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.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Interesting, thanks! I think I'm starting to dislike skyscrapers...

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 2 months ago

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

... right?

[–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Would be interesting to see reflective shades on large, glass-facade buildings to augment HVAC systems.

Shades open in the winter to cut waste from heating, then down in the summer to keep it cool.