It is time no longer to praise the Seagram Building, but to bury it
December 1, 2022 9:24 AM Subscribe
The embodied energy just of the construction materials of the Seagram Building is estimated at 173 million kWh – almost four times the amount of energy that workers put into building the Great Pyramid at Giza (46 million kWh, approximately 78 million days of manual labour).Barnabas Calder and Florian Urban compare the energy profile of Mies van der Rohe’s iconic Seagram Building with Waugh Thistleton’s 6 Orsman Road, London. via
Interesting, I wonder if any research has been done into the environmental effects of very tall buildings, which can greatly increase density, vs. much shorter, high efficiency buildings that would nonetheless contribute to sprawl if that was the generally used format. Either way it’s pretty obvious we should build all our new buildings to require as little energy to run as possible. Does seem like an apples to oranges comparison, like comparing a road bike to a truck, but fascinating all the same.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:40 AM on December 1, 2022
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:40 AM on December 1, 2022
The Giza comparison is unfair; Seagram blows it out of the water in regards to efficiency per occupant.
posted by phooky at 10:58 AM on December 1, 2022 [38 favorites]
posted by phooky at 10:58 AM on December 1, 2022 [38 favorites]
The article makes it sound like the lighting isn't the problem at the Seagrams. It reads to me like it is a heating and cooling energy drain.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 11:03 AM on December 1, 2022
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 11:03 AM on December 1, 2022
The amount of co2 emitted in the materials used to construct the building are less important the longer the structure remains in use. A landmark building like the Seagrams will likely stand and be in use for 100 years or more. If the building it is compared to only has a 30-50 year lifespan then there is no savings.
In general, and in most cases, you're correct. But according to the numbers in the article, the Seagrams building consumes a shocking amount of energy in operation. By my math, the embodied energy in the construction of the Seagrams building represents less energy than the building uses in just 6 years. If it was replaced today by a building built with similar embodied energy but with the much lower energy use of 6 Orsman Road, the energy cost of the new building would be saved by 2030, and it would be 10x more efficient every year thereafter.
posted by Superilla at 12:09 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
In general, and in most cases, you're correct. But according to the numbers in the article, the Seagrams building consumes a shocking amount of energy in operation. By my math, the embodied energy in the construction of the Seagrams building represents less energy than the building uses in just 6 years. If it was replaced today by a building built with similar embodied energy but with the much lower energy use of 6 Orsman Road, the energy cost of the new building would be saved by 2030, and it would be 10x more efficient every year thereafter.
posted by Superilla at 12:09 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Jon Mitchell: there is a great deal of discussion around this. Part of the context missing from this comparison between the Seagram tower and the mid rise is totally missing: material choice dictates construction cost and methods, but material choice is generally dictated by location and ambition.
In my location buildings taller than 6 or 8 stories switch from a stick (generally wood) on 2 levels of cement to a steel building. Once you switch to steel the method of construction completely changes, and you start to require expensive things like a proper anchor system and a very sophisticated design, and don't forget to it might need to handle an earthquake. You'll need a big crane, lots of special equipment and many teams to handle even basic materials. These steel based buildings are often unique, and the logistics of building them is their own high science. Together this means that they cost much more, and there is much greater financial uncertainty and risk associated with building one.
This is part of why Chicago's modern skyline hops from buildings with under 8 floors to buildings with more than 16. Just the cost of steel towers is going to push them out of any real discussion of a broad solution to density needs.
So to actually answer you question in terms of best density? That answer is going to be urban blocks of mixed buildings between 4 and 8 stories. Outside of the central business district height isn't really the central factor for density. Elevators do stay expensive, so in the US anything past 3 stories is a lot of stairs to walk, and that will be around the realistic cap for that type of building.
You already know what an urban block is - the most famous of these urban blocks is probably Cerdá's Plan for Barcelona. Many folks adore the old city blocks found in place like Toledo Spain or Paris, but I think these are too dense for modern use. Envision long narrow units with a window at the end sort of bs. I am partial to perimeter blocks - which enclose a courtyard with a whole block of buildings around it.
Perimeter can be found in widespread use in Berlin and Stockholm, and I think is a better cultural/zoning/permitting fit to North American. Turn alleys into courtyards! There are lots of others, and whole variations like New Urbanism. Here in Chicago we are seeing mono blocks, or super blocks with a single entity controlling a whole block's development. The real action is in China and India, but that's a different post.
In terms of density the single width (very flexible style) perimeter blocks can easily reach 60-70 units per acre of land, and still feature a mixed use and infill. Modern double width buildings, with two units and a central hall, can reach 140 units per acre. Portland, in comparison, has a density of less than 10 units per residential acre. There is no fixed target for minimum unit density, as that varies by all sorts of social factors, but once you reach around 45 occupied households the magic happens.
I get that the folks coming up cannot be content to just let the old fade, but must destroy it. That the editor of the article chose to go with a a snowclone of "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" is actually a bit perfect. Because Shakespeare famously has this same speaker in fact go on and praise Caesar. It just shows that it's all a bit backwards to me. Of course the modern building is materially better for modern needs, the fight is with the inertia of the old ways, and how they have become ossified in regulations and expectations.
posted by zenon at 12:23 PM on December 1, 2022 [16 favorites]
In my location buildings taller than 6 or 8 stories switch from a stick (generally wood) on 2 levels of cement to a steel building. Once you switch to steel the method of construction completely changes, and you start to require expensive things like a proper anchor system and a very sophisticated design, and don't forget to it might need to handle an earthquake. You'll need a big crane, lots of special equipment and many teams to handle even basic materials. These steel based buildings are often unique, and the logistics of building them is their own high science. Together this means that they cost much more, and there is much greater financial uncertainty and risk associated with building one.
This is part of why Chicago's modern skyline hops from buildings with under 8 floors to buildings with more than 16. Just the cost of steel towers is going to push them out of any real discussion of a broad solution to density needs.
So to actually answer you question in terms of best density? That answer is going to be urban blocks of mixed buildings between 4 and 8 stories. Outside of the central business district height isn't really the central factor for density. Elevators do stay expensive, so in the US anything past 3 stories is a lot of stairs to walk, and that will be around the realistic cap for that type of building.
You already know what an urban block is - the most famous of these urban blocks is probably Cerdá's Plan for Barcelona. Many folks adore the old city blocks found in place like Toledo Spain or Paris, but I think these are too dense for modern use. Envision long narrow units with a window at the end sort of bs. I am partial to perimeter blocks - which enclose a courtyard with a whole block of buildings around it.
Perimeter can be found in widespread use in Berlin and Stockholm, and I think is a better cultural/zoning/permitting fit to North American. Turn alleys into courtyards! There are lots of others, and whole variations like New Urbanism. Here in Chicago we are seeing mono blocks, or super blocks with a single entity controlling a whole block's development. The real action is in China and India, but that's a different post.
In terms of density the single width (very flexible style) perimeter blocks can easily reach 60-70 units per acre of land, and still feature a mixed use and infill. Modern double width buildings, with two units and a central hall, can reach 140 units per acre. Portland, in comparison, has a density of less than 10 units per residential acre. There is no fixed target for minimum unit density, as that varies by all sorts of social factors, but once you reach around 45 occupied households the magic happens.
I get that the folks coming up cannot be content to just let the old fade, but must destroy it. That the editor of the article chose to go with a a snowclone of "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" is actually a bit perfect. Because Shakespeare famously has this same speaker in fact go on and praise Caesar. It just shows that it's all a bit backwards to me. Of course the modern building is materially better for modern needs, the fight is with the inertia of the old ways, and how they have become ossified in regulations and expectations.
posted by zenon at 12:23 PM on December 1, 2022 [16 favorites]
The article is confusing while it's intention is to make it simple, but perhaps it works with the intended audience.
I don't think the article is actually about burying the Seagram Building, which TBH would be an obscene thing to do for many reasons including CO2 waste, or even to discuss the actual energy use at the Seagram Building (which I think we should), but to stop people from constructing buildings like the Seagram Building, and that is a very sound proposal.
First of all: if Ludwig Maria Mies van der Rohe* had lived today, he wouldn't be building Miesian architecture. He would be building stuff that addressed today's conditions. That was his whole thing: be in your age. Don't copy the past, but learn from it. See how our forefathers adapted to their conditions and then do the same for our age.
The condition of our age, which has been known and discussed since the 1970s, is that we are burning up the planet with our irresponsible energy use, both in the construction industry and in the use and maintenance of buildings, existing and new.
The architects who build Miesian architecture today are as ridiculous as the architects who insisted on reproducing neoclassicism when Mies was young (and again when he was old). And in that context, I think the article is trying to demonstrate that there is a way to keep on building in the modernist style, even though you are working with sustainable methods. I don't think I agree. Why jump through a lot of hoops because you really, really want a flat roof and a glass facade, when your objectives could be met with forms and materials that work with our given conditions? I don't have the final answer, but it is something I think about all the time, for work.
One thing we do need to do is stop tearing down perfectly useful buildings. Instead we should retrofit them so they use less energy and are more comfortable to be in. For many, many modernist buildings, that will ruin their style. Maybe the Seagram needs windows that open for cross-ventilation and live up to contemporary standards for heat loss/gain, and awnings to protect from the sun, and yes, LED lighting, but that is the least problem. LED will probably be better than the existing system. Maybe it needs solar panels on the rooftops.
Interesting, I wonder if any research has been done into the environmental effects of very tall buildings, which can greatly increase density, vs. much shorter, high efficiency buildings that would nonetheless contribute to sprawl if that was the generally used format. Either way it’s pretty obvious we should build all our new buildings to require as little energy to run as possible. Does seem like an apples to oranges comparison, like comparing a road bike to a truck, but fascinating all the same.
This is a whole other problem, but it is a good question, because it demonstrates that you can't only solve CO2 emissions at a technical level.
If you visit the plaza in front of The Seagram Building, you will discover that its micro climate is very comfortable. People from the neighboring blocks as well as those working in the Seagram itself go there for lunch breaks. But that is not the case with every tall building. Midtown is generally characterized by an extreme climate created by the tall buildings, which also affects the energy use in the buildings. If you live in New York (or in any city with a similar variety of urban typologies), you can make an experiment for yourself. Go to Greenwich Village on a warm spring or autumn evening, and then to midtown or downtown. You will feel the difference: where there are many tall buildings, as soon as the sun goes below a certain point, and no longer can enter the urban canyons, the turbulence created by the tall buildings makes itself felt, and it becomes icy cold. In midwinter, the sun hardly enters the streets and only just the avenues and you might as well be in an arctic winter. In midsummer, you have the opposite problem.
I remember reading a study that claimed 6-8 storys are ideal in terms of density (for excellent public transit and short walking/bike distances), that is like Paris or Barcelona. But the problem is that there is a lot of ideology in these types of studies, and it is difficult to control for all the relevant parameters.
*I wrote out his whole name because originally, his name was Ludwig Maria Mies. And then he added van der Rohe as a joke, but the joke stuck, and now many people think Mies is his first name.
posted by mumimor at 12:34 PM on December 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
I don't think the article is actually about burying the Seagram Building, which TBH would be an obscene thing to do for many reasons including CO2 waste, or even to discuss the actual energy use at the Seagram Building (which I think we should), but to stop people from constructing buildings like the Seagram Building, and that is a very sound proposal.
First of all: if Ludwig Maria Mies van der Rohe* had lived today, he wouldn't be building Miesian architecture. He would be building stuff that addressed today's conditions. That was his whole thing: be in your age. Don't copy the past, but learn from it. See how our forefathers adapted to their conditions and then do the same for our age.
The condition of our age, which has been known and discussed since the 1970s, is that we are burning up the planet with our irresponsible energy use, both in the construction industry and in the use and maintenance of buildings, existing and new.
The architects who build Miesian architecture today are as ridiculous as the architects who insisted on reproducing neoclassicism when Mies was young (and again when he was old). And in that context, I think the article is trying to demonstrate that there is a way to keep on building in the modernist style, even though you are working with sustainable methods. I don't think I agree. Why jump through a lot of hoops because you really, really want a flat roof and a glass facade, when your objectives could be met with forms and materials that work with our given conditions? I don't have the final answer, but it is something I think about all the time, for work.
One thing we do need to do is stop tearing down perfectly useful buildings. Instead we should retrofit them so they use less energy and are more comfortable to be in. For many, many modernist buildings, that will ruin their style. Maybe the Seagram needs windows that open for cross-ventilation and live up to contemporary standards for heat loss/gain, and awnings to protect from the sun, and yes, LED lighting, but that is the least problem. LED will probably be better than the existing system. Maybe it needs solar panels on the rooftops.
Interesting, I wonder if any research has been done into the environmental effects of very tall buildings, which can greatly increase density, vs. much shorter, high efficiency buildings that would nonetheless contribute to sprawl if that was the generally used format. Either way it’s pretty obvious we should build all our new buildings to require as little energy to run as possible. Does seem like an apples to oranges comparison, like comparing a road bike to a truck, but fascinating all the same.
This is a whole other problem, but it is a good question, because it demonstrates that you can't only solve CO2 emissions at a technical level.
If you visit the plaza in front of The Seagram Building, you will discover that its micro climate is very comfortable. People from the neighboring blocks as well as those working in the Seagram itself go there for lunch breaks. But that is not the case with every tall building. Midtown is generally characterized by an extreme climate created by the tall buildings, which also affects the energy use in the buildings. If you live in New York (or in any city with a similar variety of urban typologies), you can make an experiment for yourself. Go to Greenwich Village on a warm spring or autumn evening, and then to midtown or downtown. You will feel the difference: where there are many tall buildings, as soon as the sun goes below a certain point, and no longer can enter the urban canyons, the turbulence created by the tall buildings makes itself felt, and it becomes icy cold. In midwinter, the sun hardly enters the streets and only just the avenues and you might as well be in an arctic winter. In midsummer, you have the opposite problem.
I remember reading a study that claimed 6-8 storys are ideal in terms of density (for excellent public transit and short walking/bike distances), that is like Paris or Barcelona. But the problem is that there is a lot of ideology in these types of studies, and it is difficult to control for all the relevant parameters.
*I wrote out his whole name because originally, his name was Ludwig Maria Mies. And then he added van der Rohe as a joke, but the joke stuck, and now many people think Mies is his first name.
posted by mumimor at 12:34 PM on December 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
TLDR: a brand new 6 story mid rise building almost 2 miles from the London core is substantially different than an old 38 story tower in downtown NYC. Which sounds snarky but I totally agree that 6 stories are the way to go for most future development, and think mumimor has got it with respect to some older buildings.
posted by zenon at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by zenon at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Thanks zenon+mumimor, little snippets of niche domain knowledge like that is part of why I frequent MF.
Sounds like if around eight stories is ideal, there is a ton of opportunity to reduce the carbon costs of the building, too, with things like the Brock building becoming more common.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 1:09 PM on December 1, 2022
Sounds like if around eight stories is ideal, there is a ton of opportunity to reduce the carbon costs of the building, too, with things like the Brock building becoming more common.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 1:09 PM on December 1, 2022
The 3 Energy Star rating comes from 2012 when NYC did a baseline assessment. According to Curbed as of 2020 it had improved to a 17. That still isn't great but is a major improvement. This appears to be the result of upgrades to the HVAC system started in 2015. It looks like a lot of the easy work has been done and now they will need to replace the windows with something other than single pane 1/4" windows.
posted by interogative mood at 1:15 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 1:15 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Having grown up in Hong Kong, this thread is wild. I have completely different perceptions of what constitutes high rise, mid rise, low rise, and what dense is, what level of density is acceptable or desirable.
posted by Dysk at 1:21 PM on December 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:21 PM on December 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
Dysk, I hear what you are saying and I'm literally working on it, though the COVID situation is a big issue, because I can't do field studies.
What I think at this point, is that certain places, like Hong Kong, Manhattan, Singapore and a few others have legitimate reasons to build high rise. And are in a climate where the challenges can be solved, even if they aren't dealt with today. But my documentation is poor. I had hoped to spend 2020 traveling to these cities and more. [grim laughter]
In other places, high rise buildings are largely symbolic. No one needs the City of London to be where it is. One could say there is some sort of history or tradition. But that doesn't apply to Houston, which has one of the bleakest downtowns I have ever visited. Or Toronto, where the climate issues I mentioned above are multiplied.
Also, if you build too densely, you will get insane infrastructure issues. It doesn't matter much in city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore, where pendlers aren't much of an issue, and to a long extent, the same applies to Manhattan. But go to Chicago or Houston or London, and you can really feel it.
posted by mumimor at 1:34 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
What I think at this point, is that certain places, like Hong Kong, Manhattan, Singapore and a few others have legitimate reasons to build high rise. And are in a climate where the challenges can be solved, even if they aren't dealt with today. But my documentation is poor. I had hoped to spend 2020 traveling to these cities and more. [grim laughter]
In other places, high rise buildings are largely symbolic. No one needs the City of London to be where it is. One could say there is some sort of history or tradition. But that doesn't apply to Houston, which has one of the bleakest downtowns I have ever visited. Or Toronto, where the climate issues I mentioned above are multiplied.
Also, if you build too densely, you will get insane infrastructure issues. It doesn't matter much in city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore, where pendlers aren't much of an issue, and to a long extent, the same applies to Manhattan. But go to Chicago or Houston or London, and you can really feel it.
posted by mumimor at 1:34 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
No one needs the City of London to be where it is.
What on earth does that mean? Who are you to declare such a thing? People wanted them there, have lived there for generally thousands of years. London deserves to be where it as much as any place does.
Also, if you build too densely, you will get insane infrastructure issues.
This also needs a lot of caveats, because taxes are taken on a per-unit basis, and as the number of units rise with density, the cost on a per-unit basis falls. Of course it rises again at certain points, but it's still not comparable to say a non-dense place (ie: 10 acre lots with single family homes, fire protection, and modern roads).
Also, who cares if it's occasionally cold in tall building canyons in NYC on certain days? This seems like a problem architects have invented. Build some underground tunnels like Houston did because some dipshit architects said that it's too hot & humid in the summer there and air condition them. That's probably why the downtown pedestrian interface in Houston sucks.
Or some stupid skyways. Or bitch that it's hot in Arizona.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:24 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
What on earth does that mean? Who are you to declare such a thing? People wanted them there, have lived there for generally thousands of years. London deserves to be where it as much as any place does.
Also, if you build too densely, you will get insane infrastructure issues.
This also needs a lot of caveats, because taxes are taken on a per-unit basis, and as the number of units rise with density, the cost on a per-unit basis falls. Of course it rises again at certain points, but it's still not comparable to say a non-dense place (ie: 10 acre lots with single family homes, fire protection, and modern roads).
Also, who cares if it's occasionally cold in tall building canyons in NYC on certain days? This seems like a problem architects have invented. Build some underground tunnels like Houston did because some dipshit architects said that it's too hot & humid in the summer there and air condition them. That's probably why the downtown pedestrian interface in Houston sucks.
Or some stupid skyways. Or bitch that it's hot in Arizona.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:24 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
taxes are taken on a per-unit basis
This may be the case in the USA but it is not some law of nature. Taxes are levied however the government levying them wants them levied.
posted by Dysk at 3:39 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
This may be the case in the USA but it is not some law of nature. Taxes are levied however the government levying them wants them levied.
posted by Dysk at 3:39 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
What on earth does that mean? Who are you to declare such a thing? People wanted them there, have lived there for generally thousands of years. London deserves to be where it as much as any place does.
Compared to somewhere like Hong Kong, where the high rise very much does have to be where it is because of very literal space constraints, London is not tightly bounded in the same way. It is there because people want it (as you yourself note) not due to an actual need for it to be there - you have the option of building out instead of up, or using the (compared to Hong Kong) giant tracts of land in the rest of the country.
posted by Dysk at 3:42 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Compared to somewhere like Hong Kong, where the high rise very much does have to be where it is because of very literal space constraints, London is not tightly bounded in the same way. It is there because people want it (as you yourself note) not due to an actual need for it to be there - you have the option of building out instead of up, or using the (compared to Hong Kong) giant tracts of land in the rest of the country.
posted by Dysk at 3:42 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
One thing I learned is that apparently the British steel industry is hilariously inefficient, because that 20MJ/kg quote was bonkers. Maybe they were referring to 1950 production?
The structural mill I worked with in the US produces structural material for less than half the energy they quoted in the article (and that's all-in, not just what they need for the melt shop itself, and not including the "energetic credit" they get for certain recycling operations they run on their own waste [other industries use the slag etc. as feedstock, so some calculations give the mills "credit" for providing a lower-energy item that replaces a higher-energy input to a different industry]).
posted by aramaic at 3:46 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
The structural mill I worked with in the US produces structural material for less than half the energy they quoted in the article (and that's all-in, not just what they need for the melt shop itself, and not including the "energetic credit" they get for certain recycling operations they run on their own waste [other industries use the slag etc. as feedstock, so some calculations give the mills "credit" for providing a lower-energy item that replaces a higher-energy input to a different industry]).
posted by aramaic at 3:46 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
London has the green belt which forces density. I live in Singapore where 95% of us live in high rises and houses are almost all terraces. There’s a local joke that you can go away for a holiday and come back and not recognise the neighbourhood because there is a lot of turnover as buildings are turned into more dense upgrades. I love the older buildings but having lived in them, they were expensive to cool and the set interiors made them difficult to retrofit to modern standards without just gutting them.
I can’t understand why people would rather live spread out in single houses over being in one dense high rise with the same floor space and then getting to have all the extra land for parks, wild areas etc. Bring on the arcologies!
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 4:18 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
I can’t understand why people would rather live spread out in single houses over being in one dense high rise with the same floor space and then getting to have all the extra land for parks, wild areas etc. Bring on the arcologies!
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 4:18 PM on December 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
I bought into a glass condo tower and possibly by luck chose a unit on the southeast corner. It was heated by morning sun and shielded from afternoon sun. I never had to run the heater or air conditioner. But people on the western side lived in solar ovens in the afternoon. This was all compounded by a lack of cross-ventilation because for instance in my unit the only fresh air was from the patio door which I left open 24/7 (being on the 16th floor there was no security issue). But this was typical; most units had no cross ventilation at all and only one operable window which could open just a crack.
Anyway, it was a bad decision—in a string of them—that could easily have been much worse.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:26 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Anyway, it was a bad decision—in a string of them—that could easily have been much worse.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:26 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Anyway, it was a bad decision—in a string of them—that could easily have been much worse.
So, back when I was getting into architecture (before I realized that was a terrible terrible decision and ran the fuck away, which fortunately for my income didn't take long), my "ecological design" professor (hey, at least they had that as a job description!) insisted that the only morally-acceptable way to build a structure was to literally pitch a tent and live on the site for a year or, failing that, visit the site at least once a week for a year before proceeding to design.
...as that was the only way you'd really understand how the wind works, where the sun goes, where the rain collects, where the random breezes go at what time of day, where the snow collects, where the dew settles at what temperature with what wind, and so on. If you did go all-in and pitch the tent, he argued that at the end of the year you would have inevitably moved the tent to the correct location for the structure.
He wasn't wrong.
...but also, ironically, that advice works best for green-field single-family home construction, which at this point may be actively evil.
Still, awareness of site and conditions is under-utilized. Sun, Wind and Light isn't flawless, but it's a nice distillation of tricks and manual calculations (so you don't need to buy the latest zillion-dollar design package subscription just to do a sun path analysis). Point being, if anyone found the article interesting they might like the book (NB: my copy is quite old, and I do not possess the latest, so YMMV).
posted by aramaic at 7:07 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
So, back when I was getting into architecture (before I realized that was a terrible terrible decision and ran the fuck away, which fortunately for my income didn't take long), my "ecological design" professor (hey, at least they had that as a job description!) insisted that the only morally-acceptable way to build a structure was to literally pitch a tent and live on the site for a year or, failing that, visit the site at least once a week for a year before proceeding to design.
...as that was the only way you'd really understand how the wind works, where the sun goes, where the rain collects, where the random breezes go at what time of day, where the snow collects, where the dew settles at what temperature with what wind, and so on. If you did go all-in and pitch the tent, he argued that at the end of the year you would have inevitably moved the tent to the correct location for the structure.
He wasn't wrong.
...but also, ironically, that advice works best for green-field single-family home construction, which at this point may be actively evil.
Still, awareness of site and conditions is under-utilized. Sun, Wind and Light isn't flawless, but it's a nice distillation of tricks and manual calculations (so you don't need to buy the latest zillion-dollar design package subscription just to do a sun path analysis). Point being, if anyone found the article interesting they might like the book (NB: my copy is quite old, and I do not possess the latest, so YMMV).
posted by aramaic at 7:07 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
London has the green belt which forces density.
This, again, is a political choice. And there is plenty of land on the other side of said green belt.
posted by Dysk at 7:55 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
This, again, is a political choice. And there is plenty of land on the other side of said green belt.
posted by Dysk at 7:55 PM on December 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
(Also worth noting that London planning rules artificially restrict building heights dramatically for the sake of preference in a way that most other large cities just don't, and that there is widespread opposition to tall buildings among residents. Again, seems completely bizarre and counter-productive to me.)
posted by Dysk at 9:29 PM on December 1, 2022
posted by Dysk at 9:29 PM on December 1, 2022
Still, awareness of site and conditions is under-utilized
Isn't that true!
And back in the day, knowing about those things were part of the education. I know, because I started architecture four years before my conservative school was belatedly hit by postmodern thinking. So I had climate considerations integrated in ALL classes until my final year, when I was doing my own thing anyway. People just a few years younger than me have never heard of those issues at school, and see them as an engineering problem to be solved using computer programs.
You don't need to live in a tent, though. Everything about site and climate is searchable in easy to access sources, and was easy to access in the paper-book days too.
Mies van der Rohe never went to architecture school, but he did know how to manage climate and ressources. He just assumed, like others in his generation, that energy was an unlimited and cheap ressource. He was wrong, but so was everyone else in the 1950s.
The reason we have tall glass buildings in cities where they are not necessary is real estate value. A 50 story building in the City of London has more value than the equivalent m2 in a 6 story building in Milton Keynes, and bankers do not need to be within that square mile, but they do like good investments. It's all about speculation in real estate, and that began (again, after a 50 year hiatus) during the Reagan/Thatcher years.
The price/value of buildings is extremely site specific. In Singapore, land is limited, so it makes sense to build tall buildings. It's also interesting that housing is almost entirely public in Singapore, so there is no speculative element in the housing sector.
But where land is available, tall buildings are relatively expensive, because the ratio of services like elevators, fire exits, AC, and bathrooms to actual working space is stupid. Obviously, you need more construction material per m2 in a very tall building than in a medium rise because the construction needs to carry bigger loads and brace for higher wind pressure, and there are also higher labor costs for high rises per m2, for many reasons.
However, politicians can choose to make real estate interesting for speculative investors, and in that case, the cost of construction isn't very important. The important thing is that the value of the building remains constant or even rises over time. From that perspective, the Seagram was a really good investment and it is a fine building that serves its purpose. But real estate speculation is a super corrupt business, and to a very large extent, the values are created in an unholy alliance between corrupt politicians, crooked investors, mobsters and greedy banks. See: Trump.
The super skinny buildings that are now sprouting in Manhattan are beautiful to look at from the outside, but they are very much an example of the idiocy of real estate speculation. They are completely unsustainable, both in terms of construction and maintenance, their floor plans have a ridiculous ratio of utilities to livable space, and they have no productive value: they can only be used as investment assets for really rich people (I mean, technically you can live in them if you are really rich and can afford the maintenance, but that is not why you buy the condo).
If for some reason an area looses its speculative attraction, even the most elegant and well-made buildings will loose their value, and if that happens, it only takes a few years of inadequate maintenance for those buildings to become shabby and grim. When I tell that to students, they can't imagine it: we live in an age of rich cities and poor rural areas. But I was alive in the 1970s where even London and Manhattan were poor and the buildings were shabby while suburbs and smaller towns prospered. And in the 1990s where shrinking cities were commonplace in the US and Eastern Europe. Urban growth is not a law of nature, it is determined by a lot of factors, and some of them are political choices, on the national and local levels.
posted by mumimor at 9:54 PM on December 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Isn't that true!
And back in the day, knowing about those things were part of the education. I know, because I started architecture four years before my conservative school was belatedly hit by postmodern thinking. So I had climate considerations integrated in ALL classes until my final year, when I was doing my own thing anyway. People just a few years younger than me have never heard of those issues at school, and see them as an engineering problem to be solved using computer programs.
You don't need to live in a tent, though. Everything about site and climate is searchable in easy to access sources, and was easy to access in the paper-book days too.
Mies van der Rohe never went to architecture school, but he did know how to manage climate and ressources. He just assumed, like others in his generation, that energy was an unlimited and cheap ressource. He was wrong, but so was everyone else in the 1950s.
The reason we have tall glass buildings in cities where they are not necessary is real estate value. A 50 story building in the City of London has more value than the equivalent m2 in a 6 story building in Milton Keynes, and bankers do not need to be within that square mile, but they do like good investments. It's all about speculation in real estate, and that began (again, after a 50 year hiatus) during the Reagan/Thatcher years.
The price/value of buildings is extremely site specific. In Singapore, land is limited, so it makes sense to build tall buildings. It's also interesting that housing is almost entirely public in Singapore, so there is no speculative element in the housing sector.
But where land is available, tall buildings are relatively expensive, because the ratio of services like elevators, fire exits, AC, and bathrooms to actual working space is stupid. Obviously, you need more construction material per m2 in a very tall building than in a medium rise because the construction needs to carry bigger loads and brace for higher wind pressure, and there are also higher labor costs for high rises per m2, for many reasons.
However, politicians can choose to make real estate interesting for speculative investors, and in that case, the cost of construction isn't very important. The important thing is that the value of the building remains constant or even rises over time. From that perspective, the Seagram was a really good investment and it is a fine building that serves its purpose. But real estate speculation is a super corrupt business, and to a very large extent, the values are created in an unholy alliance between corrupt politicians, crooked investors, mobsters and greedy banks. See: Trump.
The super skinny buildings that are now sprouting in Manhattan are beautiful to look at from the outside, but they are very much an example of the idiocy of real estate speculation. They are completely unsustainable, both in terms of construction and maintenance, their floor plans have a ridiculous ratio of utilities to livable space, and they have no productive value: they can only be used as investment assets for really rich people (I mean, technically you can live in them if you are really rich and can afford the maintenance, but that is not why you buy the condo).
If for some reason an area looses its speculative attraction, even the most elegant and well-made buildings will loose their value, and if that happens, it only takes a few years of inadequate maintenance for those buildings to become shabby and grim. When I tell that to students, they can't imagine it: we live in an age of rich cities and poor rural areas. But I was alive in the 1970s where even London and Manhattan were poor and the buildings were shabby while suburbs and smaller towns prospered. And in the 1990s where shrinking cities were commonplace in the US and Eastern Europe. Urban growth is not a law of nature, it is determined by a lot of factors, and some of them are political choices, on the national and local levels.
posted by mumimor at 9:54 PM on December 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's also interesting that housing is almost entirely public in Singapore, so there is no speculative element in the housing sector.
ahahahaha no. 80% of us live in HDBs (Housing Development Board - govt. built apartments from 1-5 rooms, with a 99-year lease and grants to help younger people buy), but as pressure from external buyers at the high-end increases, there's a squeeze on all the properties right now and prices for our low-end 'starter' flats are frankly ridiculous. Property is very speculative here.
A 4-room flat where I used to stay might have been $20,000 in the 1980s. That flat is now about $350,000 today if you are very very lucky because it's a good area - the equivalent of $144,000 in the 1980s or a seven-fold increase.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 11:52 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
ahahahaha no. 80% of us live in HDBs (Housing Development Board - govt. built apartments from 1-5 rooms, with a 99-year lease and grants to help younger people buy), but as pressure from external buyers at the high-end increases, there's a squeeze on all the properties right now and prices for our low-end 'starter' flats are frankly ridiculous. Property is very speculative here.
A 4-room flat where I used to stay might have been $20,000 in the 1980s. That flat is now about $350,000 today if you are very very lucky because it's a good area - the equivalent of $144,000 in the 1980s or a seven-fold increase.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 11:52 PM on December 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Thanks dorothyisunderwood. And see, I need to go on that field trip ASAP.
posted by mumimor at 12:20 AM on December 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by mumimor at 12:20 AM on December 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
it only takes a few years of inadequate maintenance for those buildings to become shabby and grim
Back when I briefly lived in St. Louis there were vast expanses (blocks and blocks and blocks) of city with absolutely beautiful brick and masonry buildings in utter disrepair (like, trees growing out of the third floor disrepair). It was amazing and appalling. Then "brick mining" became a thing, and they started disappearing almost overnight (in some cases, literally overnight). Last time I was there the neighborhoods were still mostly as poor and desperate as ever, except now they were mostly weed-strewn empty lots, with the occasional falling-apart-but-occupied structure. Reminded me of a forest fire, except for buildings; ashes and the occasional standing tree.
posted by aramaic at 7:02 AM on December 2, 2022 [3 favorites]
Back when I briefly lived in St. Louis there were vast expanses (blocks and blocks and blocks) of city with absolutely beautiful brick and masonry buildings in utter disrepair (like, trees growing out of the third floor disrepair). It was amazing and appalling. Then "brick mining" became a thing, and they started disappearing almost overnight (in some cases, literally overnight). Last time I was there the neighborhoods were still mostly as poor and desperate as ever, except now they were mostly weed-strewn empty lots, with the occasional falling-apart-but-occupied structure. Reminded me of a forest fire, except for buildings; ashes and the occasional standing tree.
posted by aramaic at 7:02 AM on December 2, 2022 [3 favorites]
you have the option of building out instead of up, or using the (compared to Hong Kong) giant tracts of land in the rest of the country.
Building up is far smarter from an ecological perspective than building up.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:48 AM on December 2, 2022
Building up is far smarter from an ecological perspective than building up.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:48 AM on December 2, 2022
Building up is far smarter from an ecological perspective than building up.
Assuming you meant building out in the second case, I agree up to a point. Creating a small square mile of giant inefficient monuments to capitalism files exclusively with offices surrounded by a giant sprawl of low rise and two-storey houses for residential because of arbitrary planning restrictions is much, much less efficient than mixed-use mid-rise throughout, because of the far lower transport requirements, and the exponential increases in embodied energy in buildings as they get taller beyond a certain point.
posted by Dysk at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Assuming you meant building out in the second case, I agree up to a point. Creating a small square mile of giant inefficient monuments to capitalism files exclusively with offices surrounded by a giant sprawl of low rise and two-storey houses for residential because of arbitrary planning restrictions is much, much less efficient than mixed-use mid-rise throughout, because of the far lower transport requirements, and the exponential increases in embodied energy in buildings as they get taller beyond a certain point.
posted by Dysk at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
We've only 50 years of oil and gas remaining, so a 100 year life space means little if temperature control depends upon energy being available 24/7. I suppose building maintenance and constructing dikes around Manhattan could all be done in the daytime using solar.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:49 AM on December 3, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 4:49 AM on December 3, 2022
We've only 50 years of oil and gas remaining
I feel like this has been stated as a fact for at least as long as I've been alive, similar to how fusion is always a decade away. We just keep finding more fossil fuel deposits, and as the price rises, deposits that were considered impracticable to use become economical.
so a 100 year life space means little if temperature control depends upon energy being available 24/7
There are sources of energy other than oil and gas (and other fossil fuels). Even resistive heaters work with renewables, but heat pumps are so much better.
posted by Dysk at 5:56 AM on December 3, 2022
I feel like this has been stated as a fact for at least as long as I've been alive, similar to how fusion is always a decade away. We just keep finding more fossil fuel deposits, and as the price rises, deposits that were considered impracticable to use become economical.
so a 100 year life space means little if temperature control depends upon energy being available 24/7
There are sources of energy other than oil and gas (and other fossil fuels). Even resistive heaters work with renewables, but heat pumps are so much better.
posted by Dysk at 5:56 AM on December 3, 2022
America's conventional oil production peaked in the 70s, like Hubbert predicted, although the peak output was somewhat higher due to technological improvements. America and Canada invested heavily in low EROI shale oil since 2006, which brings many problems, like often being de facto ponzi schemes that bilk investors.
It'd really doom humanity if shale develops much elsewhere, but regardless America's shale should be counted into that 50 years, so they'll be out of the picture.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:12 AM on December 4, 2022
It'd really doom humanity if shale develops much elsewhere, but regardless America's shale should be counted into that 50 years, so they'll be out of the picture.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:12 AM on December 4, 2022
There's a lot of oil and gas produced outside of the USA though.
posted by Dysk at 7:42 AM on December 4, 2022
posted by Dysk at 7:42 AM on December 4, 2022
It won't necessarily do the Seagram Building much good though. American developed shale oil and gas to help maintain their global hegemony, but what they do when they run out becomes messy.
Anyways I linked that fact, but interestingly if you look at those numbers all the shale oil and gas only add about 20% or 16% respectively to our proven reserves, even ignoring how much gets counted there, and ignoring that the shale gas often gets spent on the shale oil's low EROI, so I'd expect they run out kinda on schedule.
All this says: We need to design building to not be heated or cooled nearly as much.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:03 AM on December 4, 2022
Anyways I linked that fact, but interestingly if you look at those numbers all the shale oil and gas only add about 20% or 16% respectively to our proven reserves, even ignoring how much gets counted there, and ignoring that the shale gas often gets spent on the shale oil's low EROI, so I'd expect they run out kinda on schedule.
All this says: We need to design building to not be heated or cooled nearly as much.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:03 AM on December 4, 2022
You keep saying "we" but you're addressing metafilter, an international audience. The USA running out of something is not "us" running out of it.
posted by Dysk at 8:18 AM on December 4, 2022
posted by Dysk at 8:18 AM on December 4, 2022
Europe is out long before the US. Russia, Iran, and Qatar have most of the gas. Venezuela, the middle east, Canada, and Russia have the oil. I guess Europe and China fight over the middle east, while the US eats everything in its backyard.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:40 AM on December 4, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 8:40 AM on December 4, 2022
OPEC pump to quotas. They'll slow down production before they run out, so you can't just extrapolate from current rates. And like, there are other sources of energy in the world anyway.
posted by Dysk at 10:37 AM on December 4, 2022
posted by Dysk at 10:37 AM on December 4, 2022
One thing I learned is that apparently the British steel industry is hilariously inefficient, because that 20MJ/kg quote was bonkers. Maybe they were referring to 1950 production?
The structural mill I worked with in the US produces structural material for less than half the energy they quoted in the article (and that's all-in, not just what they need for the melt shop itself, and not including the "energetic credit" they get for certain recycling operations they run on their own waste [other industries use the slag etc. as feedstock, so some calculations give the mills "credit" for providing a lower-energy item that replaces a higher-energy input to a different industry]).
I'm guessing they used the wikipedia article on embodied energy which points back to this embodied energy database as that matches the 20MJ/kg figure.
The database they linked to doesn't have the 20MJ / kg figure in its current iteration and as of 2019 no longer contains embodied energy but only embodied carbon.
Chasing the citations a layer deeper, the database makes use of the work done here on lifecycle costs of steel which does have a primary energy demand of 19.2 MJ / kg. This appears to be global data and to first order there is no inefficient steel on the global market (it's too readily traded so would be shoved out of competition) so I have to imagine it won't vary much between places.
UK steel is about 80% primary production via BF-BOF and 20% EAF recycling for structural steel. I know that some European countries have higher EAF fractions and the citation above assumes 0.67 tonnes of net scrap per tonne of section which sounds about right (globally split is more like 60/40). Maybe you were working with a mill with an even higher input of scrap? EAF is only about a 5th the energy of BOF so I would actually guess that UK structural steel is higher than the 20MJ/kg which is only just over the global benchmark.
posted by atrazine at 10:00 AM on December 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
The structural mill I worked with in the US produces structural material for less than half the energy they quoted in the article (and that's all-in, not just what they need for the melt shop itself, and not including the "energetic credit" they get for certain recycling operations they run on their own waste [other industries use the slag etc. as feedstock, so some calculations give the mills "credit" for providing a lower-energy item that replaces a higher-energy input to a different industry]).
I'm guessing they used the wikipedia article on embodied energy which points back to this embodied energy database as that matches the 20MJ/kg figure.
The database they linked to doesn't have the 20MJ / kg figure in its current iteration and as of 2019 no longer contains embodied energy but only embodied carbon.
Chasing the citations a layer deeper, the database makes use of the work done here on lifecycle costs of steel which does have a primary energy demand of 19.2 MJ / kg. This appears to be global data and to first order there is no inefficient steel on the global market (it's too readily traded so would be shoved out of competition) so I have to imagine it won't vary much between places.
UK steel is about 80% primary production via BF-BOF and 20% EAF recycling for structural steel. I know that some European countries have higher EAF fractions and the citation above assumes 0.67 tonnes of net scrap per tonne of section which sounds about right (globally split is more like 60/40). Maybe you were working with a mill with an even higher input of scrap? EAF is only about a 5th the energy of BOF so I would actually guess that UK structural steel is higher than the 20MJ/kg which is only just over the global benchmark.
posted by atrazine at 10:00 AM on December 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's probably mostly the process differences, and resulting scrap utilization; US wide-flange structural steel is entirely EAF, and is 93% scrap on average (the remainder being the various minerals and such added to balance the chemistry in the melt due to scrap variability; some sites can get closer to 100% depending on their scrap mix, but overall it's weighted more toward the 90-94% end of the range).
HSS still mostly uses BOF, although there are now EAF operations in the US producing HSS, so the BOF guys will probably start slowly losing out (as the saying goes, they'll go down "slowly at first, and then all at once"). HSS is also not as popular in the US as in other places; I mean, they produce a lot of it, but W sections dominate.
...I'm still surprised at the dominance of BOF in the UK; EAF has been key to the US steel resurgence. Is the UK scrap industry just not well-developed? Or is it easier to just sell the scrap to Turkish EAF mills instead? Sunk costs in the BOF mills? In the US it was barely a competition -- once EAF arrived the writing was on the wall for the incumbents. Nucor obliterated them, sunk costs or no.
posted by aramaic at 11:00 AM on December 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
HSS still mostly uses BOF, although there are now EAF operations in the US producing HSS, so the BOF guys will probably start slowly losing out (as the saying goes, they'll go down "slowly at first, and then all at once"). HSS is also not as popular in the US as in other places; I mean, they produce a lot of it, but W sections dominate.
...I'm still surprised at the dominance of BOF in the UK; EAF has been key to the US steel resurgence. Is the UK scrap industry just not well-developed? Or is it easier to just sell the scrap to Turkish EAF mills instead? Sunk costs in the BOF mills? In the US it was barely a competition -- once EAF arrived the writing was on the wall for the incumbents. Nucor obliterated them, sunk costs or no.
posted by aramaic at 11:00 AM on December 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
50 years of oil left is about as meaningful as recent Fox News headlines that we only had 21 days of diesel left. The earth has more than enough hydrocarbons available for us to extract to make the planet uninhabitable for humans. Running out isn’t going to be the problem.
posted by interogative mood at 11:34 AM on December 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 11:34 AM on December 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
UK scrap industry is very well developed and just about everything that can be recycled is. The problem is that the UK has relatively high electricity prices, like most of Europe, but unlike e.g. Germany it also puts "policy costs" like paying for the wind and solar subsidies on all electricity bills proportionately.
Germany puts those costs (or did historically) onto domestic bills, The Netherlands puts a lot less of those costs onto the bills of heavy users, but the UK puts costs per kWh across all users.
Result: UK has more expensive electricity for industrial users (but substantially cheaper for domestic users) and this makes EAF more expensive in the UK. Scrap is exported, you guessed it, to Turkey but also to European countries with cheaper electricity. Most of those countries also have dirtier electricity so it's really a nonsensical series of events but there we are.
posted by atrazine at 4:23 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
Germany puts those costs (or did historically) onto domestic bills, The Netherlands puts a lot less of those costs onto the bills of heavy users, but the UK puts costs per kWh across all users.
Result: UK has more expensive electricity for industrial users (but substantially cheaper for domestic users) and this makes EAF more expensive in the UK. Scrap is exported, you guessed it, to Turkey but also to European countries with cheaper electricity. Most of those countries also have dirtier electricity so it's really a nonsensical series of events but there we are.
posted by atrazine at 4:23 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
K has more expensive electricity for industrial users ... and this makes EAF more expensive in the UK
Interesting! It will be especially intriguing to see what happens now that a number of the EAF guys have decided to openly gang up against BOF and those few surviving open hearth mills (in fairness, some of it is years of frustration with the World Steel Association), using the GSCC group.
I'd say I'm surprised it took them this long to realize they could do it, but one specific industry executive had to retire first, and he's out of the picture now (that's probably a bit reductionist of me, there's always more than just the one guy but holy shit that dude held them back for years; always in favor of being pugnacious rather than being clever).
Of course, this doesn't mean they'll win, but watch to see what happens in the environmental negotiations coming up; if BOF and EAF get broken out separately then you'll know the EAF guys won. If all steel is put under the same umbrella for impacts, you'll know BOF held the line.
posted by aramaic at 8:35 AM on December 12, 2022
Interesting! It will be especially intriguing to see what happens now that a number of the EAF guys have decided to openly gang up against BOF and those few surviving open hearth mills (in fairness, some of it is years of frustration with the World Steel Association), using the GSCC group.
I'd say I'm surprised it took them this long to realize they could do it, but one specific industry executive had to retire first, and he's out of the picture now (that's probably a bit reductionist of me, there's always more than just the one guy but holy shit that dude held them back for years; always in favor of being pugnacious rather than being clever).
Of course, this doesn't mean they'll win, but watch to see what happens in the environmental negotiations coming up; if BOF and EAF get broken out separately then you'll know the EAF guys won. If all steel is put under the same umbrella for impacts, you'll know BOF held the line.
posted by aramaic at 8:35 AM on December 12, 2022
« Older MOTIF EDITS AWFUL; SLATE WANTS CHAOS (X/6) | Explore Quasi-Periodic Tiling Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The energy use of the Seagrams building is something that will need to be addressed based on NYC’s requirement that buildings reduce energy footprint by 30% by 2030. It looks like there are already moves underway to replace lighting with higher efficiency LEDs and eventual plans to replace the single pane windows with new high efficiency ones. Although post pandemic changes to office space usage might significantly delay or change plans.
posted by interogative mood at 10:31 AM on December 1, 2022 [5 favorites]