment/2021-10-21/outside-in-rapa-nui-easter-island https://www.nhpr.org/environment/2021-10-21/outside-in-rapa-...

deepdriver 4y ago

Rammed earth is more abundant, potentially cheaper, and has far better sound and thermal insulation properties: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220705-the-sustainable-cities-made-from-mud https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220705-the-sustainable-... It is more labor-intensive but easily automated, at least one start-up has worked/is working on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TXj5IIkUIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TXj5IIkUIY Rammed earth panels can also be prefabricated and delivered to build site via truck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFddMSRel4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFddMSRel4A The city of Shibam in Yemen shows how a high-rise rammed earth/adobe city might look. It's possible to adapt this technique to wet climates with appropriate plasters and maintenance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm8OGIZ7tag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm8OGIZ7tag

jaclaz 4y ago
Past thread about rammed earth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32042797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32042797

pelasaco 4y ago

Sure, 2020/2021 the prices of Timber exploded due higher demand. This variable is simply not taken into account. "And there are also big question marks over the safety implications of shifting to predominantly wood-based construction. While the paper states that engineered wood is “associated with fire resistance,” the jury is still out on whether it is truly as safe as traditional building materials." Not just that. Aging and Maintenance, warping, pest infection and other benefits from concrete like durability, energy efficiency... I guess the authors never read the 3 little pigs. You just need a Wolf with some Howitzer trying to free your country from the West, to you understand the advantage of Concrete vs Timber..

vpilcx 4y ago
Alright, engineers, let's reference that seminal work: 3 Little Pigs.
- pelasaco 4y ago
  I just used this seminal work to make clear why people build houses/castles and walls from concrete and not from Timber/Lumber...
lordswork 4y ago
>Sure, 2020/2021 the prices of Timber exploded due higher demand. This variable is simply not taken into account. Indeed, the article ignores costs entirely. According to a 2020 study, mass timber buildings costs 2.4-12% more than concrete buildings over their lifetime[1]. That said, if carbon emissions were taxed to account the destruction they cause to the world (and consequently the global economy), I bet wood timber buildings would be way cheaper to build, even in the middle of supply shortage like we saw during the pandemic. [1]: https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2020/fpl_2020_gu001.pdf https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2020/fpl_2020_gu001....

ETH_start 4y ago

This seems like a bad idea..

ACV001 4y ago

Cut the trees to save CO2 emissions. Somebody forgot that trees consume CO2 themselves and if this type of housing gets adopted widely, some companies will not wait for 10-20 years for the planted trees to grow, but will look for less ethical sources like existing wild forests.

gtvwill 4y ago
May I introduce you to Forestry Corp NSW. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-07/anti-logging-protests-koala-habitat-mid-north-coast-nsw-forestry/101391074 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-07/anti-logging-protests...
s8s8discourse 4y ago
Trees only have a finite lifespan. Even "wild" forests reach end of life stage and that's when responsible logging and forestry management can promote healthier forests. Using those trees sequesters the captured carbon into structures. Leaving them to stand and die in the forest releases that captured carbon.
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  Trees can grow over a century and stay up for centuries. Large old trees over here have scars from multiple survived forest firest etc. Cutting down a 50 year old tree and putting it to a building instead of letting it grow is not an obvious carbon sink to me. The branches might be used for energy nowadays, but the bark and roots will release CO2 etc. The new sapling will grow very slowly (kg carbon per year) for the first 15 years.
  - s8s8discourse 4y ago
    Some trees can grow over a century. Some can't. Some trees growth top out by 50 years and then grow incredibly slowly (sequestering carbon at a much slower rate). Some grow for 300 years and sequester carbon at a constant rate. Which is why it's called woodland _management_. "Having survived multiple forest fires" says a lot to me. Surviving a forest fire still invokes a huge release of otherwise captured carbon for no gain. Harvesting trees for timber means the bulk of the tree sequesters carbon into the structure, and the waste byproduct can be utilised to provide energy for the process. With the correct tooling and processes, it's as close to carbon neutral as you can get.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Has the sand issue been resolved? It'd been reported that we're running out of sand suitable for concrete. Yes, I know, "Sand? Are you crazy? The world is full of sand!". But river-polished coarse sand is no good for concrete. It has to be of a particular size and roughness to be any use. And the easy sources had run out. Sure, you could find a process to 'make sand'. But it by definition is more expensive than 'drive a truck to where the right kind is lying on the ground and load it up'. So the price of concrete went through the roof. The 'age of concrete' may be over. So this issue may be moot.

AstralStorm 4y ago
Lime is even more of a problem than sand. We cannot cheaply or energy efficiently make it.

aaasss333 4y ago

How about bamboo?

jschveibinz 4y ago

Some parameters to consider in the discussion: 1. We need buildings to live in 2. It takes materials to make buildings. What are the potential materials? A. Wood B. Metal C. Concrete D. Soil E. Rock F. Plastic G. Ceramics (brick) H. Others? 3. It takes energy to process materials for construction. 4. It takes energy to construct buildings. 5. Energy sources: A. Sun B. Wind C. Water/Ocean D. Nuclear E. Fossil fuels F. Others? 6. Other parameters? e.g. cost, speed, labor, quality, durability, aesthetics, etc. If one takes all of the parameters into consideration, a model (with weighting) can be developed and one can attempt to optimize the model for either net CO2, or convenience, or whatever. It's a decision problem. Calling all math/physics/engineering folks in this forum: please propose a way to help figure this out. And thank you.

throwaway787544 4y ago
You forgot politics in your parameters, arguably the single biggest factor in building.
- giantg2 4y ago
  And personal preferences. People wanting bigger, fancier houses/condos/etc are a huge factor.
  - at-fates-hands 4y ago
    And those people want tear down the old house and build a bigger, fancier house where the smaller, less environmentally impactful houses stood. In my old upper middle class neighborhood, our entire block of houses on our small cul-de-sac were all California ramblers. Small (under 3K sq ft), but on larger lots (some were 1/4 or 1/2 acre lots) near several natural ponds and wetland areas. Over the course of the last 15 years, out of the two dozen or so houses, only four or five are left as original. Thee rest were all bought, torn down and had huge, multi-million dollar houses which took up almost the entire lot built instead. You're right, personal preference is a big one, and there are other obvious mechanisms at work here such as the city letting this happen because they benefit from the increased taxes they collect, but its not helping the environment at all.

jannw 4y ago

Many cities were originally built mostly in wood (e.g. London, Amsterdam). There's a good reason that they aren't any more. They burnt down - quickly and spectacularly. Typically laws were then made to require only re-building in stone e.g. After the great fire of London "The Rebuilding of London Act 1666 banned wood from the exterior of buildings"

danielfoster 4y ago
Modern timber buildings have superior fire resistance. I am sure sprinkler systems and fire hydrants have changed the equation since 1666, too.

throwaway787544 4y ago

Timber isn't the answer. The system is complex, and we need holistic solutions, not single-factor ones. I think the answer is to stop building so dense, reduce our population, and reintroduce more nature to our deforested, inefficiently farmed, overly-paved modern world. The more we have 12-story buildings, the harder they are to build and maintain. 3 and 4-story buildings are much easier, can be made with timber easily, etc. But we need to spread them out more. This would be good, as we could create more small businesses to service the people, less dense areas would require less intense civil management, communities would be smaller and more familiar. The more people we have, the worse things get. You need more homes, cities get more dense, you require more resources / food / consumer goods / land, create more CO2. Quite simply, we have a shitload of people, and that causes us all kinds of headaches. If we just had fewer people, we'd have fewer headaches. We don't need to live like bunnies/rats/cockroaches constantly multiplying. And quite frankly, the planet would do much better with fewer of us. We would also thrive more in a world closer to nature. You notice how there's fewer insects, fish are mostly disappeared, invasive species are rampant, and cities are increasingly hot and polluted? Most of that changes if we undo most of our "developing" and let nature come back. Replace concrete sidewalks with forest trails, grass lawns with trees and weeds and bushes. Remove [at least] half the roads and replace them with canopy and gardens. Grow only sustainable multicultures of foods on a quarter of the existing farmland (and stop growing so much fucking corn!) and pay a decent wage to work the land. Bring rivers and streams back. You will notice cities get cooler, biodiversity increase, CO2 emissions decrease, and our health will improve. Not to mention fewer car accidents, less noise pollution.

pnutjam 4y ago
OK, now show your work where you propose a solution that ends in "fewer people". Where do all those extra people go?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

devX3 4y ago

I'll take the massive concrete bunker in my concrete house over any wooden structure as I'm way to close to Russia.

vidarh 4y ago

And it doesn't need to mean low density housing. This is a ~80 meter, 18 storey hotel built out of wood: https://prismpub.com/mjosa-tower-brumunddal-take-title-worlds-tallest-wooden-building/ https://prismpub.com/mjosa-tower-brumunddal-take-title-world... https://thetravelbook.world/2020/10/17/wood-hotel-brumunddal/ https://thetravelbook.world/2020/10/17/wood-hotel-brumunddal... (It's also on booking.com; search for the location "Brumunddal" and/or "Wood Hotel")

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

Provided we grow as much as we cut, and let the ecosystem regenerate where we cut. Which is a huge if.

egberts1 4y ago

Sounds great except for that marginal gain and perhaps a pending doom by “Great Fire of London”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London

enviclash 4y ago

I have heard a lot of propaganda against this, without a clear or solid basis, from professionals in the industry.

theptip 4y ago

> Nonetheless, the researchers admit that there is still likely to be some impact on biodiversity due to the replacement of virgin woodland with timber monocultures.” Is there something preventing us from replenishing the natural woodland after harvesting wood without making it monocrop? Presumably it’s more expensive to thin out an area vs. just clearcutting. But even then if you just cut blocks inside a larger area and replant the trees, won’t everything else come back too?