Are skyscrapers an example of sustainable urban planning?
This article is also available here in Spanish.

Are skyscrapers an example of sustainable urban planning?

My list

Author | Lucía Burbano

According to a report by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, between 1930 and 2010 (80 years) the first 50 skyscrapers in the world were built, while during the period from 2010 to 2015, 50 more were built. It seems to be an unstoppable boom, but how is the useful life of a building measured? And specifically of a skyscraper.

The architecture and construction sectors are guided by ISO standard 15686, which takes into account factors such as materials, the energy used, the construction systems, among many others.

As the years have gone by, the structure of skyscrapers has gone from being exclusively reinforced concrete to the use of materials such as steel and glass. And other more sustainable materials such as wood are already being used and even projects that seem taken from a science fiction movie, as they propose completely self-sufficient skyscrapers.

Are skyscrapers beneficial for the environment?

The answer, according to the study Decoupling density from tallness in analyzing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of cities‘ published in the Nature journal, is no. The conclusion reached by researchers is that a chain of skyscrapers generates 140% more total emissions during their service life compared with an area with lower buildings with the same numbrer of inhabitants.

The reason behind this is that skyscrapers require heavier structures, thicker foundations and greater use of materials with a higher carbon footprint than lower buildings

What is the solution then? For existing skyscrapers, the solution is to refurbish them and adapt them to current standards. There are already some examples. The Empire State Building, one of the architectural icons of New York, completed in 1931 and standing 443.2 meters tall, was refurbished a few years ago. It now enjoys annual energy cost savings of up to 38%, which earned it a LEED certification.

Skyscrapers-20

Environmental disadvantages of skyscrapers

The taller they are, the greater the pollution

Building high means using more materials that must be robust enough to withstand heights of 400, 600 or 800 meters. This substantially increases the carbon footprint.

They interfere with climate.

Grouping together skyscrapers in the same urban area causes heat islands since, when temperatures are high, the heat becomes trapped between the street level and the buildings, preventing the temperature from cooling naturally when then Sun goes down.

Concentration of pollution in cities

The more wind there is, the better the air quality as it blows away particles that cause pollution. However, cities with little natural ventilation and with a high number of skyscrapers and narrow streets, lead to what is known as the "valley effect". In this situation, toxic agents become traped in the upper layers. This occurs in Honk Kong, where the presence of skyscrapers along its coast blocks the sea breeze, increasing pollution.

Skyscrapers-21

Advantages of skyscrapers

All-in-one

Having different uses in one building concentrates more people and therefore, skyscraper advocates argue that this helps to compact various activities in one place that would normally take place in various buildings.

Build high, but less

In Europe, buildings account for around 40% of all energy consumed, and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions.  So, does it not make sense to build less but build tall?

So do we need skyscrapers?

Skyscrapers-22

Possibly, but these should undoubtedly be designed and built in accordance with more solid sustainability criteria. In terms of materials, wood is being proposed, or even more radical solutions in which skyscrapers have an enviornmental or even a social function.

The Mjostarnet building in Norway, standing 85.4 meters tall is one of the tallest timber buildings in the world. This material has a neutral or even negative carbon footprint, if we take into account the CO2 absorbed by the trees.

Perhaps various aspects need to be fine tuned for them to be a consolidated reality, but they would appear to be emerging as alternatives for us not to have to choose between skyscrapers or protecting the environment.

Images | Unsplash/James Coleman, Unsplash/Kit Suman, Unsplash/Ruslan Bardash, eVolo

Related content

Recommended profiles for you

DK
Daniel Kakolewski
lookale
TR
Tina Rehschuh
Doe in Boots Designs
Self employed
VT
Vanessa Trigoso Trigoso
HABITEO
ME
Maria Esteves
Estudio
HM
Henrik Morgen
BABLE Smart Cities
Nordic-Baltic Lead
RS
Ronen Shaal
Complot
CTO & Director of development
XL
Xavier Laos
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
Professor
FF
Fraj Fraj
Ministère
JA
João Vitor Alves Gomes da Silva
UFTM
Student
DW
Dennis Wilkens
Germany Trade and Invest
Director China, Germany Trade and Invest
DJ
Dario Junior
HAGNUS GROUP
CEO , FOUNDER AND OWNER
FN
Francesco Nicotra
Exceltic
Business Manager
ML
Micaela lin
UPC
student
DT
Damián J. Terrasa Díaz
Fhecor Ingenieros Consultores
DS
Djoko Subekti
Urban Consultant
Technical expert
DR
David Rojo
Spatial Concepts Consulting S.L.
Urban Planning Manager and Head of Sustainability
MD
Michael Docherty
EEAM Limited
Director
YD
Yohani Dominik dos Santos Figueiredo
UFSC
PhD student in Engineering and Knowledge Management
AN
Ariel Nathasya
Diponegiri University
Student
TN
Tommy Nichols
Displayuseonly productions

Are we building the cities we really need?

Explore Cartography of Our Urban Future —a bold rethink of ‘smart’ cities and what we must change by 2030.