For the sake of clarity right from the top, the Rockhouse considers high-rise buildings to be little more than hideously-expensive phallic obscenities which assert the dominance of men but do little to represent common sense. Same may say that's exactly what they would expect from men and that's as may be but not all of us aspire to build skyscrapers; in fact, hardly any of us do.
Note: from the above you can reasonably anticipate there may be some (cough) language but it's brief ... and effective (larfs).
London. Credit: Maureen Barlin via Flickr
Amazingly, this is not a vision of Chaos but rather downtown London ... which looks much like Chaos. It definitely shows the absence of any coherent design or coherence in much of anything, for that matter.
Ed: but it's beautiful at night!
Yeah, yeah ... they're all beautiful at night ... because then you can't see these fuckin' ugly skyscrapers. What of that blue, strapped dildo egg on the right. Does that belong there? Does that belong fucking anywhere?
Here's the case:
Office and residential buildings use more energy per square metre, the taller they are, according to new research from UCL.
Researchers at UCL's Energy Institute have found that electricity use, per square metre of floor area, is nearly two and a half times greater in high-rise office buildings of 20 or more storeys than in low-rise buildings of 6 storeys or less. Gas use also increases with height, by around 40%. As a result, total carbon emissions from gas and electricity from high-rise buildings are twice as high as in low-rise.
The 'High-Rise Buildings: Energy and Density' project, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) analysed data from 610 office buildings in the UK. The research team looked at energy consumption 'in operation' and not 'embodied energy' (energy used to produce building materials and in the construction process).
Professor Philip Steadman (UCL Bartlett School of Energy, Environment and Resources) explained, "The use of air conditioning plays a part in but does not provide a complete explanation of these results. On average, carbon emissions from air-conditioned offices are found to be 60% higher than those from offices with natural or mechanical ventilation.
Phys.org: High-rise buildings much more energy intensive than low-rise
Ed: UCL is comprised of biased quacks and this is rubbish!
Believe what you like, Young Cynic, but do continue seeking or the only one you deprive is yourself.
Going straight for the conclusion, we have:
A third part of the study looked at the relationship of different forms of building to their densities, where density is measured by taking the total floor area and dividing by the site area. The work has shown that, in many circumstances, the densities achieved by tall towers can be achieved with lower-rise slab or courtyard buildings. It is not always necessary to build tall to achieve high densities and energy use could, in many cases, be greatly reduced by building in different forms on fewer storeys.
- PO
Likely you knew that pitch was coming and the interested student is always invited back to the source article to review for yourself.
Ed: that's great. So we build low and that means the city will tend to sprawl more so then you will only bitch more about all the traffic.
In fact, we will continue that bitching ... but ... that problem is recognized. People are fed-up with gridlock but there's a great deal of thought going into city design along with the research to validate it. We see little to none of that in the continuing construction of skyscrapers, each one striving to be bigger and more expensive than the last. The Rockhouse maintains they represent the last gasp of Conspicuous Consumption and we need more intelligence behind the design of cities which may house upward of ten million people.
We do see that intelligence in the research regarding improved city design in the contexts of energy distribution, etc but ... for the skyscrapers there's nothing. They're just grasping monuments to the passing of the Second Gilded Age.
Ed: don't you think you went a bit past the limits for a #Science tag?
Perhaps but the readers will be the final judge of that.
Note: from the above you can reasonably anticipate there may be some (cough) language but it's brief ... and effective (larfs).
London. Credit: Maureen Barlin via Flickr
Amazingly, this is not a vision of Chaos but rather downtown London ... which looks much like Chaos. It definitely shows the absence of any coherent design or coherence in much of anything, for that matter.
Ed: but it's beautiful at night!
Yeah, yeah ... they're all beautiful at night ... because then you can't see these fuckin' ugly skyscrapers. What of that blue, strapped dildo egg on the right. Does that belong there? Does that belong fucking anywhere?
Here's the case:
Office and residential buildings use more energy per square metre, the taller they are, according to new research from UCL.
Researchers at UCL's Energy Institute have found that electricity use, per square metre of floor area, is nearly two and a half times greater in high-rise office buildings of 20 or more storeys than in low-rise buildings of 6 storeys or less. Gas use also increases with height, by around 40%. As a result, total carbon emissions from gas and electricity from high-rise buildings are twice as high as in low-rise.
The 'High-Rise Buildings: Energy and Density' project, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) analysed data from 610 office buildings in the UK. The research team looked at energy consumption 'in operation' and not 'embodied energy' (energy used to produce building materials and in the construction process).
Professor Philip Steadman (UCL Bartlett School of Energy, Environment and Resources) explained, "The use of air conditioning plays a part in but does not provide a complete explanation of these results. On average, carbon emissions from air-conditioned offices are found to be 60% higher than those from offices with natural or mechanical ventilation.
Phys.org: High-rise buildings much more energy intensive than low-rise
Ed: UCL is comprised of biased quacks and this is rubbish!
Believe what you like, Young Cynic, but do continue seeking or the only one you deprive is yourself.
Going straight for the conclusion, we have:
A third part of the study looked at the relationship of different forms of building to their densities, where density is measured by taking the total floor area and dividing by the site area. The work has shown that, in many circumstances, the densities achieved by tall towers can be achieved with lower-rise slab or courtyard buildings. It is not always necessary to build tall to achieve high densities and energy use could, in many cases, be greatly reduced by building in different forms on fewer storeys.
- PO
Likely you knew that pitch was coming and the interested student is always invited back to the source article to review for yourself.
Ed: that's great. So we build low and that means the city will tend to sprawl more so then you will only bitch more about all the traffic.
In fact, we will continue that bitching ... but ... that problem is recognized. People are fed-up with gridlock but there's a great deal of thought going into city design along with the research to validate it. We see little to none of that in the continuing construction of skyscrapers, each one striving to be bigger and more expensive than the last. The Rockhouse maintains they represent the last gasp of Conspicuous Consumption and we need more intelligence behind the design of cities which may house upward of ten million people.
We do see that intelligence in the research regarding improved city design in the contexts of energy distribution, etc but ... for the skyscrapers there's nothing. They're just grasping monuments to the passing of the Second Gilded Age.
Ed: don't you think you went a bit past the limits for a #Science tag?
Perhaps but the readers will be the final judge of that.
2 comments:
Does not bode well for energy savings in Rick City since a shallower wider cave would promote better energy use
Actually, that should all be part of the arithmetic since we want to minimize the distance between any two people while getting the best energy distribution part of which likely comes from analyzing the sprawl relative to the number of levels for the best efficiency. I do think that one is still alive and a huge driver is it doesn't inherit mistakes from the past since it's all new construction.
Post a Comment