Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by arcticbull 1316 days ago
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...
1 comments
ericmay 1316 days ago
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.

link
arcticbull 1316 days ago
> 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.

link