Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe
It's hard to measure the environmental impact of a building, since living in dense environments is more efficient than living in sprawl (in emissions/person). How many people have the JHC or Sears Tower convinced to move to Chicago? How much do marquee buildings contribute to the urban form that draws people to live in cities and/or the denser metropolitan area?
Within a reasonable margin, I wouldn't prioritize energy efficiency between skyscraper proposals if one design is clearly a winner.
|
True, it is complex as you have to factor in the benefits of dense, urban living potentially with being in a walkable environment and reducing the carbon footprint of those who might otherwise drive. In any case, these things are prioritized, I believe, by smart investors and developers from what I understand. These are costs upfront that will reduce the long term cost anyway and that's pretty important from a $$ perspective regardless. Some of the big architecture firms like Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill do a bit of work to help potential clients understand what the costs will be of various materials, windows, energy systems, etc. That much I know, and it's not necessarily some afterthought.