daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Do you agree with Young's statement that skyscrapers are one of the most unecological building types
Yes, I agree 1 6.67%
No, I disagree 14 93.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 25th, 2009, 11:22 PM   #1
-KwK345-
My user title is the bomb
 
-KwK345-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 631
Likes (Received): 2

Eco-Architect Ken Yeang says skyscrapers are UN-ecological

Ecological Architect Ken Yeang states in his book "Eco Skyscrapers" that skyscrapers are one of the most unecological building types because of all the energy and materials used to build them and to operate. He also says that skyscrapers should be made as green as possible simply because they won't go away overnight and they will with us for a while until we come up with an "economically viable alternative." (Although he says skyscrapers can never be green in totality and we must mitigate their negative effects.) I don't see how we could come up with an alternative to the skyscraper. He states that in nature, nothing is wasted and that we should mimic this by building buildings that are integrated into nature. So I guess what he is saying is that our buildings should "mesh" and "be a part" of nature. I am wondering if he means everything should be biodegradable, but I don't see how it would be possible to make every single thing we use biodegradable. And another thing: he even states that buildings that have solar panels, photovoltaics, building automation systems, double facades, biological recycling systems, and a high green rating award aren't necessarily ecological.

What do you think of all of this. I thought skyscrapers where supposed to be very environmentally friendly. It seems to me that Yeang fails to mention that people in sksycrapers use way less energy per capita than people in single family dwellings. Plus, with skyscrapers, people can walk or use public transit easier. How can they be the worst building type for the environment?!? He can't be suggesting that a small suburban city whose only walkable area is a dead downtown is greener than, say, Manhattan, right? Skyscrapers or not, we can all agree that dense, walkable areas are far more ecological than spead out single family homes, correct?! I can understand where he is coming from with buildings being integrated into nature but what is wrong with a building that doesn't necessarily mesh but makes its own energy from nature and recycles things? He says they will just be artificial things that wont be natural. They'll have the potential to pollute. And it also bothers me that he said skyscrapers are unecological and can never be 100% green? How are they not ecological?!?!?!

His skyscrapers have MANY plants on them and are designed to use resources from their location. So what do you think? I mean, this guy went to school at the University of Cambridge and he really seems to know what he is talking about. Are there any other books out there written by highly educated architects who argue that skyscrapers are naturally ecological or at least green?

Please reply, because I'm kinda freaking out wondering if skyscrapers are environmentally harmful. Please, at least leave a short reply saying if you agree or disagree with Ken Young's statement. I thought I'd make this a poll just in case so people could reply very quickly.
-KwK345- no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 26th, 2009, 01:50 AM   #2
-KwK345-
My user title is the bomb
 
-KwK345-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 631
Likes (Received): 2

Also, what would you say is the most ecological building type?
-KwK345- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 01:52 AM   #3
jayo
Registered User
 
jayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 886
Likes (Received): 2

depends what kind of skyscraper it is.
__________________
london
jayo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 02:03 AM   #4
Iluminat
Redsigert User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,459
Likes (Received): 4542

To be honest I don't really care but since I can't choose that option I go with No.
Iluminat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 04:01 AM   #5
-KwK345-
My user title is the bomb
 
-KwK345-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 631
Likes (Received): 2

Ok, well let me just clarify something. Which is more environmentally friendly, a high-density urban center filled with skyscrapers or a small sprawling suburban city? It's the high density area, right? Now I know that their would be more pollution in the high density area but that's just because everything is more concentrated. But per capita, wouldn't pollution be way less in the urban core, thus making it better for the environment?
-KwK345- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 07:52 PM   #6
-KwK345-
My user title is the bomb
 
-KwK345-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 631
Likes (Received): 2

Can you believe what this person on yahoo answers said?!?!

"Urban areas...like you said, have more pollution and waste all together. The businesses, such as mining, create damage to the Earth. And don't forget the people, who are constantly using energy for their homes and cars/taxis! Suburban areas have less "businesses"' to deal with, thus their pollution is less. By saying how per capita pollution in the urban is less than the suburban is wrong, because in the urban area each person is contributing hunks of pollution to the environment. In suburban areas, people walk, ride bicycles etc. therefore are more environmentally stable and each produce less waste!!"

I strongly disagree with them, don't you?! I mean, HELLO, people in urban areas also walk, bike, use public transit, and live in smaller apartments while people in suburbs have huge houses with gas-guzzling SUVs that they have to use to get everywhere!
-KwK345- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2009, 09:04 PM   #7
Victhor
Que paza!!!
 
Victhor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spain/Shanghai
Posts: 2,501
Likes (Received): 1704

Have you read the book? or just somebody told you about that?, I have read it, and it says the densitiy is ecological, that half of the use of land and energy are due to the use of the car in low density areas, and he say part of what you say in the second paragraph in the first post. So, in general, in that book he says the skyscraper is the most ecological way of building, and he explains that in some different ways. I did a work for a town planning subject defending the skyscrapers, and I used some quotes from that book that I can paste here, but in spanish:
-“Los puntos de vista que tachan al rascacielos de antiecológico acostumbran a desestimar el ciclo de vida completo del edificio y a la gran red de sistemas humanos y ambientes interrelacionados”.
- “El error de no ver el conjunto y la totalidad del sistema de interacciones distorsiona las comparaciones y provoca que el rascacielos parezca peor de lo que realmente es”.
- “El diseño ecológico es, generalmente, partidario de la concentración de la construcción y de la utilización de edificios de huella pequeña que reduzcan al máximo el uso del suelo disponible”.
- “El planteamiento ecológico es mucho más riguroso y complejo de lo que popularmente se supone”.
-“La adopción de una densidad más alta en los espacios residenciales y de trabajo tiende a reducir la necesidad de poseer coche; reduce el total de los desplazamientos urbanos; reduce la demanda de espacio de aparcamiento; y aumenta el empleo del transporte público”.
-“El terreno puede quedar sin pavimentar, lo que supone un beneficio para la hidrología del lugar ya que aumenta la absorción del agua de lluvia y su infiltración en el terreno como agua freática”.
-“Construyendo en altura, parte del terreno pasa a estar disponible para su recolonización por la naturaleza, supondrá un aumento de las zonas verdes, lo que contribuirá probablemente a incrementar la biodiversidad”.
- “El consumo del suelo para urbanizaciones de poca altura conducirá a una disminución progresiva de los hábitats naturales”.
-“El rascacielos ofrece unas oportunidades inmejorables de reciclaje de los recursos costosos”.

Last edited by Victhor; July 29th, 2009 at 09:14 PM.
Victhor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2009, 09:12 PM   #8
Victhor
Que paza!!!
 
Victhor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spain/Shanghai
Posts: 2,501
Likes (Received): 1704

Quote:
Originally Posted by -KwK345- View Post
Can you believe what this person on yahoo answers said?!?!

"Urban areas...like you said, have more pollution and waste all together. The businesses, such as mining, create damage to the Earth. And don't forget the people, who are constantly using energy for their homes and cars/taxis! Suburban areas have less "businesses"' to deal with, thus their pollution is less. By saying how per capita pollution in the urban is less than the suburban is wrong, because in the urban area each person is contributing hunks of pollution to the environment. In suburban areas, people walk, ride bicycles etc. therefore are more environmentally stable and each produce less waste!!"

I strongly disagree with them, don't you?! I mean, HELLO, people in urban areas also walk, bike, use public transit, and live in smaller apartments while people in suburbs have huge houses with gas-guzzling SUVs that they have to use to get everywhere!
I agree with you, and Ken Yeang in his book too. Dense urban areas produce far less pollution per capita, because you can use colective transport (bus, subway) wich are much more ecollogical than cars, and distances are much shorter, so you can go almost everywhere walking, in most cities you don't need to use a car to have a normal life. In suburban areas you need a car for every single person to go everywhere, because distances are way too long to go walking, they walk and ride bicycles only for fun.
Victhor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2009, 09:21 PM   #9
Victhor
Que paza!!!
 
Victhor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spain/Shanghai
Posts: 2,501
Likes (Received): 1704

By the way, can you give me a link to that yahoo answers thing?
Victhor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2009, 06:57 PM   #10
brigHELL
Registered User
 
brigHELL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: milan
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayo View Post
depends what kind of skyscraper it is.
I'm agree with you...it depends what kind of technology the skyscraper has got, or if it uses green solutions about energy efficiency, lighting system...

(I apologize for my english...)
brigHELL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2009, 08:05 AM   #11
-KwK345-
My user title is the bomb
 
-KwK345-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 631
Likes (Received): 2

Please disregard this thread and post all further posts or replies here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...2#post40570972
-KwK345- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2009, 08:41 AM   #12
Imperfect Ending
Or is it?
 
Imperfect Ending's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 10,759
Likes (Received): 452

This



vs





Saves the planet more space
__________________

Imperfect Ending no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2009, 10:46 AM   #13
NICKKK1995
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 91
Likes (Received): 2

where are the fences to separate each others backyards????
NICKKK1995 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2009, 01:23 PM   #14
Imperfect Ending
Or is it?
 
Imperfect Ending's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 10,759
Likes (Received): 452

maybe it's communal ?
__________________

Imperfect Ending no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2009, 02:18 PM   #15
dddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 0

Ken Yeangs projects

View his 'bioclimatic skyscrapers' in this interview
http://www.gleeds.tv/index.cfm?video=413
dddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
skyscraper

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu