论文部分内容阅读
Abstract：This article is trying to answer to the question on the vertue of skyscrapers. Are they solutions for house and space crisis? Are they really a good alternative to acheive the goeal of eco-living?
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”[ Genesis 11:1-5]
Build up, higher and higher, is the culmination of an old dream since the mythical Tower of Babel. Far out of fashion, this architectural challenge has become a landmark of contemporary urban landscape.
The word skyscraper was originally a nickname given to the mainmast of a boat. There is no official definition or minimum height from which a building could be named as skyscraper, the notion of skyscraper being essentially relative: what is perceived as skyscrapers can vary greatly depending on the time or place. However, the company Emporis that identifies skyscraper on the planet uses the lower limit of 100 meters to characterize it. This height does not correspond to the maximum height of the building, but his "structural height” that does not include antennas added later (explains the different estimations of the height of a skyscraper). Today the word is exclusively used to refer to a building (habitable) much higher than average.
Until the 19th century, buildings over six floors were rare. It was inconceivable to daily climb as many floors. In addition, the pressure of running water was not sufficient to rise to over 15m. The development of steel, reinforced concrete, water pumps and the appearance of the elevator made possible the construction of buildings much higher, exceeding the 300 meters.
This article is trying to answer to the questions on the place of skyscrapers in eco-living, whether or not they really are the solutions to housing and space crisis and sustainability.
Key words: Skyscrapers, Sustainability, Ecology, Environment, Sustainable development
Skyscrapers.
Skyscrapers appeared for the first time in the areas of Chicago and New York in the late 19th century. The Great Chicago Fire, which destroyed much of downtown, has allowed the development of this new architectural approach for dealing with the high price of land. A way to protect at the same time from water (elevation) and fire (steel framing instead of wood) was needed; this method should be fast, robust, and easy to assemble. At this time the skyscraper were only functional, appearance was not really essential.
Aesthetic approach of skyscrapers begun to develop from the 20th century investors and architects seeking the prestige and the reputation of having the highest skyscraper in the world and even going to illuminate the building all night long. But the skyscraper is still a functional building with rented offices for profit.
The height of the skyscraper seems to have no limit. The 40m height of the first buildings seem very insignificant now that many skyscrapers exceed the current 400m and even 500m. Innovation and human will is still going, on preparing monsters approaching or even exceeding the kilometer in height. Tours and skyscrapers has always been the reflection of a strong religious and political power.
Skyscrapers against housing crisis?
One of the most often used arguments to justify the construction of new and higher skyscrapers is that it could solve the space problem encountered in most large cities today, lack of space caused by the urbanization of our lifestyle and the constant increase of world population. Thus was justified the project of the futuristic Taisei Corporation to be built in Tokyo, the "X-Seed 4000" culminating at 4000 meters high and built on a base of 6.5km diameter. We even do not really know how to build such a building, or the number of engineers who should be involved in the job but it is a perfect reflection of this race to the higher. On the other hand, this construction, which was supposed to face excessive population growth, is losing its meaning while Japan would see its population decline by 2050.
New higher skyscrapers, will this solution really resolve the housing problem? There are legitimate reasons to doubt it because the majority of recently built skyscrapers only contain large offices, department stores. On the contrary, to allow the erection of these buildings, many homes are destroyed, the residents evicted and exiled from the cities. Available housing will be luxury apartments, located on the upper floors and reserved to an elite. The reality is that construction of such buildings costs so much that it will be impossible for ordinary mortals to hope to live there.
Skyscrapers against space crisis?
Higher and higher skyscrapers are not the solution against the lack of space. They will just result in over-densification of the population in a small space. Build eco-skyscrapers to free up space and allow the development of green spaces, it might seem nice if we forget that people need to get out, or are they doomed to remain cloistered and to admire these beautiful green spaces by the window? Another illusion, is to limit the movement of peoples, by working in the place where their live. It’s just a new even more efficient way than the Internet to accentuate the individuality of human beings, to solve the space and displacement by removing them completely. If we do not move from home why they will we need more space? Build towers where we will never come down, towers to live, towers to work, towers to be forgotten.
Eco-Skyscrapers, real or fake?
Since august 2008, he prospects for construction are somewhat overshadowed by the real estate crisis. Because of the crisis, most of the project will never be finalize. Not in term of esthetic but in terms of cost, profitability and sustainability.
Everywhere, projects submitted by architects, assisted by multidisciplinary teams including energy specialists give the opportunity to think about very thrifty building , even energetically autonomous, in the sense that the, on an annual average, they produce as much energy that they consume. Every new skyscraper is a promise of “a model of eco-tower” which “will pay particular attention to sustainable development, particularly in terms of saving energy” veritable “green living machine”, all kind of impressive word that hides a really different reality. Indeed, how many of our old buildings will be destroyed to make way for these new green monsters? It pretends to forget that fully demolish a building is not really respectful of environmental thinking, those same building that was seen as sustainable. In fact, high-rise constructions follow economic cycle, erected on good times but when bad days arrive, the offices empty and more quickly on regards of the expensive maintenance costs of these surfaces.
Skyscrapers are excessively demanding in energy. They involve lifts, water pumps to bring water to higher levels, and especially the use of air conditioning to overcome the overheating caused by glass walls. The biggest names in architectural world l promise environmental perfection. But in view of past mistakes and the fact that we chose the architects for their name more than the environmental quality of their projects, the skyscrapers didn’t have a really good reputation for the public. The theoretical consumption of energy calculated during the conception and the real consumption calculated on site after construction are usually very different. It’s not so surprising; there is always a difference between the previsions of engineers and the real numbers. In the case of the heating, all the estimations are made at the prescribed temperature of 19 °C, or this temperature is never applied just because everyone gets used to work in a room heated at a temperature of 22 or 23°C.
The truth is that by the nature of their conception, skyscrapers make really difficult, even impossible, to achieve a satisfying energy performance: large bay windows, complex ventilation system, complex water pump system, high speed elevators, and the higher you go, more expensive these constraints are. In addition, build at such high involves use of high strength materials, mainly steel and concrete. These two materials are perfectly anti-ecological, for the gray energy their production requires, for the raw materials they use and for their carbon balance absolutely terrible.
Skyscrapers, a hidden reality.
Let us not be mistaken by promises of green towers that would solve all the problems of contemporary society. Skyscrapers that would give shelter to all those who have not, skyscrapers that will make our city more beautiful and less polluted, skyscrapers that will save the economy of our planet. No, the eco- skyscrapers serving sustainable development do not exist. Sure, they can be improved, but it would cost millions. We could maybe get cleaner skyscrapers, but costs would be so exorbitant that it would be impossible for the vast majority of the population live there. According to Olivier Sidler[ Olivier Sidler is an expert in building energy, he heads the firm Enertech, and he designed for nearly 30 years of low energy buildings.] expert in building energy, “even three times more efficient, the eco-skyscrapers will not meet the regulatory requirements from the Grenelle[ The “Grenelle Environnement” is a conference bringing together the government, local authorities, trade unions, business and voluntary sectors to draw up a plan of action of concrete measures to tackle the environmental issue. The name “Grenelle” comes from the first conference bringing all these players together which took place in May 1968 in the Rue de Grenelle.] of Environment. Cost is the most important reason and to think that lining up zeros in a checkbook is another form of ecologic contract: would be better to allocate resource to other projects more efficient and larger, because cheaper per m², and satisfy more needs This reveals without doubt that fury to build skyscrapers relates to something deeper, like a desire of excellence and transgression, that obviously, the reason cannot heal.”
There’s no proved ecological neither social reason to justify more skyscrapers. The real reason is that skyscrapers are a symbol, a symbol of technical progress, an ultimate symbol of capitalism and its excesses. Skyscrapers in urban planning is not something new, it is an old dream of power, totally outdated, facing the current environmental issues.
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”[ Genesis 11:1-5]
Build up, higher and higher, is the culmination of an old dream since the mythical Tower of Babel. Far out of fashion, this architectural challenge has become a landmark of contemporary urban landscape.
The word skyscraper was originally a nickname given to the mainmast of a boat. There is no official definition or minimum height from which a building could be named as skyscraper, the notion of skyscraper being essentially relative: what is perceived as skyscrapers can vary greatly depending on the time or place. However, the company Emporis that identifies skyscraper on the planet uses the lower limit of 100 meters to characterize it. This height does not correspond to the maximum height of the building, but his "structural height” that does not include antennas added later (explains the different estimations of the height of a skyscraper). Today the word is exclusively used to refer to a building (habitable) much higher than average.
Until the 19th century, buildings over six floors were rare. It was inconceivable to daily climb as many floors. In addition, the pressure of running water was not sufficient to rise to over 15m. The development of steel, reinforced concrete, water pumps and the appearance of the elevator made possible the construction of buildings much higher, exceeding the 300 meters.
This article is trying to answer to the questions on the place of skyscrapers in eco-living, whether or not they really are the solutions to housing and space crisis and sustainability.
Key words: Skyscrapers, Sustainability, Ecology, Environment, Sustainable development
Skyscrapers.
Skyscrapers appeared for the first time in the areas of Chicago and New York in the late 19th century. The Great Chicago Fire, which destroyed much of downtown, has allowed the development of this new architectural approach for dealing with the high price of land. A way to protect at the same time from water (elevation) and fire (steel framing instead of wood) was needed; this method should be fast, robust, and easy to assemble. At this time the skyscraper were only functional, appearance was not really essential.
Aesthetic approach of skyscrapers begun to develop from the 20th century investors and architects seeking the prestige and the reputation of having the highest skyscraper in the world and even going to illuminate the building all night long. But the skyscraper is still a functional building with rented offices for profit.
The height of the skyscraper seems to have no limit. The 40m height of the first buildings seem very insignificant now that many skyscrapers exceed the current 400m and even 500m. Innovation and human will is still going, on preparing monsters approaching or even exceeding the kilometer in height. Tours and skyscrapers has always been the reflection of a strong religious and political power.
Skyscrapers against housing crisis?
One of the most often used arguments to justify the construction of new and higher skyscrapers is that it could solve the space problem encountered in most large cities today, lack of space caused by the urbanization of our lifestyle and the constant increase of world population. Thus was justified the project of the futuristic Taisei Corporation to be built in Tokyo, the "X-Seed 4000" culminating at 4000 meters high and built on a base of 6.5km diameter. We even do not really know how to build such a building, or the number of engineers who should be involved in the job but it is a perfect reflection of this race to the higher. On the other hand, this construction, which was supposed to face excessive population growth, is losing its meaning while Japan would see its population decline by 2050.
New higher skyscrapers, will this solution really resolve the housing problem? There are legitimate reasons to doubt it because the majority of recently built skyscrapers only contain large offices, department stores. On the contrary, to allow the erection of these buildings, many homes are destroyed, the residents evicted and exiled from the cities. Available housing will be luxury apartments, located on the upper floors and reserved to an elite. The reality is that construction of such buildings costs so much that it will be impossible for ordinary mortals to hope to live there.
Skyscrapers against space crisis?
Higher and higher skyscrapers are not the solution against the lack of space. They will just result in over-densification of the population in a small space. Build eco-skyscrapers to free up space and allow the development of green spaces, it might seem nice if we forget that people need to get out, or are they doomed to remain cloistered and to admire these beautiful green spaces by the window? Another illusion, is to limit the movement of peoples, by working in the place where their live. It’s just a new even more efficient way than the Internet to accentuate the individuality of human beings, to solve the space and displacement by removing them completely. If we do not move from home why they will we need more space? Build towers where we will never come down, towers to live, towers to work, towers to be forgotten.
Eco-Skyscrapers, real or fake?
Since august 2008, he prospects for construction are somewhat overshadowed by the real estate crisis. Because of the crisis, most of the project will never be finalize. Not in term of esthetic but in terms of cost, profitability and sustainability.
Everywhere, projects submitted by architects, assisted by multidisciplinary teams including energy specialists give the opportunity to think about very thrifty building , even energetically autonomous, in the sense that the, on an annual average, they produce as much energy that they consume. Every new skyscraper is a promise of “a model of eco-tower” which “will pay particular attention to sustainable development, particularly in terms of saving energy” veritable “green living machine”, all kind of impressive word that hides a really different reality. Indeed, how many of our old buildings will be destroyed to make way for these new green monsters? It pretends to forget that fully demolish a building is not really respectful of environmental thinking, those same building that was seen as sustainable. In fact, high-rise constructions follow economic cycle, erected on good times but when bad days arrive, the offices empty and more quickly on regards of the expensive maintenance costs of these surfaces.
Skyscrapers are excessively demanding in energy. They involve lifts, water pumps to bring water to higher levels, and especially the use of air conditioning to overcome the overheating caused by glass walls. The biggest names in architectural world l promise environmental perfection. But in view of past mistakes and the fact that we chose the architects for their name more than the environmental quality of their projects, the skyscrapers didn’t have a really good reputation for the public. The theoretical consumption of energy calculated during the conception and the real consumption calculated on site after construction are usually very different. It’s not so surprising; there is always a difference between the previsions of engineers and the real numbers. In the case of the heating, all the estimations are made at the prescribed temperature of 19 °C, or this temperature is never applied just because everyone gets used to work in a room heated at a temperature of 22 or 23°C.
The truth is that by the nature of their conception, skyscrapers make really difficult, even impossible, to achieve a satisfying energy performance: large bay windows, complex ventilation system, complex water pump system, high speed elevators, and the higher you go, more expensive these constraints are. In addition, build at such high involves use of high strength materials, mainly steel and concrete. These two materials are perfectly anti-ecological, for the gray energy their production requires, for the raw materials they use and for their carbon balance absolutely terrible.
Skyscrapers, a hidden reality.
Let us not be mistaken by promises of green towers that would solve all the problems of contemporary society. Skyscrapers that would give shelter to all those who have not, skyscrapers that will make our city more beautiful and less polluted, skyscrapers that will save the economy of our planet. No, the eco- skyscrapers serving sustainable development do not exist. Sure, they can be improved, but it would cost millions. We could maybe get cleaner skyscrapers, but costs would be so exorbitant that it would be impossible for the vast majority of the population live there. According to Olivier Sidler[ Olivier Sidler is an expert in building energy, he heads the firm Enertech, and he designed for nearly 30 years of low energy buildings.] expert in building energy, “even three times more efficient, the eco-skyscrapers will not meet the regulatory requirements from the Grenelle[ The “Grenelle Environnement” is a conference bringing together the government, local authorities, trade unions, business and voluntary sectors to draw up a plan of action of concrete measures to tackle the environmental issue. The name “Grenelle” comes from the first conference bringing all these players together which took place in May 1968 in the Rue de Grenelle.] of Environment. Cost is the most important reason and to think that lining up zeros in a checkbook is another form of ecologic contract: would be better to allocate resource to other projects more efficient and larger, because cheaper per m², and satisfy more needs This reveals without doubt that fury to build skyscrapers relates to something deeper, like a desire of excellence and transgression, that obviously, the reason cannot heal.”
There’s no proved ecological neither social reason to justify more skyscrapers. The real reason is that skyscrapers are a symbol, a symbol of technical progress, an ultimate symbol of capitalism and its excesses. Skyscrapers in urban planning is not something new, it is an old dream of power, totally outdated, facing the current environmental issues.