• awwwyissss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    How so? I’ve always just assumed that kind of extremely dense urban construction was better environmentally. One big system to manage HVAC, economies of scale when building it, tiny actual footprint relative to usable space, etc.

    • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      One big system to manage hvac, which needs to constantly work overtime because you built an insanely gigantic Greenhouse. To be fair that can be solved by simply not making the entire goddamn outer surface glass windows but that’s a different conversation

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The gain from building higher isnt linear. You have to use more space for elevators, re-enforcements, safety(fire for example), etc. The cost of the apartments go up drastically so most people who buy them dont live there, they just invest. Midrises are much better in all of these aspects. Also the materials needed for skyscrapers harder to mamufacture so with all of these they are just plain worse for the environment. Göterborg is a pretty good example of how midrises are better in almost every case.

        • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There are exceptions of course but its mainly cities like the centre of tokyo where you have extreme density, money and incentive to live. Of course the other thing is skyscapers are cool af. I think the solution is the same as with cars and a lot of other things: moderation.

          • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Lucky for us humanity excels at moderation and responsible use of technology, right?

            … right?