4 ms·

> Skyscrapers also have a footprint that might no be immediately obvious - it's their energy, water and food demand. Assuming they're inhabited by humans, what'

> Skyscrapers also have a footprint that might no be immediately obvious - it's their energy, water and food demand. Assuming they're inhabited by humans, what's the amount of agricultural land needed to provide for those humans? What's the energy demand, how many modular 100 MW nuclear power plants or hectares of solar PV panels (plus associated 24/7 storage/distribution centers) are needed to keep the elevator, lights, pumps, ventilation and heating/AC functioning? How much water do they consume daily? Yes, that is a footprint, and it's almost universally much lower than any other form of housing. Modern construction is very efficient, and it's much more environmentally friendly to consolidate these concerns than to spread it out. > That's the kind of 'skyscraper footprint analysis' that architects should be asked to submit for any building design. What you're proposing is really just another way to block construction, NIMBY-style. Nobody asks for these proposals when building tract housing. Why should it be any different for shared housing? It's not like the amount of food and water people need varies based on where they live.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Nobody asks for these proposals when building tract housing. Of course they do. In my area we require any proposed development to include a detailed independent analysis (not a few pages, it's an inch thick book) of all the infrastructure requirements to support that development as well as the predictable downstream effects, and so on. Maybe that's not universal. Maybe it's why my suburban area hasn't experienced any of the infrastructure failure predicted by places like strong towns despite well over 100 years and counting. But I expect that it is more common than not. If you're only talking about "how much food land somewhere in the world do we need to support X people here or somewhere else" then sure, I guess nobody probably does that. Regardless of housing style. It's not very useful, unless we're planning some dystopian population controls and are looking for justification.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > If you're only talking about "how much food land somewhere in the world do we need to support X people here or somewhere else" then sure, I guess nobody probably does that. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Environmental analysis of the other form is commonplace, but varies by locality. In some places, the environmental review process is already weaponized in order to block construction with absurd claims, purely for self-serving purposes.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    You mean the landed gentry don't want high-density low-income housing right next door, and so use environmental review to block such developments? This is probably true, although just buying the city politicians seems to do the job in most places. To be honest, I was more thinking about how to build cities on Mars than that issue. High-density skyscrapers surrounded by dedicated agricultural production might be the best issue, although I suppose people will still fight each other over who gets to live on the top floor with the best views...
photochemsyn 4y ago
It's hardly NIMBY-ism, the idea is that you take all the factors involved into account. If you're doubling the population density in a given city by building a dozen skyscrapers, you should account for the resulting increase in demand for electricity, water and food (plus random other issues like public transit and private vehicle parking). I'm certainly not saying skyscrapers are 'bad', but a lot of people don't seem to understand that one human needs about a hectare or four (depending on dietary choices) of productive agricultural land just to sustain basic life necessities (food, cotton, wool, wood, etc.).
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Even people living under a bridge have a footprint, and in many ways it isn't that much less than somebody in a sky scraper.
- noahtallen 4y ago
  It typically doesn’t happen this way, though. Typically, a city becomes very popular for some reason, gets into a housing crisis as it grows, then developers see an opportunity and build skyscrapers. Seattle is a good example — major growth due to tech, and huge housing affordability crises. But not caused because new high rises are going up everywhere, but because of an influx of high paying jobs in the tech sector, which causes high rises to be built to meet that existing need I struggle to think of a scenario in which a developer would build a high rise in a city that didn’t already have the demand for that much new housing. Beyond that, cities do already plan for infrastructure capacity. (As an example, certain new construction in Seattle has to pay a fee for some time to help cover the cost of capacity expansion.) Of course what you’re saying is right in that a new skyscraper will increase load on existing infrastructure. But I struggle to think of cities that aren’t handling that already… and then building skyscrapers that start causing brownouts and water shortages. That just doesn’t typically happen. (In other words, why would we need an extra permitting/design step when it’s already being done to some extent.) Beyond that, skyscrapers are built in places with existing population density, so it’s not like we’re doubling population density in the city. Not to mention parking minimums, which are very common. And developers love to capitalize on parking. (Most new high rises in Seattle have several below-ground floors of private parking, and it ain’t cheap!)

rootusrootus 4y ago

> Nobody asks for these proposals when building tract housing. Of course they do. In my area we require any proposed development to include a detailed independent analysis (not a few pages, it's an inch thick book) of all the infrastructure requirements to support that development as well as the predictable downstream effects, and so on. Maybe that's not universal. Maybe it's why my suburban area hasn't experienced any of the infrastructure failure predicted by places like strong towns despite well over 100 years and counting. But I expect that it is more common than not. If you're only talking about "how much food land somewhere in the world do we need to support X people here or somewhere else" then sure, I guess nobody probably does that. Regardless of housing style. It's not very useful, unless we're planning some dystopian population controls and are looking for justification.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> If you're only talking about "how much food land somewhere in the world do we need to support X people here or somewhere else" then sure, I guess nobody probably does that. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Environmental analysis of the other form is commonplace, but varies by locality. In some places, the environmental review process is already weaponized in order to block construction with absurd claims, purely for self-serving purposes.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  You mean the landed gentry don't want high-density low-income housing right next door, and so use environmental review to block such developments? This is probably true, although just buying the city politicians seems to do the job in most places. To be honest, I was more thinking about how to build cities on Mars than that issue. High-density skyscrapers surrounded by dedicated agricultural production might be the best issue, although I suppose people will still fight each other over who gets to live on the top floor with the best views...

photochemsyn 4y ago

It's hardly NIMBY-ism, the idea is that you take all the factors involved into account. If you're doubling the population density in a given city by building a dozen skyscrapers, you should account for the resulting increase in demand for electricity, water and food (plus random other issues like public transit and private vehicle parking). I'm certainly not saying skyscrapers are 'bad', but a lot of people don't seem to understand that one human needs about a hectare or four (depending on dietary choices) of productive agricultural land just to sustain basic life necessities (food, cotton, wool, wood, etc.).

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Even people living under a bridge have a footprint, and in many ways it isn't that much less than somebody in a sky scraper.
noahtallen 4y ago
It typically doesn’t happen this way, though. Typically, a city becomes very popular for some reason, gets into a housing crisis as it grows, then developers see an opportunity and build skyscrapers. Seattle is a good example — major growth due to tech, and huge housing affordability crises. But not caused because new high rises are going up everywhere, but because of an influx of high paying jobs in the tech sector, which causes high rises to be built to meet that existing need I struggle to think of a scenario in which a developer would build a high rise in a city that didn’t already have the demand for that much new housing. Beyond that, cities do already plan for infrastructure capacity. (As an example, certain new construction in Seattle has to pay a fee for some time to help cover the cost of capacity expansion.) Of course what you’re saying is right in that a new skyscraper will increase load on existing infrastructure. But I struggle to think of cities that aren’t handling that already… and then building skyscrapers that start causing brownouts and water shortages. That just doesn’t typically happen. (In other words, why would we need an extra permitting/design step when it’s already being done to some extent.) Beyond that, skyscrapers are built in places with existing population density, so it’s not like we’re doubling population density in the city. Not to mention parking minimums, which are very common. And developers love to capitalize on parking. (Most new high rises in Seattle have several below-ground floors of private parking, and it ain’t cheap!)