3 ms·

Expanding on your point those large high density structures are incredibly energy efficient. Apartments and condos usually only have a single exterior wall, eve

Expanding on your point those large high density structures are incredibly energy efficient. Apartments and condos usually only have a single exterior wall, even full floor units share floors and ceilings with other units. Adding in economies of scale for some buildings with shared utilities such as hot water or merely the infrastructure connecting that building to the rest of the world (plumbing, wiring, roads) and you are blowing past a single family residential unit could ever hope to achieve.

notacoward 4y ago
The article directly addresses this, mentioning the high AC costs that make them significantly less energy efficient than their neighbors. There's a lot to be said for economies of scale and other aspects of denser housing, but at the very tall end that the article talks about there are also diseconomies of scale. ETA, for the folks in the peanut gallery: do you suppose that those AC costs allow a 100-story high-rise to be more energy efficient than a 15-story neighbor? Have you seen what kind of electrical (and other) infrastructure has to go into such a building, to make them workable at all? None of which is necessary in more modestly sized structures. These issues have relevance beyond just comparing at similar heights.
- tormeh 4y ago
  The example compared a glass-facade skyscraper with another skyscraper with an opaque (concrete?) facade. Height was not part of the discussion in that particular case.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  A 100 story tower needs to be compared against 6x15-story towers in terms of efficiency. What are the dis-economies of scale that apply to 100x story towers, but not 6x 15 story towers? ------ The article discusses water pumping and sewage. But only water pumps seem to be inefficient (more power to pump water to floor 100 than to pump water 6x15 floors). Sewage benefits from oversized pipes. 6x sewage pipes are less efficient than one big pipe. Discussion of recycled grey water or even sewage recycling 'in the skyscraper' makes more sense with 100 floors rather than 15 floors. It's probably cheaper to have one big water recycling plant in the 100 story tower, rather than 6x water conditioning centers in 6x different towers.

notacoward 4y ago

The article directly addresses this, mentioning the high AC costs that make them significantly less energy efficient than their neighbors. There's a lot to be said for economies of scale and other aspects of denser housing, but at the very tall end that the article talks about there are also diseconomies of scale. ETA, for the folks in the peanut gallery: do you suppose that those AC costs allow a 100-story high-rise to be more energy efficient than a 15-story neighbor? Have you seen what kind of electrical (and other) infrastructure has to go into such a building, to make them workable at all? None of which is necessary in more modestly sized structures. These issues have relevance beyond just comparing at similar heights.

tormeh 4y ago
The example compared a glass-facade skyscraper with another skyscraper with an opaque (concrete?) facade. Height was not part of the discussion in that particular case.
dragontamer 4y ago
A 100 story tower needs to be compared against 6x15-story towers in terms of efficiency. What are the dis-economies of scale that apply to 100x story towers, but not 6x 15 story towers? ------ The article discusses water pumping and sewage. But only water pumps seem to be inefficient (more power to pump water to floor 100 than to pump water 6x15 floors). Sewage benefits from oversized pipes. 6x sewage pipes are less efficient than one big pipe. Discussion of recycled grey water or even sewage recycling 'in the skyscraper' makes more sense with 100 floors rather than 15 floors. It's probably cheaper to have one big water recycling plant in the 100 story tower, rather than 6x water conditioning centers in 6x different towers.