[arcticbull]

In terms of carbon footprint, Hong Kong is actually very good.

2021 is showing about 4.37 metric tons per capita, and if you assume the rough contribution of power remained constant after 2011 ([1]) the overwhelming majority of that continues to be simply their almost complete reliance on coal, natural gas and oil power. If you exclude power, the per-capita CO2 emissions are around 1.6T

For comparison the lowest CO2 footprint city in the USA is New York at 5.38 and second-highest is San Francisco at 7.12 [2].

The HK figure is from 2021 while the US figures are from 2019 so that's not entirely fair. In 2019, HK had roughly 6T per capita CO2 emissions, putting it directly between NYC and SF - the two lowest emitting cities in the US.

With respect, I do want that! I want that very much.

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/china-hong-kong-...

[2] https://www.magnifymoney.com/news/cities-with-largest-co2-fo...

[ericmay]

Do these emissions take into account emissions caused by building the structures? Just curious as I really don’t know or know if it would make a difference.

Certainly if we wanted to minimize carbon footprint, something like Hong Kong is probably the best we can do right now, but at the same time residential homes have more capacity to add solar and to do things like repair their own home or open the windows to let a breeze in. I guess what I see is the fossil fuel based infrastructure that’s required to build and maintain these large skyscrapers that is of concern. Skyscrapers are monolith.

Aside from that though I also think mega cities are a little bit fragile in their centralization versus something more akin to Europe (and similarly elsewhere) where you have towns and villages and farms with local producers. They also IMO are not as psychologically healthy as compared to smaller towns or smaller, less ominous cities landscape.

[arcticbull]

Almost certainly not, I can't imagine they'd include amortizing the CO2 emissions of the concrete used in construction (which is to your point staggering). I have a better understanding now of where you were coming from in your post. I'm optimistic for the future of wooden skyscrapers [1]. Maybe as high as we can get them is the optimal limit for density?

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-r...

[ericmay]

Appreciate the great conversation! I fundamentally don't like the idea of having skyscrapers as the goal versus medium density/mixed use but if we are going to build them for sure a sustainable material seems to make sense.

Typically I'd say maxing out at 3-4 stories would get us to where we need to be, although certainly something like a hospital or special use building would/could be taller.

[arcticbull]

> Appreciate the great conversation!

Same!

> Typically I'd say maxing out at 3-4 stories would get us to where we need to be, although certainly something like a hospital or special use building would/could be taller.

I think that will always exist. It may not (should not?) be a hard cap in the core of major metros in my opinion. I think folks who want to live in 3-4 story max. houses should live in smaller towns (with high-speed rail access to major metros) rather than artificially constraining the development of major metros where the demand for more density exists.

A good example would be Paris and Riems. 45m away by TGV from downtown Paris but a completely different approach to development. Or similarly Hong Kong / Kowloon vs. the New Territories.