Eco-Architect Ken Yeang says skyscrapers are UN-ecological

[huggkruka]

Isn't construction the most harmful part of skyscraper usage? Just imagine how much CO2 all the diesel-fueled machines toiling away for months and sometimes years emit. Also consider that steel is much more costly, in terms of energy and thus CO2, to create, than, say, wood or concrete. I would love to know if the decrease in car traffic and smarter land usage justifies the higher construction emissions and materials usage.

I'm not sure what ecological even means. I know a skyscraper can be sustainable. If it produces its own energy, and a surplus to eventually add up to the energy used to construct it, then it's basically sustainable. If ecological means less of a burden on nature, then a skyscraper should be better than a house because it uses less land, shouldn't it? These terms are thrown around so much I don't have a clue what they mean anymore...

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by huggkruka

Isn't construction the most harmful part of skyscraper usage? Just imagine how much CO2 all the diesel-fueled machines toiling away for months and sometimes years emit. Also consider that steel is much more costly, in terms of energy and thus CO2, to create, than, say, wood or concrete. I would love to know if the decrease in car traffic and smarter land usage justifies the higher construction emissions and materials usage.

I'm not sure what ecological even means. I know a skyscraper can be sustainable. If it produces its own energy, and a surplus to eventually add up to the energy used to construct it, then it's basically sustainable. If ecological means less of a burden on nature, then a skyscraper should be better than a house because it uses less land, shouldn't it? These terms are thrown around so much I don't have a clue what they mean anymore...

Most people dont have a clue what sustainability means anymore, they just know it is suppose to be different than what we have been doing.

The key in any building is to make it less of a burden, to have it consume less energy and possibly make it produce its own energy...also when it comes to construction, there are alot of things that can be done, such as reuse of waste, thus whatever is being demolished should be done in a way that the structures can be recycled within the new building and not be needed to be hauled away.

But the one thing you learn in architecture school, is no matter what is constructed, there will always be a negative effect from it and the object should be how to lessen that negative impact...which is a theory that should apply to skyscrapers, warehouses, houses, infrastructure, and everything in the built world really.

[City_boy12]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

the one thing you learn in architecture school, is no matter what is constructed, there will always be a negative effect from it and the object should be how to lessen that negative impact...which is a theory that should apply to skyscrapers, warehouses, houses, infrastructure, and everything in the built world really.

So Ken Yeang should have said that no building can ever be 100% green instead of just saying only skyscrapers can never be 100% green.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by City_boy12

So Ken Yeang should have said that no building can ever be 100% green instead of just saying only skyscrapers can never be 100% green.

technically yes, but the bigger question is what is the definition for "green?" Cause if you think about someone using wood and leaves to build a small hut to live in, they still are using other resources to construct the hut, regardless if they are renewable resources...then of course, the hut has to occupy land which changes what could grow there as well as possible around such location...then of course if you times this one hut by 100 for all the villagers, then they become users of resources...but the key is to use resources conservatively and find ways to make things so that they give back energy or can be easily recycled and reused.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that we live on a planet that is a closed circle, what we have to use on this planet is all we have to use.

[niwell]

^Exactly.

This also brings up the concept of the sustainable city. Even ignoring the social and economic factors and purely focusing on environmental this is a tricky thing. One model which I think would be favoured by some forumers is to cram as many people into the smallest space possible. But is this really sustainable? The buildings require a certain amount of energy, but logistics with respect to food and water become increasingly difficult.

The real answer probably does lie with cities (and their buildings) becoming better integrated with the surrounding natural systems. This may mean high densities in some areas, but also natural spaces, urban agriculture, passive designs to minimize impact (solar, water etc) and so forth. It's an incredibly complicated problem that doesn't have a simple answer. And while single family sprawl doesn't provide this answer, neither to conventional highrises.

[photoLith]

Build up, not out.

[Tower6]

Modern industrial society is un-ecological. If you want an earth friendly city, you are better off starting from scratch. The only way we are going to change, is when mother nature forces us to.

[Lecom]

This guy, composed entirely of plant matter, is 100% eco-friendly:


http://www.celebrityviplounge.com/bl...wamp_thing.jpg
(c) DC Comics

I can't think of many other humanoid forms, real or fictional, let alone human activities like construction, entertainment, etc, that are entirely eco-friendly.

[City_boy12]

Please disregard this thread and post all further posts here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98#post4383598