4 ms·

Ok, sounds like normal 'creative destruction' to me. Time to raze useless office space and build housing in it's place. Also, I don't get how companies can ma

Ok, sounds like normal 'creative destruction' to me. Time to raze useless office space and build housing in it's place. Also, I don't get how companies can make such a big song and dance about their climate commitments on the one hand while simultaneously insisting on RTO on the other. The greenest commute is one that never happens. If the tax code needs to change to give companies credit for their employees cutting out their commute, so be it.

cal_dent 9mo ago
Playing devil's advocate a little bit (only just), but razing buildings will not do much for climate commitments either
- wing-_-nuts 9mo ago
  Replacing unused office space with dense multifamily housing would benefit the climate long term as city dwellers have a much lower carbon footprint. Not to mention that they've gotten good enough building with engineered timber that they can safely build midrises with the stuff. No need for concrete.
  - cal_dent 9mo ago
    but by demolishing you're releasing and generating a ton of embodied carbon for a likely relative limited output of residential homes on the other side (because the economics doesn't stack up). I'd contend that the trade off is as simple as you're suggesting.
    - wing-_-nuts 9mo ago
      Razing buildings generates no more carbon than what is required by the machinery to demolish it and cart off the debris. I'm starting to question whether you're speaking in good faith
      - cal_dent 9mo ago
        Not sure where you questioning good faith comes from but do you. You're generating more carbon because you're then building more stuff where you've razed. It's a pretty recognised trade off why just mass demolishing stuff isn't the most effective thing to do. https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbon-cost-of-demolition/ https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbo...

4 ms·

Ok, sounds like normal 'creative destruction' to me. Time to raze useless office space and build housing in it's place. Also, I don't get how companies can ma

by wing-_-nuts 9mo ago

cal_dent 9mo ago
Playing devil's advocate a little bit (only just), but razing buildings will not do much for climate commitments either
- wing-_-nuts 9mo ago
  Replacing unused office space with dense multifamily housing would benefit the climate long term as city dwellers have a much lower carbon footprint. Not to mention that they've gotten good enough building with engineered timber that they can safely build midrises with the stuff. No need for concrete.
  - cal_dent 9mo ago
    but by demolishing you're releasing and generating a ton of embodied carbon for a likely relative limited output of residential homes on the other side (because the economics doesn't stack up). I'd contend that the trade off is as simple as you're suggesting.
    - wing-_-nuts 9mo ago
      Razing buildings generates no more carbon than what is required by the machinery to demolish it and cart off the debris. I'm starting to question whether you're speaking in good faith
      - cal_dent 9mo ago
        Not sure where you questioning good faith comes from but do you. You're generating more carbon because you're then building more stuff where you've razed. It's a pretty recognised trade off why just mass demolishing stuff isn't the most effective thing to do. https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbon-cost-of-demolition/ https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbo...