The building with the smallest carbon footprint is the building reliably attractive enough that it won't be torn down and replaced every 2 decades. Classical building has a lot to teach us about aesthetic best practice.
True, but sitting in a 170 year old house right now, the amount it costs, and therefore amount of carbon produced, to heat an old building is so high compared to a newer design. Classical building techniques are far from perfect, but if we can combine modern energy saving techniques with old-style structural integrity, all for reasonable costs, we may be on to a winner.
@@Pastronomer69 its also about making them look attractive so we cherish them instead of demolish them. every new brutalist building proberly has less of a life expectancy than something which is already 120 years old just because people don't like them.
It needs to be affordable to the everyday person, not just fancy new flats that only the wealthier can afford. But we can't even manage that for non-eco-residential buildings very well
I think we just need to mandate that new buildings have to purchase 100% of their energy from carbon neutral sources and for maybe 25 years. By the end of 25 years that should spur on a whole industry. These fancy high performance designs aren't affordable at all, totally agree with you. We can save the planet without having to kill humans or impoverish humans and create more of a wealth divide.
While these types of projects could forbode a future where the world is still doomed as the rich get to live in pretty grow towers, we could also look at these developments as test beds for future techniques, ideas, and designs that will likely be much cheaper in the future. We see this in the car industry all the time. Companies spend billions on the technology in their flagship and high end vehicles, where they remain exclusive for a few years until the tech begins to trickle down towards the average consumer. While cars are far from cheap, if you look at the value (reliability, tech, ect.) you get in a car the average person can afford now compared to cars fifty or even 30 years ago, you're getting a pretty good deal. A similar trend can be seen everywhere in engineering fields. While it's not one to one, and this process takes too long for our current dilemma, it is the basic system on which new technologies become available to us. I believe it's increasingly likely we'll see affordable sustainable energy, fuel, and housing in the near future. Although this of course relies on market demand for these types of projects, which is where I believe the true problem arises. As no one care for the environment truly.
@@ollivyr thats a common arguement thats already been debunked. Simply reading through the actual census data will show you that not all of those 16 million "vacant" homes are actually habitable
Totally agree. Also any new buildings should also have the smallest physical footprint possible per occupant. And ideally should only be built on land already spent by human activity. Although of that land can be re-wilded it is even a better option.
Despite the UK government being pretty incompetent, they are helping us make progress in the fight against climate change in the construction and built environment. I work mainly in the residential side of the industry and they have introduced new regulations to make sure that new properties and extensions have high levels of insulation and new sources of energy, whether it be solar or air source heat pumps etc. We've got a long way to go but progress is being made. Fingers crossed we can turn this around in the coming decades.
"they are helping us make progress in the fight against climate change" wow....they help so much that they said "spend more money on islution and heat pumps and windows" wooooow they are so helpful... if the gov actually cared about the climate/people they would do something substantial like building cities where you (DONT NEED) a car not just say "WALK OR BUY A 100K$ EV!" the best city would be something like the apple park, but 2km in diameter with recreation/parks/and shopping zones inside the circle and with a train station in the middle that connects you to the other circles
We just had 600% of a normal 4 month rainy season fall in 12 days. Auckland just had a full season dumped in 24 hours... When I get depressed about it all I turn on a B1M to get my enthusiasm back. Plus they're pretty buildings!
Some interesting buildings and a really important focus. Would have been nice to see a refurbishment in there considering estimates suggest 80% of buildings that exist today will still be here in 2050. The implication being that, while not as glamorous, deep green refurbishments of every day buildings like school, residential and offices will be absolutely key to meeting our climate needs. If you are interested in doing a piece on this LETI are in the process of working on sector specific retrofit guides to sit alongside their main guide.
Everyone looks to the future, but shouldn't we combine the past also? Old architecture has lasted 100s of years whereas 60s buildings are already crumbling? Using better resources and lasting longer is what's needed
Interesting. Both wood buildings and paper bags are coming back. But for sometime, using other materials (plastic bags and concrete was about saving trees.
I am so happy to see more sustainability in development. I am tired of the "now or never" fear mongering though. The world was supposed to end at least 5 times in my life now lol.
I work commercial construction in Texas, this industry in my experience has been very slow to change. I’d love to be on the cutting edge of that change to help lead the way. Is anyone aware of any builder training for new green tech methods and materials?
Search for LEED certification. I think that is the building standards. Not sure of the training but contact at the bottom of the website page at their “About” links.
The information is out there, problem is it all contains some level of self promotion for their own gain. You really have to take the time do your own research and sift through the bs. Industry associations can have information, but are also self serving lobby groups. Start down the rabbit hole with the North Texas US Green Building Council.
Factor in that building like this supports health, reduces climate shocks, and will be more resilient in climate change shifts. We need to figure out the cost benefit of all that!
While you are at it get a complete cost comparison by adding ongoing maintenance and utility costs. We don’t just build and tada. The rest of the expense is considerable. Add also the cost of rebuild at the completed building life cycle. The greater number of the rebuild intervals the higher that cost figure will be.
I think I'm convinced that high performance enveloped aren't the solution, its an expensive luxury item. I think we need to create more durable designs, construction methods that last much longer both aesthetically and against the weather. In a lot of sense like older buildings with simple structures. To deal with carbon you have a 3 part approach, 1-less carbon intensive construction not trying to maximize R values, 2-designs that last so the corrected yearly carbon emissions from construction are minimal (ie less needs for renovation and demolition), 3 - requiring green energy for at least 25 years for the new building and highly highly incentivizing cement/steel from carbon neutral sources. Hydrogen is coming down the line as replacement to coal and if the Japanese nuclear reactors that produce hydrogen really get underway we'll really see a huge reduction in GHG's. You can throw in thoughtful design for passive heating and cooling as much as possible and stop making glass towers going back to punch windows instead as well. I'm in Toronto and there is a huge housing affordability crisis so all these beautiful design features and high performance enveloped are really only for the rich right now. For the rest of us we should spur on the green energy sector instead.
The US should change the zoning laws, so you could build multistory houses in residential areas, not only single family homes. Also they should allow for shops to be built close to houses so you wont have to drive 15 minutes just to get some milk. This would save a lot of energy
Good For you guys, for us in Africa its only POLITICS that gives us HEADACHES. Green we have but, PROJECTS for good and sustainable buildings is not talked about. Lets hope green construction does not marry with POLITICS in the future, otherwise it will be messed up.
I can't help but feel all these buildings would be expensive to build and maintain - Look at their designs for a start! Most people can't afford regular homes, forget big projects like these, beautiful and vital if we are to survive climate change, though they are.
Whilst sustainable building practices and technological advances are vitally important, what we really need is an attitude shift. We focus far too much on economic growth. The rate at which we build new infrastructure is greater than the rate at which our new infrastructure has fewer associated construction emissions. In a more literal sense of the word, this growth is inherently unsustainable! We need to move away from thinking new infrastructure which is 'less bad' for the environment is acceptable. We need infrastructure based on regenerative design practices.
With floors being exposed to the elements, I'm kond of concerned that the second project might go the way of 432 Park Avenue. The open floors have caused significant issues for the building.
@@totoro5421 sorry for my ignorance. I have lived near three different coal fired plants and driven past many more without ever seeing cooling towers such as these. My experience in four states is apparently not enough experience to get a polite correction from you.
@@JEBavido Yeah sorry for the assholery. Turns out someone found the would be nuclear reactor in the back of the frame. Still, the 2 sec clip I don't think it warrants making a comment to defend nuclear energy.
If new ways of building with wood produces materials as strong as steel, lighter and fire resistant, then why not build trains, trams, cars etc with it?
is the fancy geometric shapes really designed for energy efficiency or just to look futuristic? the carbon reduction is great but unecessary complexity will make it harder to build en masse
at :40 can you explain what you mean by "the built world" are we including the likes Kuala Lumpur, Lagos other 'built' metros in unbuilt countries or this excluding all countries considered 3rd world? Are we including all of rural America? Cause if its the former, 70% of population living in cities would mean 70% produces just 40% of emissions.
you're talking about developed/developing countries here. I think "built world" means literally built, like constructed buildings and infrastructure in contrast to cars and manufacturing. So every single built structure in the world, from New York City to every small settlements.
Guess the world forgot, that with climate change our current weather anomalies get way worse. No factor of earthquake intensity factored, seems to be the idea.
I wonder the cost and demand of a timber building. If the science checks out I would love to live in one some day. But I that depends on the cost of course. I know location is still the biggest factor and I live in Toronto which is currently the largest housing bubble in the world sadly.
Thesis: we are to defeat climate change! 1. The climate over millions of years has had its natural cycles. Some periods are warmer, others cause 1/3 of the planet to glaciate. And it happened without human intervention. 2. More CO2 is emitted by a few volcanic eruptions than by man-made emissions throughout the year. 3. China, India, the rest of Asia, Latin America or Africa have no desire to apply climate restrictions for the next decades, so any efforts by the West in this direction would not matter much, assuming that it would make any sense in this context. 4. The use of wooden structures to reduce CO2 emissions :)... In order to achieve at least a minimal reduction of this emission in this way, wood would have to be used in construction on a massive scale, and this would result in the liquidation of large forest areas, which, after all, process by themselves CO2 into oxygen. Thinking has a future, and any ideology - even the one that seems exceptionally noble - destroys thinking and disturbs human existence.
Around 10 seconds in, the video shows what looks like a nuclear power plant. No single other source of energy has lifecycle carbon emissions as low as nuclear power, so I hope the creator understands that this looks like misinforming the audience...
@@totoro5421 First of all, thank you for your incredibly pedantic answer. If you look closely, one or more reactor blocks are visible behind the cooling towers. And I know other power plants can have cooling towers too.
It's all well and good with the red-bricked facade cladning in the Henning Larsen buildings, although I could think of alternatives. What takes the cake though is the fact, that they are built on a man-made island, where the quay wall is made from reinforced concrete, and is not in any way friendly to the already abysmal conditions in Øresund. Lynetteholmen is the next big project, and might be the last nail in the coffin for the dwindling oxygen levels in Østersøen. Oh the humanity!
Awesome video! God bless. Always remember that Jesus Christ loves you all so much! Jesus Christ forgives all sins. Jesus Christ is God, King, and Savior!❤️🙏
As a doctor, I am highly concerned about our switch to LED interior lighting, blocking of Near Infra-red light along with UV light, and blocking of sunlight to make buildings efficient. We need NIR light to boost key regenerative effects throughout our bodies. We don't need direct sunlight, just reflected or emitted NIR. They really need to include 850 nm NIR light in all commercial fixtures. Could massively reduce health consequences of being indoors. Incandescent bulbs had some, probably not enough in most buildings and homes, but at least it was some.
Not sure what you’re going on about with “key regenerative effects” or whatever, but we could all just go outside a bit more, which I’m sure would be good for us in a bunch of other ways.
Just need to point out that you characterized LEED very poorly. The system(s) are robust, flexible, and include many credit categories that are about reductions or a change in approach, rather than add-ons as you stated. Water reduction and improved quality being just one example. Another being the Integrative Process credit, which calls for discovery of what is possible to achieve for primarily water use and energy use reductions by assessing the site conditions thoroughly and working with the team. Overall nice building examples. It is amazing what we can do if we pay attention to what nature has for us, set goals, pay attention, and work collaboratively to do better in each subsequent project. And we better iterate and learn on every project!
but aren't tall, timber buildings gonna cause even more oxygen producing, climate and terrain regulating trees to be chopped down ?! resulting in even less habitat for many animal species ?
My question is, where is all the timber coming from?, if there is a high growth of building tall buildings with timber that means more forests have to be cut down
Sustainably-managed forests seem to be doing better at replenishing tree populations that provide structural lumber. ...better than clear-cutting and moving on, at least! Tree-farmers are doing a pretty good job here in the Pacific Northwest USA of treating their land like a farm. Harvest, replant, regrow, harvest again. They know they can't just let the top soil wash off if they want another crop!
Are we going to ignore that these "developments" are still cash-grabs and take the general form of exactly like what is already being put up? Sustainable architecture is made from local vernacular materials, built on floor plans which are adaptable and will last centuries, and is not taller than it needs to be (usually 7 stories max). Also the urbanism of these projects is a complete disaster. I see very little real progress
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle that is incredibly unambitious of you. It is only not realistic because the rich decide it is. packing people into giant monoliths is neither humane or the thing we need to be doing right now. building out of glass is the unrealistic thing here, it is difficult to heat and among otherthings depressing for most people to look at. glass towers may be an 'efficent' way to house people but it is not at all a way placed with the needs of humans at its centre. just the needs of money. not to mention the fact that glass needs to be replaced way more often than real building materials do.
@@pigeon_the_brit565 Again with this "humans at the center" talk lmaooo You're either young or don't actually work in politics. We all know what SHOULD happen but anyone who works in city planning and works with billionaire real estate devs knows what you're preaching isn't going to happen and isn't pragmatic. There has to be compromises and technological innovation to meet half way. But keep fighting the good fight brother i respect it. I'm going to end the conversation here, its not that I disagree with you but its about as hot a take as having world peace and ending all hunger and exploitation.
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle I think its time we change the system if its broken. the reality we exist in was created by billionares with no right to the power they hold, people have had enough and something has got to give.
Timber buildings... Good for the environment? Really? So, cut more trees down to make buildings where we are already seeing shrinking forests around the world 🌎. Not so sure...
don't worry y'all, the 'ice age' is actually a misnomer. The vast majority of the last 100,000 years has been a mostly frozen Earth. The real exception is the 'warm age' we are currently enjoying. Hard to grow veggies under miles of ice
Nitpicking. At 2:07 it talks about reducing carbon footprints by using less grid energy, but then shows the Dampierre nuclear power plant in the background video.
The world: we need to cut our emissions in construction! Murica: hold my beer - we'll just use what ever is left since we wiped out the natives and call it renewables!
Timber 'skyscrapers' will never catch on. Or if they do, the first major fire will be the end of them. Fire protection in multi-storey buildings is something I have been involved in for much of the past 30 years. Each component works great in a test facility. The combination of all those systems over many years in the real world, not so much. With concrete/steel construction you've got a lot of margin for compromise. You will have almost zero margin in a multi-storey timber building. I would never live in one even if you paid me to do so.
I encourage you to look up some of the mass timber construction going on, and fire safety is paramount. Up to 18 stories is now allowed by the International building code. Some types of mass timber construction only allow some of the structural elements to be exposed and some other types (usages, occupancy types) can show it all off. The composite timbers are sized to char in a way that maintains structural performance longer than most steel and even concrete elements in a fire.
However efficient buildings which blend into the environment, use the sun and the wind and rain and add to the local natural ecology rather than punching a hole in it would be good irrespective of any idiot narrative about human caused global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophe/whatever they're calling it this week.
These are cool and will help but not the wooden one that is a good way to send us faster into climate change. Why cant all cities just go ok any and all buildings built before 2010 will need a insulation update. So someone moves out they can't rent it back out tell insulation is updated to be very good not this r13 crap r50 minimum please. Fun fact 99% of homes in America are r20 at most. Ps most skyscrapers use r150 to r250 insulation so way can't homes be r50 to r100.
The building with the smallest carbon footprint is the building reliably attractive enough that it won't be torn down and replaced every 2 decades. Classical building has a lot to teach us about aesthetic best practice.
Definitely.
True, but sitting in a 170 year old house right now, the amount it costs, and therefore amount of carbon produced, to heat an old building is so high compared to a newer design. Classical building techniques are far from perfect, but if we can combine modern energy saving techniques with old-style structural integrity, all for reasonable costs, we may be on to a winner.
@@Pastronomer69 There’s even New Classical architecture, which has a modus operandi on emphasizing the awareness of sustainability.
And building a tower out of wood doesn't seem to fit this criteria either
@@Pastronomer69 its also about making them look attractive so we cherish them instead of demolish them. every new brutalist building proberly has less of a life expectancy than something which is already 120 years old just because people don't like them.
It needs to be affordable to the everyday person, not just fancy new flats that only the wealthier can afford. But we can't even manage that for non-eco-residential buildings very well
I think we just need to mandate that new buildings have to purchase 100% of their energy from carbon neutral sources and for maybe 25 years. By the end of 25 years that should spur on a whole industry. These fancy high performance designs aren't affordable at all, totally agree with you. We can save the planet without having to kill humans or impoverish humans and create more of a wealth divide.
That would require government subsidies. It is impossible to build that kind of housing cheaply
While these types of projects could forbode a future where the world is still doomed as the rich get to live in pretty grow towers, we could also look at these developments as test beds for future techniques, ideas, and designs that will likely be much cheaper in the future.
We see this in the car industry all the time. Companies spend billions on the technology in their flagship and high end vehicles, where they remain exclusive for a few years until the tech begins to trickle down towards the average consumer. While cars are far from cheap, if you look at the value (reliability, tech, ect.) you get in a car the average person can afford now compared to cars fifty or even 30 years ago, you're getting a pretty good deal. A similar trend can be seen everywhere in engineering fields. While it's not one to one, and this process takes too long for our current dilemma, it is the basic system on which new technologies become available to us.
I believe it's increasingly likely we'll see affordable sustainable energy, fuel, and housing in the near future. Although this of course relies on market demand for these types of projects, which is where I believe the true problem arises. As no one care for the environment truly.
@@DavidMcCalister the thing driving much of the cost is labor.
I enjoyed leaving Shanghai and going all the way around the globe just to end up in Shenzhen.
Or going from Oslo to Copenhagen after taking a trip around the world first
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle and not just 1 but 2 full revolution of the earth lol
Who’s fault is that?
Reusing existing buildings is still the most sustainable option compared to new build.
Because we've built enough buildings for people to live in, that's why there is no housing shortage I guess.
@@ideadlift20kg83 There are 16 million homes sitting empty across the U.S.A., the issue is more how we're choosing to use and alot our spaces.
@@ollivyr boomer vacation homes need to GO. Law needs to be passed 3 properties maximum per person!!!!
@@ollivyr thats a common arguement thats already been debunked. Simply reading through the actual census data will show you that not all of those 16 million "vacant" homes are actually habitable
Totally agree. Also any new buildings should also have the smallest physical footprint possible per occupant. And ideally should only be built on land already spent by human activity. Although of that land can be re-wilded it is even a better option.
Despite the UK government being pretty incompetent, they are helping us make progress in the fight against climate change in the construction and built environment. I work mainly in the residential side of the industry and they have introduced new regulations to make sure that new properties and extensions have high levels of insulation and new sources of energy, whether it be solar or air source heat pumps etc. We've got a long way to go but progress is being made. Fingers crossed we can turn this around in the coming decades.
Do you guys use heat exchange?
"they are helping us make progress in the fight against climate change"
wow....they help so much that they said "spend more money on islution and heat pumps and windows"
wooooow they are so helpful...
if the gov actually cared about the climate/people they would do something substantial like building cities where you (DONT NEED) a car not just say "WALK OR BUY A 100K$ EV!" the best city would be something like the apple park, but 2km in diameter with recreation/parks/and shopping zones inside the circle and with a train station in the middle that connects you to the other circles
@@katherandefy not usually in home extensions.
@@faustinpippin9208 that is a very irrational circle city idea
@@skygge1006 thanks for the useless feedback, my friends that are city planners, engineers, architects disagree with you
The more glass you see, the more large atriums, the less "eco" it is.
We just had 600% of a normal 4 month rainy season fall in 12 days. Auckland just had a full season dumped in 24 hours... When I get depressed about it all I turn on a B1M to get my enthusiasm back. Plus they're pretty buildings!
Man, I love this channel and the B1M . Such amazing videos.
Gonna be really interesting to see these projects come to be and future ones too.
I'd sure love to live in such an eco-friendly, sleek building .. such a pity it costs a fortune! In Milan's bosco verticale it's around €15,000/m2🙁
True
Some interesting buildings and a really important focus. Would have been nice to see a refurbishment in there considering estimates suggest 80% of buildings that exist today will still be here in 2050. The implication being that, while not as glamorous, deep green refurbishments of every day buildings like school, residential and offices will be absolutely key to meeting our climate needs. If you are interested in doing a piece on this LETI are in the process of working on sector specific retrofit guides to sit alongside their main guide.
Great video as always 👍🏻
Any chance you’ll do a whole video on that timber building in Denver once it’s complete?
Everyone looks to the future, but shouldn't we combine the past also? Old architecture has lasted 100s of years whereas 60s buildings are already crumbling? Using better resources and lasting longer is what's needed
I love the well done research here. I was about to correct a detail mentioned, checked it out and the office had changed its name!
Correction to the title: It's now and forever!
We need to get and stay environmentally conscious in the future.
Awesome Video!!!!
Interesting. Both wood buildings and paper bags are coming back.
But for sometime, using other materials (plastic bags and concrete was about saving trees.
Priorities change
@@darthmaul216 yeah, fuck oxygen, who needs that anyway ! 🤣
@@darklittlepeople Step 1: cut down trees.
Step 2: plant new trees
Step 3: wait ~20 years
Step 4: repeat.
It was always about business profits, and they only pretended to care about trees.
I am so happy to see more sustainability in development. I am tired of the "now or never" fear mongering though. The world was supposed to end at least 5 times in my life now lol.
Florida still isn't underwater yet, sadly.
ಆದಷ್ಟು ಬೇಗ ನಾನು ವಿದ್ಯಾವಂತನಾಗಿ ಈ ದೇಶಗಳಿಗೆ ಬದುಕಲು ವಲಸೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತೇನೆ! ಇದೇ ನನ್ನ ಗುರಿ! 🙂
Best of luck and just keep at it, no matter what.
I work commercial construction in Texas, this industry in my experience has been very slow to change. I’d love to be on the cutting edge of that change to help lead the way. Is anyone aware of any builder training for new green tech methods and materials?
I believe several have been going for a while. Passive haus online is one example though I have no idea how active they are.
Search for LEED certification. I think that is the building standards. Not sure of the training but contact at the bottom of the website page at their “About” links.
@@katherandefy thank you!
The information is out there, problem is it all contains some level of self promotion for their own gain. You really have to take the time do your own research and sift through the bs. Industry associations can have information, but are also self serving lobby groups. Start down the rabbit hole with the North Texas US Green Building Council.
Would be great to get comparative construction costs per sqm for these buildings compared to conventional construction.
Factor in that building like this supports health, reduces climate shocks, and will be more resilient in climate change shifts. We need to figure out the cost benefit of all that!
@@DiscoverSustainability totally agree, let’s do that.
While you are at it get a complete cost comparison by adding ongoing maintenance and utility costs. We don’t just build and tada. The rest of the expense is considerable. Add also the cost of rebuild at the completed building life cycle. The greater number of the rebuild intervals the higher that cost figure will be.
Thanks!
Great report Team. Loads of word, concrete Global actions and commitments however... we could do more, loads more.
I think I'm convinced that high performance enveloped aren't the solution, its an expensive luxury item. I think we need to create more durable designs, construction methods that last much longer both aesthetically and against the weather. In a lot of sense like older buildings with simple structures. To deal with carbon you have a 3 part approach, 1-less carbon intensive construction not trying to maximize R values, 2-designs that last so the corrected yearly carbon emissions from construction are minimal (ie less needs for renovation and demolition), 3 - requiring green energy for at least 25 years for the new building and highly highly incentivizing cement/steel from carbon neutral sources. Hydrogen is coming down the line as replacement to coal and if the Japanese nuclear reactors that produce hydrogen really get underway we'll really see a huge reduction in GHG's. You can throw in thoughtful design for passive heating and cooling as much as possible and stop making glass towers going back to punch windows instead as well. I'm in Toronto and there is a huge housing affordability crisis so all these beautiful design features and high performance enveloped are really only for the rich right now. For the rest of us we should spur on the green energy sector instead.
You shood co a video on the true scale on how large bridges are
The US should change the zoning laws, so you could build multistory houses in residential areas, not only single family homes. Also they should allow for shops to be built close to houses so you wont have to drive 15 minutes just to get some milk. This would save a lot of energy
Good For you guys, for us in Africa its only POLITICS that gives us HEADACHES. Green we have but, PROJECTS for good and sustainable buildings is not talked about. Lets hope green construction does not marry with POLITICS in the future, otherwise it will be messed up.
An architect from Africa won the Nobel Prize.
Diébédo Francis Kéré has been awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize. 2022.
China's mega projects for 2023 will be surprising to the world again
So in some places a rain catchment is illegal but if a company does it that's "zero water".
I can't help but feel all these buildings would be expensive to build and maintain - Look at their designs for a start! Most people can't afford regular homes, forget big projects like these, beautiful and vital if we are to survive climate change, though they are.
Fantastic video guys
Lets go!!!
Whilst sustainable building practices and technological advances are vitally important, what we really need is an attitude shift. We focus far too much on economic growth. The rate at which we build new infrastructure is greater than the rate at which our new infrastructure has fewer associated construction emissions. In a more literal sense of the word, this growth is inherently unsustainable!
We need to move away from thinking new infrastructure which is 'less bad' for the environment is acceptable. We need infrastructure based on regenerative design practices.
i thought future eco buildings would be based on nature. like that building in africa which was based on termite hill. that was genius.
"Kill a tree, save the Planet!". The slogan of timber construction
With floors being exposed to the elements, I'm kond of concerned that the second project might go the way of 432 Park Avenue. The open floors have caused significant issues for the building.
4:34: How bout making the manufacturing of steel and concrete greener without throwing a wrench in the works of the economy?
Trees and open windows are nice and all, but are they including the huge environmental cost of cement?
Biomimicry or biophilic design, look it up! Very early stages but can scale like crazy in the years and decades to come if we become aware of it
@B1M, from the comments a video about exchange ventilation and associated concerns about pests would make a good topic to educate us about.
When discussing the first building’s carbon footprint you flashed a clip of a nuclear power plant. I’m not sure that’s right…
Another one that knows shit about power plants ... Those are cooling towers, used in coal power plants, maybe even more than in nuclear.
@@totoro5421 sorry for my ignorance. I have lived near three different coal fired plants and driven past many more without ever seeing cooling towers such as these. My experience in four states is apparently not enough experience to get a polite correction from you.
@@JEBavido Yeah sorry for the assholery. Turns out someone found the would be nuclear reactor in the back of the frame. Still, the 2 sec clip I don't think it warrants making a comment to defend nuclear energy.
0:45 What building is that? Looks stunning!!!!
Vestre Furniture Factory it seems like
@@onlyeveryone2253 correct
first?
If new ways of building with wood produces materials as strong as steel, lighter and fire resistant, then why not build trains, trams, cars etc with it?
Is wood capable of absorbing impacts like materials for trans trains and cars?
is the fancy geometric shapes really designed for energy efficiency or just to look futuristic? the carbon reduction is great but unecessary complexity will make it harder to build en masse
Don’t think we wouldn’t notice you sneaking in footage of Salt Lake City in the Denver bit.
at :40 can you explain what you mean by "the built world" are we including the likes Kuala Lumpur, Lagos other 'built' metros in unbuilt countries or this excluding all countries considered 3rd world? Are we including all of rural America? Cause if its the former, 70% of population living in cities would mean 70% produces just 40% of emissions.
you're talking about developed/developing countries here. I think "built world" means literally built, like constructed buildings and infrastructure in contrast to cars and manufacturing.
So every single built structure in the world, from New York City to every small settlements.
i understood it as in "the building industry"...
When are guy's gonna do a video on one of the biggest road infrastucture projects in Europe. The Oosterweel works in Antwerp, Belgium?
Why do you sound exactly like Fred from B1M
If they just add in all the innovations from all the examples given in this episode they could create a building that is 500% carbon negative. Easy.
Guess the world forgot, that with climate change our current weather anomalies get way worse.
No factor of earthquake intensity factored, seems to be the idea.
Modern architecture will never be 'eco'
maybe climate change will force us.
You are looking at it. Right there bro.
5:54 Was it really necessary to spin right around the globe twice to go from Oslo to Copenhagen? Come on, that was just silly.
About time the ridiculous architecture of last few decades has run its course
1:26 this building architecturally like Singapore South Beach Tower
The idea of brand new buildings requiring people to commute to them as a weapon to fight climate change is beyond ludicrous.
Or the billionaires that use their private jets to tell you what you should do to fight it.
I wonder the cost and demand of a timber building. If the science checks out I would love to live in one some day. But I that depends on the cost of course. I know location is still the biggest factor and I live in Toronto which is currently the largest housing bubble in the world sadly.
Soviet microdistrict vs USA Suburbia
Can we see a disclaimer that says this channel's videos aren't funded by the CCP or anything related?
I got really excited when I saw those pics of that Green Norwegian furniture factory, then you didn't cover it.
Either Tomorrow's Build or B1M made a video about it.
They have covered it in a past video
Thesis: we are to defeat climate change!
1. The climate over millions of years has had its natural cycles. Some periods are warmer, others cause 1/3 of the planet to glaciate.
And it happened without human intervention.
2. More CO2 is emitted by a few volcanic eruptions than by man-made emissions throughout the year.
3. China, India, the rest of Asia, Latin America or Africa have no desire to apply climate restrictions for the next decades, so any efforts by the West in this direction would not matter much, assuming that it would make any sense in this context.
4. The use of wooden structures to reduce CO2 emissions :)... In order to achieve at least a minimal reduction of this emission in this way, wood would have to be used in construction on a massive scale, and this would result in the liquidation of large forest areas, which, after all, process by themselves CO2 into oxygen.
Thinking has a future, and any ideology - even the one that seems exceptionally noble - destroys thinking and disturbs human existence.
Around 10 seconds in, the video shows what looks like a nuclear power plant. No single other source of energy has lifecycle carbon emissions as low as nuclear power, so I hope the creator understands that this looks like misinforming the audience...
Those are cooling towers, typical of coal power plants too. Go do homework.
@@totoro5421
First of all, thank you for your incredibly pedantic answer. If you look closely, one or more reactor blocks are visible behind the cooling towers. And I know other power plants can have cooling towers too.
@@veganlion8662 you are right there is what seems to be a reactor, and about my pedantic comment. As pedantic as you crying over a two second clip.
@@veganlion8662 your first sentence is to die for ! 😙👌🤣
(the one with the "incredibly pedantic answer")
No buildings are "good for the environment", some are just more sustainable than others
nOw oR nEvEr
These eco-buildings are being down in developed nations and rich countries. Every country need to be doing these for us to beat climate change.
there is no anthropic climate change. How can people still believe that
@@r3dp1ll because it’s a fact. And facts don’t care about your feelings
It's all well and good with the red-bricked facade cladning in the Henning Larsen buildings, although I could think of alternatives. What takes the cake though is the fact, that they are built on a man-made island, where the quay wall is made from reinforced concrete, and is not in any way friendly to the already abysmal conditions in Øresund.
Lynetteholmen is the next big project, and might be the last nail in the coffin for the dwindling oxygen levels in Østersøen. Oh the humanity!
First?
You're second
3:25 is that a little cold in your voice?😂
The news is so dramatic “we are in the ‘fight’ against climate change” - more like a political fight 🤦♂️
Awesome video! God bless. Always remember that Jesus Christ loves you all so much! Jesus Christ forgives all sins. Jesus Christ is God, King, and Savior!❤️🙏
As a doctor, I am highly concerned about our switch to LED interior lighting, blocking of Near Infra-red light along with UV light, and blocking of sunlight to make buildings efficient. We need NIR light to boost key regenerative effects throughout our bodies. We don't need direct sunlight, just reflected or emitted NIR. They really need to include 850 nm NIR light in all commercial fixtures. Could massively reduce health consequences of being indoors. Incandescent bulbs had some, probably not enough in most buildings and homes, but at least it was some.
Not sure what you’re going on about with “key regenerative effects” or whatever, but we could all just go outside a bit more, which I’m sure would be good for us in a bunch of other ways.
Also, the technique to make Roman concrete has been rediscovered!
Just need to point out that you characterized LEED very poorly.
The system(s) are robust, flexible, and include many credit categories that are about reductions or a change in approach, rather than add-ons as you stated. Water reduction and improved quality being just one example. Another being the Integrative Process credit, which calls for discovery of what is possible to achieve for primarily water use and energy use reductions by assessing the site conditions thoroughly and working with the team.
Overall nice building examples. It is amazing what we can do if we pay attention to what nature has for us, set goals, pay attention, and work collaboratively to do better in each subsequent project. And we better iterate and learn on every project!
What about all of the climate gas from the US military to fight the war in Ukraine?
Or all the waste of oxygen witnessed here.
Perhaps you should put your hot air to a more productive use.
The U.S military ISN'T fighting in Ukraine, though. As much as Putin wishes he had that excuse for real.
Or all the green house gases that are being prevented by the world moving away from fossil fuels because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
but aren't tall, timber buildings gonna cause even more oxygen producing, climate and terrain regulating trees to be chopped down ?! resulting in even less habitat for many animal species ?
0:00 huh? no, lol. If the gov/rich actually cared they would do it a long time ago.
1
You're third
that looks like 3,200 for a 1 bedroom no thanks
Did the globe have to spin the wrong direction and go completely around the world to go from Shanghai to Shenzhen?
Real question: Are timber buildings less safe because they can catch fire and burn so quickly?
All a bunch of ugly buildings that'll have to be torn down in 30 years, and replaced with something even uglier. How eco-friendly is that?
My question is, where is all the timber coming from?, if there is a high growth of building tall buildings with timber that means more forests have to be cut down
Sustainably-managed forests seem to be doing better at replenishing tree populations that provide structural lumber. ...better than clear-cutting and moving on, at least! Tree-farmers are doing a pretty good job here in the Pacific Northwest USA of treating their land like a farm. Harvest, replant, regrow, harvest again. They know they can't just let the top soil wash off if they want another crop!
Are we going to ignore that these "developments" are still cash-grabs and take the general form of exactly like what is already being put up?
Sustainable architecture is made from local vernacular materials, built on floor plans which are adaptable and will last centuries, and is not taller than it needs to be (usually 7 stories max). Also the urbanism of these projects is a complete disaster. I see very little real progress
exactly this
Yes we are because what you are saying is nothing more than a pipe dream and isn't realistic.
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle that is incredibly unambitious of you. It is only not realistic because the rich decide it is. packing people into giant monoliths is neither humane or the thing we need to be doing right now. building out of glass is the unrealistic thing here, it is difficult to heat and among otherthings depressing for most people to look at. glass towers may be an 'efficent' way to house people but it is not at all a way placed with the needs of humans at its centre. just the needs of money. not to mention the fact that glass needs to be replaced way more often than real building materials do.
@@pigeon_the_brit565 Again with this "humans at the center" talk lmaooo You're either young or don't actually work in politics. We all know what SHOULD happen but anyone who works in city planning and works with billionaire real estate devs knows what you're preaching isn't going to happen and isn't pragmatic. There has to be compromises and technological innovation to meet half way. But keep fighting the good fight brother i respect it. I'm going to end the conversation here, its not that I disagree with you but its about as hot a take as having world peace and ending all hunger and exploitation.
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle I think its time we change the system if its broken. the reality we exist in was created by billionares with no right to the power they hold, people have had enough and something has got to give.
Timber buildings... Good for the environment? Really?
So, cut more trees down to make buildings where we are already seeing shrinking forests around the world 🌎. Not so sure...
Hey love your channel but I wanna know how much is the CCP paying you to promote China? Cause you're supposed to declare the advertisements!
Making more buildings for corporations & rich people is NOT "inventive". We need housing for low income & homeless people; that would be inventive.
Climate change is happening and human caused if you would like to challenge that then tell me what is responsible for rise in global temperatures
don't worry y'all, the 'ice age' is actually a misnomer. The vast majority of the last 100,000 years has been a mostly frozen Earth. The real exception is the 'warm age' we are currently enjoying. Hard to grow veggies under miles of ice
The tower in Oslo looks awful. Hoping to see more timber building in the future!
But open ventilation can invite in lots of insects and dust.
how is that worse from pollution and global warming ? bugscreens, i dunno...
Nitpicking. At 2:07 it talks about reducing carbon footprints by using less grid energy, but then shows the Dampierre nuclear power plant in the background video.
This video is a taste of many developments and we need both off grid development and grid development from renewable sources.
The world: we need to cut our emissions in construction!
Murica: hold my beer - we'll just use what ever is left since we wiped out the natives and call it renewables!
Do you seriously believe Chinese companies did what they are saying?
Timber 'skyscrapers' will never catch on. Or if they do, the first major fire will be the end of them. Fire protection in multi-storey buildings is something I have been involved in for much of the past 30 years. Each component works great in a test facility. The combination of all those systems over many years in the real world, not so much. With concrete/steel construction you've got a lot of margin for compromise. You will have almost zero margin in a multi-storey timber building. I would never live in one even if you paid me to do so.
Would be a skyscaper with the levels on top with timber and the lower parts build with concrete/steel be a good alternative?
@@MrTahref Better for the people occupying the lower levels is about all
I encourage you to look up some of the mass timber construction going on, and fire safety is paramount. Up to 18 stories is now allowed by the International building code. Some types of mass timber construction only allow some of the structural elements to be exposed and some other types (usages, occupancy types) can show it all off. The composite timbers are sized to char in a way that maintains structural performance longer than most steel and even concrete elements in a fire.
@@DiscoverSustainability I'm aware of all that but I refer you back to my original comments.
We all know those diagrams are pure BS
However efficient buildings which blend into the environment, use the sun and the wind and rain and add to the local natural ecology rather than punching a hole in it would be good irrespective of any idiot narrative about human caused global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophe/whatever they're calling it this week.
no building is good for the environment
this cc hoax still going
Please dont ever show Biden talking againn.
Westen capitalism propaganda 🙄🤢🤢
How does this have western capitalist propaganda and ccp propaganda?
These are cool and will help but not the wooden one that is a good way to send us faster into climate change.
Why cant all cities just go ok any and all buildings built before 2010 will need a insulation update.
So someone moves out they can't rent it back out tell insulation is updated to be very good not this r13 crap r50 minimum please.
Fun fact 99% of homes in America are r20 at most.
Ps most skyscrapers use r150 to r250 insulation so way can't homes be r50 to r100.