Ventilation Louvres

Please help me figure this out!!!?

Please help me with this and please don’t x out of this with leaving a short reply! I am freaking out worrying that skyscrapers are harmful to the environment. I know I have made threads about this in other forum sections but I had so many questions and different threads so I just wanted to put everything down in one spot. Ok, now I know density is more sustainable than urban sprawl for obvious reasons, but it seems like the most sustainable city-type would be a dense city filled with mid-rises. Now, while mid-rise cities are great, let’s face it, skyscrapers are awesome and awe-inspiring. Mid-rises can’t compete IMO. My fear that the skyscraper is unsustainable has stemmed from reading stuff about all the energy it takes to build them and operate their elevators, all the embodied energy in structural stuff like steel and concrete, etc. So, to make this as simple and organized as possible, I thought I would make a list of things I have heard that claim a skyscraper is unsustainable and then give my opinion on each list item. Now, I love skyscrapers and but I feel that it would bother me if they were not earth-friendly, so please help me out with this. Here are some things I have read that claim certain aspects of a skyscraper aren’t environmentally friendly: (1.) Ken Yeang, a highly educated “eco-architect” who has written many books says that skyscrapers are one of the most unecological building-types there is and that they can never be fully green in totality. Therefore, we must negate their negative effect as much as possible. (2.) A lot of energy has to be used to: get all that steel way up to the top of the building, operate the elevators, keep the hallways and lobby lit and heated/cooled, etc. (3.) A lot of energy is used to create the concrete and steel that is used in building skyscrapers. (4.) Ken Yeang is for biodiversity and thinks that the human-made environment should be benign and integrated into nature. He claims that failure to integrate our man-made systems into nature’s systems would mean that our man-made systems will remain artificial (as opposed to organic) items and potential polluters. Now here is what I am thinking/wondering about each of these points: (1.) Can ANY building other than a mud hut actually be 100% green? (2.) Can’t we use greener energy to operate the machines that lift all the steel? Can’t a building create its own energy to operate elevators, lights, HVACs? (3.) I read that there are greener alternatives to concrete and steel. The steel alternative is being used in a building in Dubai and supposedly has way less embodied energy. Plus, aren’t they using recycled steel from the Twin Towers to build the new WTC? (4.) I totally understand his point about being organic and integrated into nature because, let’s face it, all other animals don’t produce inorganic waste. But, what is wrong with a skyscraper that creates all of it’s own energy, uses natural ventilation, and uses rainwater for toilets, etc? Sure it won’t be “organic” or “benign,” but it won’t be polluting and it will be using all of the available resources. Now, please give your honest opinion on all of this. I really want and need your help. Please don’t be biased towards or against cities or skyscrapers. Just state what you believe to be true. Thank you so much for staying ‘til the end. I greatly appreciate your time!

Public Comments

1. Well, I don't know about other cities, but here in Seattle almost all of the skyscrapers are offices. They are used from 9-5, M-F, then are pretty much empty the rest of the time. I can't see how that could possibly be environmentally sustainable. All of those people could be working from home. The whole concept of an office needs to be re-thought. Beyond that, I've read about some pretty amazing buildings where they recycle their sewage and all kinds of crazy things. They use up everything they create. I don't see how that could be so terrible for the environment...and if it is damaging, you'd still have to consider how damaging it is in comparison to the alternatives we have available to us. I have a really hard time believing that midrise buildings like the one I live in are better for the environment. I had a headache for a full week when we first moved in here from all the new construction fumes.
2. I appreciate y0ur Question. It puts a light on many subjects which need to be addressed. I am all for what you are talking about . This can not be done over night .Too many peoples ways, habits needs to be changed. We must make it more and more profitable for people to change. The way to do this is to continue to educate people ,as you are doing. We need more Bio Engineers ,People who want it green. The Most effective way is the Green Of Money. Show any people a way they will profit from the greening of the world, they will stampede over you to get it done. Obama is trying to do this but has not found an effective way yet. Plus he has to please to many people.
3. The energy required to refine the steel and deliver it to the worksite is much more than that to raise it up into the skyscraper, note that all of this energy is only needed during construction so it's amortized over the life of the building. New materials based on carbon nanotubes are on the verge of becoming possible. Elevators are very efficient with energy because most of the work is performed by a counterweight. The inefficiencies of our existing elevators stem from the need for multiple shafts however linear induction motors promises to allow us to have multiple cars per shaft with the stops being offline. The mechanical counterweights would be replaced by regenerative braking via the linear induction motors so they would still be efficient and they could move horizontally as well as vertically and even between buildings, i.e.: a PRT system such as the Star Trek turbolift. The concept of vertical farming brings much of the natural element into the skyscraper and brings food production locally as well. Solar power requires surface area exposed to sunshine so the amount of clean energy that a skyscraper can produce will depend on it's actual configuration but it would be possible for photovoltaics and wind power to generate the power needed for a skyscraper. Such a skyscraper could in theory extend all the way into geostationary orbit and beyond hence generate power in space. Water would more likely be recycled artificially in such a skyscraper rather than collected from rainwater as rainwater collection requires a large roof surface are to occupant ratio while a skyscraper has the exact reverse ratio. Man made artificial environments are obviously not as bio diverse as nature simply due to size and due to our incomplete knowledge of biology so biological processes would be augmented with artificial systems but it would be far more biological then the environmental systems of our existing skyscrapers. Existing skyscrapers may not be self-sufficient and sustainable but there's no reason for future skyscrapers to not be sustainable. There may be problems with the concept of property ownership with such mega city concepts but it would be possible to leave nature to nature and concentrate humanity into artificial environments. Whether people will want to is another matter (some will, but many won't).