Skyscrapers, is it time to stop building them?

[urban_encounter]

Not all skyscrapers per se’. But we are going to need to pivot towards more renewable construction material such as timber instead of steel and concrete, both of which contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions and worsening climate change. Timber construction today is as strong as steel and in a fire chars rather than burns.


Aesthetically, timber construction is more organic, more attractive imho.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by JManc

Unnecessary to who? And when hasn't building tall been a dick measuring contest? Before skyscrapers, it was cathedrals outdoing one another.

Of of the main draws for Cathedrals were deceased Saints ofor their local parish. Saint’s meant, shrines, shrines meant pilgrims, pilgrims meant local businesses raked in money.

But to your point, local villages would compete by building grand Cathedrals to serve as the final resting place for the deceased Saints.

[Double L]

If Skyscrapers aren’t causing any serious problems then why stop building them? Just require future skyscrapers to be energy efficient.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Double L

If Skyscrapers aren’t causing any serious problems then why stop building them? Just require future skyscrapers to be energy efficient.

That's true.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I'm with C., it seems like an aesthetic argument by someone that just doesn't like skyscrapers, wrapped in a thin veneer of environmentalism. Any time I see an argument like this, I'm surprised at how little attempt is made to balance tradeoffs. At most, he gives the vague argument that tall buildings are 20% less efficient than medium buildings. But when buildings themselves are only 6% of greenhouse gas emissions, and tall buildings are a tiny fraction of all buildings, and likely more efficient than the majority of low-rise, single use buildings, what are we really talking about?

I think we need to breakout regular hirise/skyscraper from the much taller variety.

For the simple reason, there's another factor at play aside from energy efficiency or lifestyle.

That's cost.

Residential skyscrapers have a relatively consistent cost until they get into the high 30's/low 40's and then, generally, the cost per ft2 starts to shoot up.

This occurs for two fundamental reasons, in/around that height, slab thickness, and structural measures to combat swaying start to get more substantial and eat up both both buildable ft2 and budget.
The second reason is that additional height both creates the need for more banks of elevators, all the while, there's generally a requirement/desire to taper a building as it goes up at those heights.

That combination of factors means that, for the most part, building residential much over 35 floors actually drives higher costs of housing, rather than lower.

***

I'm certainly not anti-skyscraper, but I don't think the tendency towards ever more height is particularly wise or helpful in addressing housing crises in many of the major cities of the world.