Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jctexan OP t1_j8xywgx wrote

Reply to comment by DavidPuddy666 in Why is planning allowing this building? Eli5 by Jctexan

Love the density a mid-rise would bring, and the developer could make almost as much money (or more, not sure how much the deeper dig costs). High rises don’t bring the benefits of density that mid rise does. Happy to link to a bunch of studies, but easy enough to just google benefits of mid-rises over high-rises. This makes no sense. Even hardcore YIMBYs don’t want a 17 story building because they don’t benefit the neighborhood.

−7

0730x t1_j8y1l72 wrote

Please link the studies because a taller building literally means more apartment units and people housed per square foot of land.

15

Jctexan OP t1_j8y4kod wrote

Here are a few articles and some studies. It makes sense when you consider all aspects. Buildings aren't built in a vaccuum - theyre' built in neighborhoods and affect the residents. But even if they were, high-rises aren't better. Even if you solve the heat issue environmentally, there are mental health implications, business implications, school implications, etc. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-25/to-cut-carbon-think-low-rise-buildings-not-skyscrapers
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w
https://theconversation.com/cities-and-climate-change-why-low-rise-buildings-are-the-future-not-skyscrapers-170673
https://crosscut.com/2016/11/high-rises-run-counter-to-the-citys-environmental-goals
https://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2354-the-environmental-impact-of-tall-vs-small-a-comparative-study.pdf

−2

FloatingWeight t1_j8y87l7 wrote

> The takeaway here shouldn’t be that skyscrapers are bad,” he says. But reconsider them as the solution to our current climate crisis.

> the study focuses solely on building emissions, and doesn’t account for other factors like transportation, design or the type of land cities build on, which affect their carbon output. More study is also needed to confirm if their conclusions still hold true for increasingly larger populations.

Don’t take such a simplistic high rise bad low rise viewpoint. If these were mid rises then it would be harder to create the accompany low rise plazas and green space.

And finally if you’re still not convicted, remember not to let perfect get in the way of the good

7

Jctexan OP t1_j8y9i88 wrote

Did you seriously pull out two lines instead of looking at all of that data? Sigh.

−5

FloatingWeight t1_j8yg74y wrote

I did read the whole article, idk why you’re acting like it’s a definitive statement. They’re also not comparing change in density,

> For a city supporting 20,000 people, moving from low rises to high rises without changing the density results in 140% more carbon emissions.

Finally

> Ultimately, how tall a city should build depends on multiple environmental and socioeconomic factors, including affordable housing needs and greening efforts.

Nowhere in the article Did it say mid rise builds are superior to high rises in all cases. Also show me how you could fit more units on this land while also keeping the low rise plaza and green space

4

Economy-Cupcake808 t1_j8yfvwm wrote

No point in arguing with the deranged yimbys in this sub. These people think driving a car makes you worse than hitler.

−5