I’m a numbers guy so I’m 100% down with being able to see what my utility usage looks like at any given time. My wife will probably never actually look at the numbers but she’s always open to hearing about what they turned out like and what we need to change as a result.
🇨🇦 concrete is "king" here for new condo construction, they actually advertise it. As for monitoring consumption, it's a way to understand what you're doing over the long term. Where I am, Vancouver area, people are tearing down houses built to last 30 years, roughly 1000 SQ ft, and replacing with houses 3-4 times the area, installing natural gas heat. Plastic siding, 15 year warranty, and little if any insulation. Talk about environment and greenhouse gases, you get scowls. This is both embarrassing and infuriating.
I live in Milan, Italy. Here I got this 90m2 apartment A4 class made of wood and steel supports. During winter season It may happen that you use the oven for 30 mins and heat the house for the day. I also have that kind of ipad where it shows consumptions around electricity and solar generation (200€ every 2 months. considering heating is electric aswell), we still miss the sewage part though ahah. I used to live in a 30 year old house before, where in winter season the gas bill averaged around 900€ per 2 months period, which is insane. Here in Italy there is an incentive system that allows you to renovate your house for energy purposes for free (If you meet requirements) and many friends of mine are renovating home with this method, 400 kWh/m2*year (as my old house heat dissipation rate) gets to 14 kWh/m2*year, while my house is already 0,12 kWh/m2*year as A4 energy class.
Perhaps you could also talk about the material and energy waste of detached single-family homes compared to wood-constructed four-plexes and six-plexes? Seems a scalable and cheap alternative for the suburbs that doesn't require all the risk analysis and engineering that makes these retrofits so expensive
For the US this is the first thing that came to mind. Green buildings are great but aren't going to matter if you also building spralling single family developments down the road.
I mean, they're certainly there in Europe, but the numbers are not comparable to the USA in the % of houses being detached. Fe, in Germany, only 26% of households live in Detached houses, while 62% live in Flats
@@timbushell8640 no, zoning in Europe works quite differently to how it does in the US. Fe, in Germany, the lowest residential density can still have small blocks of flats, and businesses, Fe. And there wasn't (IIRC) any form of redlining that encouraged segregation
In the management world we have a saying: “what gets looked at gets done.” There’s a very real human reaction to constantly seeing what your actual energy usage is vs your goal, and it leads to reduction in usage like what you saw. The cool thing is that you don’t actually have to build a whole new building in order to incorporate this mentality! The ipad and sensors that you saw in the first building could just as easily be slapped onto any existing building, in fact, my utility company offers to do this for free for any home in the area! And getting the constant reminder of how much energy we use has led to my wife and I using 29% less electricity! But obviously individual action can’t solve all these issues so it’s still important to revamp how we views housing and cities as a whole.
It's also a psychological phenomenon that if you make it competitive then it works better as a behaviour modifier. It gives context to your consumption. You feel rewarded by being told you're improving, so it's reinforcing. Our power bills like in many countries shows how your consumption compares to the norm for how ever many people live in your house. People like to know they're doing better than normal or feel bad if they're not meeting the standard everyone else is setting.
Exactly. Planting trees in cities is cool and all and gives a sense of satisfaction. But the change is minimal to just leaving forests alone and letting it do its thing or reforesting some land far away from habitation. But that's less visible to humans so it won't feel as satisfying.
Whats the name of the utility companie that build these electricity measuring sensors? Can you do it with a Raspberry pi, Arduino or some small electrical control measure compontent ?
@@bernhardtrian7471 no idea. Most of the utility companies in the LA area seem to do it. So LADWP, BWP, and GWP all are ones that I know for sure do it.
No it's just first world problem. Compare per capita it's always the Western countries who make the top 10 and always we the USA top the list with double than the second. Turn off the lights and PC when you leave the officer. I never see anyone do this in my career. Lights on and PCs run 24/7
"40% will be devoted to social housing, and most of its residents will be queer women of color" ... what? Does that mean that "queer women of color" are usually lower on socio-economic scale? Or does that mean that those aren't social housings since the requirement is personal identity, sex and skin color instead of economic ability? I am confused and whichever it is, it bugs me because it's either prejudiced or discriminatory.
Found the cishetwhitemale. Five seconds searching Google would have given you the facts about the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by queer women of color (no need for your scare quotes).
As a historian, I am very grateful that you mentioned the embodied energy in historic buildings. Amateur environmentalists often just see old structures as energy drains, failing to realize that many of them have great advantages for energy conservation once you upgrade their climate control systems.
I've never seen a building with less need of an AC than my parents 180+ year old farm house. Massive walls of sand and stone (no concrete), so superb insulation. They needed to get an EU energy Rating when they renewed their central heating, and of course the official energy rating is... F. Because modern ratings don't account for ancient building techniques and their advantages...
@@mlippert Very interesting standpoint, often overlooked. Also these houses accumulate heat, so when you heat them up (which does take quite a lot of energy), they do not need much to stay warm.
@@Stefan_Dahn So you're saying an 80 cm insulation of any given material is worse than a 10 cm insulation of the same material? I think it's your physics that's inverted...
Good video. I hope you zoom out in "part two", and explore in what degree the location of a building is more important than it's energy efficiency. I.e. how zoning, density and transport matters to overall long term human emissions.
While DW does produce high quality videos I think you can also have a look at other channels that might provide equal quality, like Not Just Bikes, Climate Town, Alan Fisher or Adam Something, channels that nearly exclusively focus on urban planning ;)
@@fireskorpion396 Thanks, that is exactly my point! Planet A and all their other stuff is great. I already watch those guys you mention, and eco gecko, citynerd, active towns, urbaburble and more. But having DW have a go at this subject matter (which is very much related to this video) through the prowess of a proper journalistic lens, - that could make a great follow up video, and it would make the wider implications of the subject at hand more approachable to a wider audience.
Everyone's house tracks their energy use. You get a bill for it at the end of the month. The difference is that it is easily available on an ipad rather scattered across several meters that you would have to read if you wanted an update before you get your bill.
It's a bigger novelty in Germany, where you usually get an estimated bill every month and the power company comes maybe once a year to check your meter and adapt your bill accordingly. At this point you either pay them an extra bill, or you get money back. In my old building i didn't have access to my meter anymore because the basement was locked. In the US you can often just acces your hourly electricity consumption with an app on your smartphone, no need for an ipad on your wall.
Wow, here in Quebec, the the utility provider gives a nice online portal where you can track your consumption live, as well as providing live estimates of what your bill will be at the end of the month at your current consumption levels. No ipad necessary. I sorta assumed that was widespread by now.
I don't even see my electricity and water consumption as it's paid by my landlord. They have to reimburse us every year if we paid more than actually used, so it really doesn't help tracking my actual consumption.
I'm glad we have our energy consumption (power and gas) visible in an app. And we use it a lot. We charge the car when the sun is shining (if possible) and use our household appliances during the day.
1. Please provide the cost of a green building compared to a concrete building. 2. Queer women of color? What about trans, one footed little people from Madagascar?
Easy to say than done. As a civil engineer, budget is the most important thing. If it is for residential buildings and looking for greener solutions, so little companies are willing to pay for the high initial costs unless that's one of their selling points and consumers are expecting to pay a lot more. Also, we often see well graded and certified green buildings literally fall into much lower grade in a year or two, not sure why but it is what it is. Another issue is most carbon emission during construction is produced by transportation, not the construction itself.
Can you please link a source for "green buildings literally....". I don't belive that. The transport energy (co2) is quite low compared to the embedded energy => co2 footprint in concrete and stones etc...
concept of single family housing in USA are the worst environmental culprits residential apartments & mixed use of shops , office & residential multistory buildings with walkable distances are best which makes a spread-out city a small city - every single home roof is exposed to sun & external atmosphere consumes energy for both cooling & heating - many miles of roads , power , water , sewage , broadband etc have to be constructed & maintained each year - no grocery store near the homes they have travel many miles to make a purchase every day carbon emissions & even online deliveries should travel more miles - large areas of farmlands forests have to be cleared for every single house - on same building foundation 4 storey buildings can be built but laws do not allow embodied energy value is high
I just bought a house, and everything I do to it and change creates so much waste that goes only to a landfill. I keep thinking to myself, how can I do this sustainably? Our solutions need to be available at our local hardware store, and every contractor needs to be well versed in those materials and methods, otherwise these changes will never come.
The real truth is that urban living is by far and away the least environmentally impactful way of life, and it is extremely disingenuous to present these facts and figures without comparing and contrasting them with what the alternatives would be, if they were replaced with lower density structures. There is no human way of living that does not cause some environmental change, but we have a moral duty to cause as little damage as possible. Highly dense urban architecture is far more efficient throughout its entire lifecycle than any other type of architecture.
Many climate change activists complain about construction method with concrete and steel but they don't calculate that those are the most reliable material for longer sustainability. The only thing that would be accomplished is the green energy usage of every resident in that particular residential building. Also building on flat surfaces, not high building is waste of land and requires more energy usage because of material transport. Urban citys are the best thing for the enviourment.
Wooden buildings are a privilege in this day and age, whereas sand for concrete is everywhere. Yeah one can say that every tree that was cut down had a replacement planted and thus is renewable, but that can only work for designer houses. Especially when you even see railroads everywhere replacing their wooden ties with concrete or synthetic ties. Railroads! The most environmental form of transport. Just goes to show that wood will always be precious.
@@bernhardtrian7471 Activists cant calculate or think logically! Hence they are activists. They think we with emotion and yell and scream like a petulant child!
When did people start calling pollution "carbon"? Really narrows the perception of actual harm being done by various pollutants/emissions mixed together
And the governments that are scared to take actual measures because they don't want to piss the owners of the companies and investors off. None, and I really mean NONE of them takes this issue seriously.
So Germans banned their own nuclear power plants and set themselves on russian oil anc gas needle, now you ditching building construction? We will overwatch you with a pleasure.
9:00 I understand why 1% of people living in ecological buildings is bad thing, but I am interested how big % of German society is composed of queer women of colour that need social housing. There are probably many other women that need it, work immigrants are mostly men and many many more people need that housing not because of their skin colour or sexualities and gender, but because of their financial state. Btw good video 👍
This is the very challenge in my town - Boulder, Colorado USA. The University of Colorado at Boulder, has negotiated the annexation of land they own into city zoning, in order to move forward with a complicated project including municipal flood protection, affordable housing, and educational facilities. The challenge now presents itself: this new development is proposed on a site that is originally in a floodplain - a natural riparian, wetland habitat, rare in this arid climate, and no less during a historic drought. If affordable housing where the issue, why isn't the university looking at housing that is closer than 5km from their main campus, in buildings already constructed? It's sickening to see an institution push their world class environmental studies department, while blatantly chosing profit over people, and insisting on using their leverage in the city to highjack a flood project, use it to negotiate annexation T&C, and ultimately dictate water rights. Isn't this gaslighting, greenwashing, and a ruse? How do we change the system indeed....repeal the annexation by referendum in our upcoming election. Vote YES.
That’s a huge shame. The UC capital planning division is likely siloed from the sustainability department. The UC system sees the high cost of building and high land values in Boulder, and does not account for the environmental services of the flood zone to the residents of the city. The risks and externalities of development are then outsourced as costs to the public, while UC profits from development is privatized.
@@mk-oc7mt I would bet you are right! And you know who is not at the table when discussing how to "use land?" ANY of the dozens of indigenous communities in the "state" of "Colorado" - I wonder how much less climate crisis we would be in, IF the settler colonialism mindset took a backseat to Aboriginal knowledge systems....
In Israel it's standard to use a solar water heater since it's super cheap, basically just a large glass panel with black piping in it . While most houses still have an electric one just as a backup, we won't use it most days of the year unless it's a cloudy winter day
Following are the key aspects of a sustainable/green building 1) Durable and high quality-This increases the lifetime of the building and thus reduce the need to rebuild 2) Energy efficient building envelope- Glass buildings are the least efficient kind of building, in any climate. 3) Energy efficient service equipment, such as cooling, heating, and ventilation systems 4) Located in a right place- building's location and how it connects to the rest of the built environment determines how people access the building, such as, whether they walk, bike, take public transit, or whether they have to drive. 5) Comfortable for occupants- Thermal comfort, good air quality, etc. 6) Well integrated to the surroundings- This determines how a building contributes to it surrounding, which affects the quality of the public realm. Buildings covered with Solar PV or built with recycled material, are not necessarily green, if they are not complied with at least these criteria. Most of the old and refurbished buildings in Germany are greener than to most of the 'green washed' buildings we see in media.
I would be interested to see more on this topic. I think that in the long run, we need to brace retrofitting buildings with green technology. If nothing else, people need to deal with the fact that the technology will change faster than we can build! I would be curious to know about some more tailored solutions to energy efficiency. We have gotten used to building the same way regardless of local climate and that doesn't make sense.
the challenge there is that there is a threshold below which retro fitting is not feasible. Consider places with a proliferation of single family homes. By simply having more walls exposed to the outside, the need for insulation is drastically higher, on a per individual or family basis, compared to say apartments. If we can build with mostly wood, the choice between retro fitting or simply building denser becomes closer.
In my car I can see how much energy I'm consuming. That was for me the biggest trigger to change driving behavior! I would absolutely like to live in a house that tracks my energy use. But ofcourse that's not for everyone the best to change or be able to relax in your own home.
IMPORTANT. Your video article discusses the WALL SECTION !!! This is FUNDAMENTAL for every discussion on energy reduction and building physics architecture. THIS IS a great documentary. 10/10.
...how do you live in a house that doesn't track your energy use? I mean, I suppose it's the energy company doing the tracking, not the house, but that doesn't really seem meaningfully different?
Wonderful start, thanks for the whole team for amplifying these thoughts, hope to see pt2 pt3 pt4 etc, a whole series on the subject, as others suggested in the comments. Density in itself is a most complex issue, with regards to its effects on the psychology of individuals, the political power of a community, the geography, historical change and the "laziness" infrastructure of production and living (i.e. what we people #do and how we spend the rest of our days), and so on. The huge question of "building for who" is definitely a vast & suspenseful topic with lots of ghost-projects and investigative journalism. A very romantic one would be: why is it or is it really a quite selfish addressing of the problems to secess, to move out of this network of power we call cities to find village life (again?) for the masses, with the cave communas in Spain to the rootlessness of "digital nomads" (man i hate that expression, we re just kids forever, afraid of speaking up for real change), or the guy living in a bike with his goat, and so many other strings in the fabric of sustainable(?) living with real impact outside of cities. wishing the best to the whole crew!
All those compress wood not suitable for all. Some places particular in tropical climate, those wood will be a major termite nest, bugs and if not regularly maintain might rot away pretty soon. Maintenance add cost
@@E1Luch Small, good design over size, well insulated, efficient appliances, try to use local and and abundant materials like dirt, which has excellent qualities for almost any environment. The way we do architecture is ridiculous. Brainless termites do way better.
@@dustman96 There are tradeoffs though. Smaller buildings have bigger ratio of surface area to internal volume, which means it's easier for heat to escape and you need more power per volume to keep it warm. Also building small means your settlement, however big it would be, is intrinsically low-density, and it means it's much harder to get adequate infrastructure to everyone, because you need more roads, cables, pipes per person, and increased land use comes with it's own environmental problems
@@dustman96 But also, wouldn't we still need some frame to build with dirt? How good of an insulator is it and what kind of strength a dirt house would have? Btw, if you have any article or video or whatever on the matter to share, please feel free to do so, I would love to take a look
Designer: OK, here are the basic plans for your new house. This is just the standard design. It's going to be about $150k. But let me ask you, what are your thoughts on the environment? Buyer: Oh yeah, we care about the environment! Definitely want to do what we can to help make this better! Designer: Great. In that case, here are the designs for the EcoFriendly house. Buyer: Wow, those are incredible ideas! And it looks beautiful and creative!!! We love that! Designer: I thought you might. We're very proud of it. So, it's going to be about $250k... Buyer: $250k? Um... Uh... Er... So, if we go with the original design, can we get some recycling containers with that?
What's with the high rise building in the thumbnail? The housing responsible the most for climate change are single family homes, which use a lot of land to house a small density of people and also lead to higher private car ownership and lower public transport use, besides being energy inefficient and costly when it comes to infrastructure. High rises are the exact opposite, and it would be better if more were built in the west.
2 года назад+1
Why does the voiceover sound more like ASMR than journalism?
In The Netherlands most construction has been on hold for about 2 years because of a court ruling. There's too much nitrogen in the ground. Major construction companies are now slowly turning their heads towards wood construction. Things can change rather rapidly. You just need the proper legislation in place, and institutions to enforce it.
Wow, thanks for the info, didn't know that. But how did so much nitrogen get into the ground in the first place? As far as I know its only by humans with fertilizer. The rest is by Biomass or rain that carries nitrogen excess from phonotsynthesis. But by that there was never an issue with overwelming amount of nitrogen deposition in the underground. Especially near urban places, where everything is already concrete for cars buildings and infrastructure
The "circular economy" based on cradle to cradle certification is a great strategy. Thank you William McDonough and Michael Braungart! I totally gutted my 100+ year old house heated by natural gas. I installed new exterior doors, triple pane windows, R27 high insulation in all the exterior walls, basement and ceiling into the attic. I now heat my house with renewably powered electricity and only use the natural gas heater when super cold. Next week I will finish my solar air heater. Our future is renewably powered.
@@halcyonrain2209 While that is true, did you expect my house not to burn a little natural gas when it is -40 C outside? Biogas for dispatchable heat and electricity in each city would definitely help...toilet nutrients, kitchen nutrients and yard nutrients are all biological nutrients.
The last bit: investors want fast and often outsize return on capital is why the world is facing a crisis. Earlier, houses were built of wood and stone, which are natural materials and therefore sustainable by definition. Also, they employed local craftsmen and tradespeople, thereby generating local employment. These are simple concepts, which need to be revived
What about: 1. Chemical leakage from repurposed materials? 2. Cancer risks from living in a building that decomposes? 3. You do not know what exposure even the cleaner materials you are using had before? 4. Is there exposure to non-ionizing radio frequencies?
Sadly in Chicago huge old factories and warehouses are instead demolished wholesale just for another concrete based structure to be built on top instead of renovating and reusing the same building which would be far less wasteful and more ecologically sustainable. Older buildings that are still standing today do so BECAUSE they are solid - sure they may need a lot of work, but they truly don't build em like they used to. We need to make buildings that last, enough with this wasteful consumerist mindset in architecture that designs buildings with human lifespans. Build right, build strong, build to last, not to demolish and replace every 50 years. I hate that mindset of many architects that think buildings should have short lifespans - it's unsustainable.
Architects need to stop designing boxes. Construction companies need to stop making boxes. We literally live and work in boxes and yet, we cannot seem to think outside the box.
I have to wonder if the general rule of having buildings be independent standing rectangles is part of the problem. Could we connect more of them, even if just superficially and share their heating/cooling requirements?
That female head of the green council seems to be living in a home, from her video background. She should move out onto the streets to minimise her carbon footprint
I think the main problem with all these tall buildings is that allot of them aren't used to live in. Rich people buy these to spend like a month of their time in and move to the next home. What needs to happen is higher taxation on people who have more than 1 house and people with higher income. Then we can start talking about repurposing old buildings!
The amount of tyranny required to enforce this futuristic nightmare would be Stalin or Mao's wet dream! Classical and traditional architecture with walkable suburbs and townhouses work best for the majority of people. They are the best antidote I think to the collectivist, totalitarian future proposed in this video.
People like Dr. Lemaitre often "forget" to mention the most important consideration for 99% of Germans when deciding to tear down an old building and start again new. It is simply a matter of cost. Trying to re-engineer an existing structure into a performance building is significantly more expensive than just ripping it down and starting over. Given that the housing prices in Germany have exploded over the last 10 years, the additional costs are simply too high for the average German to bare. Sure, in Frankfurt the average salary may well be 60k€ / year, but people living in a flat like that family in downtown are absolutely not making only 60k. Likely the average for that area is 3-4 times that. Most people would like to "live Green", but the truth is, we simply do not have enough in our bank accounts to do it.
The majority of electricity is still generated by burning gas, wood or coal. Wind and solar make only 3-4 % of the spectrum. Gas has the least CO2 emission, so keep gas in your homes. Unless you want to use nuclear energy, which has the lowest CO2.
@@mardiffv.8775 gas leaks in infrastructure are underrepresented in the emissions analysis. I agree that in many places electricity is produced with carbon intensive processes. I suppose my perspective on electrifying existing building stock comes from living in a state that mostly excludes coal from our electricity grid
The core part of this video is after minute 8 - there is no industry for this. I remember watching similar documentaries already in the 90s. If you dont care for the structural issues in our economy why we keep using/building unhealthy and polluting stuff... these documentaries are not very helpful. Ms Lemaitre says it in the ending. The industry followed the "wrong strategy" - but forgot to say that "the industry" had good reasons to do so. They all have good reasons and mostly it has to do with nice little papers with numbers on it: Money. So... these documentaries are nice but I really think its very important to adress the crazyness of all our huge industries. Cause it doesnt matter where you look at - there is almost in every branche pure crazyness happaning. Cause... money. Btw - the quote: "But dont humans need competition for change to happen?" after 3:40 is quite an ideological reason why our industry often goes so wrong. Cause they (like you) really think "competition" by itself is good. Which is just wrong. Competition can lead to really bad habits and situations. If even highly educated people like you throw out such ideological ideas... do you really wonder that all industries also follows ideological approaches?
Due to mechanization of agriculture jobs are lost in the countryside. The jobs are now in the cities, so people move to the cities. Take Sweden, where 88 % of the population lives in urban areas. So we need to build more housing in cities. Cities also need to grow to let people live near their jobs, so the cycle or take public transport to their job. Which also reduces congestion of cars. City houses are much more energy efficient, living in an appartement building shares your heat with others and you live smaller, easier to heat up.
I think people in tornadoe alley need to stop using wood. Like a rock home made in the 1800s is still there but the wooden home next to it rebuild like 8 times. How can people be so ignorant to the planet continue logging to help rebuild there wooden home rather then use rock and potentially just fix the roof after a tornadoe but they will rebuild the whole house.
Average salary 60 000 euros. Man in Bulgaria its about 7000 euros lol. And probably 80% of people earn less than 6000 euros per year. Things would be great if we had free energy like you
The sad part is while these videos give me an extensive view of how advanced/wealthy areas of the world try and reduce carbon footprint, I for one live in a part of the world where the concept is almost completely unheard of and people aren’t really doing much to reduce their carbon footprint… You ask the average person hear what a Carbon Footprint is and they’ll probably just look at you with a blank stare
HI Drew, have you seen this video yet? "Why Big Oil loves to talk about your carbon footprint" ruclips.net/video/vqZVCEnY-Us/видео.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section. 🌍
Maybe energy tracking is good way to compare what electricity companies, water and gas companies are counting is being used and so charge us. To me how they have 'monopoly ' on control is little more of problem than giving up on that part of privacy. Just thinking as i have lots of experience with mobile providers stealing and charging me more than what they should and i can't do anything about it. So who guarantee me that energy providing companies are fair?
The Building Administration standards are designed to always be timely, adept, as well as environment friendly, from its inception,all throughout. It is the anticipation of architects, designers both internal and external in delivering the best things in building administration, this pertains to geodetic standards, codes, and safety and sanitation protocols and standards, in an Industrialized society. Materials from numerous sources are to be as efficient as possible, in order for the quality/quantity to be maintained. SMEs..General practices and standards/Building administrators/city administrators/Geodetic/structural/Chemical/Electrical-Civil/ENGRs, SITE ENGRS, GP/NP/MCR/Tiers 1 and 2, Lvls 1 and 2, are coordinated regarding completion standards/requirements/implementation and maintenance standards. Respectively: G.M Industries. Don't DELETE, this is information/Informative reports generation/implementation measures.2022 onwards.
"could you live in a house that tracks your energy use? I'm not sure I could" hmmm this is something you would have to really struggle to avoid, since every use of energy by building inhabitants is tracked and sold, nearly universally. But even if one were living in a flat that didn't sell access to these things, living in there while having your energy tracked would not require any effort, so why say that you doubt you have the courage to endure such a small form of adversity? It's like the narrator is mocking the entire concept that this video is promoting.
"Would you live in a House that tracks your energy use? Not sure I would". You already do... The difference is that instead of the electricity company, you cal also see the data... Is perfect for programing electrodomestics to work on peak production hours and stuff.
If the majority of industrialized nations was doing this, it would not be as difficult because there would be more people learning faster and more efficient processes and systems. New systems always begin difficult but when the decision is made it becomes easier and faster…take building cars for example. Just don’t build more cars:)
why not look at your energy bills to know how much you are using? everyone has access to their meters and data! you can get kits to smart house those readings for a pittance....
Why should we care if emissions are up overall? Wouldn't a better measurement be emissions per family or per house? Obviously emissions are going to be up if we are building more buildings than ever before.
In regards to your last question the answer is money. Its always money. Yes its harder to build sustainable as mentioned but its not the difficult rather compensation for that difficulty. if you work harder you except better pay right? Well no one wants to pay for you to work harder on this, most dwellers wont pay more for this so how would you make more money for it? would you work harder for the same amount of pay? If you are already wealthy and live in a wealthy country, maybe. If not then probably no.
Why do we have to live in the cities? Because we've centralized almost everything in our lives. In cities we're fish with no water. The rural is empty.
I apologise for the nitpicking, but in the title of this video has been used the term "suck", which negative meaning is of a highly vulgar origin. No matter the truthfulness of this videos arguments, a respectable channel such as DW should not use profane terms, which debase its image and provide innapropriate examples for communication.
seems like bizzare priorities. instead of addressing single family housing in gigantic suburbs that encourage car use, you instead try and make marginal efficiency gains in what is already far more efficient than single family homes?
Somehow this episode left me on a hook... We got noticed what is wrong, we got information about the solution for the rich, we got information about one very very small scale project... But we didn't hear anything about the real possible solution... Don't get me wrong - I think it is great to show the problem... But not very useful without at least hinting the solution... Also, I would be very curious where and how live the speakers... If they live up to the standard they call out for 😎😃
OMG look at the way wood frame homes are made, all of it ends up in a landfill in 40 years, where it can off gas and emit co2 forever! Concrete lasts possibly forever. 18 story composite wood buildings, hmmm, what happens when the bentertaining
I worry that green now doesn't equal green later. Wood and straw? if the wood is truly natural it won't be saturated in preservatives and hydrocarbons like most lumber is these days, good luck keeping that in one piece after a decade. And Straw? really? who is paying to replace that in a few years? Maybe I'm wrong and these things last, but I don't have hope for it. As much as concrete sucks, it does last and with some work we can find a better mix.
About Circular Houses :- Will the sustain the empact of adverse nature(Harsh Rain, tornado,etc) which we(humans) have to face for next decade & is going in increasing yera by year because of Global Warming, Secondly aren't we going in to older housing methods used by tribal peoples but with the modern engineering, to save environment.
Would you want to live in buildings like these? And what does green architecture look like where you live?
I’m a numbers guy so I’m 100% down with being able to see what my utility usage looks like at any given time.
My wife will probably never actually look at the numbers but she’s always open to hearing about what they turned out like and what we need to change as a result.
from what i know theres isnt any in ireland.
🇨🇦 concrete is "king" here for new condo construction, they actually advertise it. As for monitoring consumption, it's a way to understand what you're doing over the long term. Where I am, Vancouver area, people are tearing down houses built to last 30 years, roughly 1000 SQ ft, and replacing with houses 3-4 times the area, installing natural gas heat. Plastic siding, 15 year warranty, and little if any insulation.
Talk about environment and greenhouse gases, you get scowls.
This is both embarrassing and infuriating.
make the number mandatory in each flat and accessible to All online.
I live in Milan, Italy. Here I got this 90m2 apartment A4 class made of wood and steel supports. During winter season It may happen that you use the oven for 30 mins and heat the house for the day. I also have that kind of ipad where it shows consumptions around electricity and solar generation (200€ every 2 months. considering heating is electric aswell), we still miss the sewage part though ahah. I used to live in a 30 year old house before, where in winter season the gas bill averaged around 900€ per 2 months period, which is insane.
Here in Italy there is an incentive system that allows you to renovate your house for energy purposes for free (If you meet requirements) and many friends of mine are renovating home with this method, 400 kWh/m2*year (as my old house heat dissipation rate) gets to 14 kWh/m2*year, while my house is already 0,12 kWh/m2*year as A4 energy class.
Perhaps you could also talk about the material and energy waste of detached single-family homes compared to wood-constructed four-plexes and six-plexes? Seems a scalable and cheap alternative for the suburbs that doesn't require all the risk analysis and engineering that makes these retrofits so expensive
Yes, multifamily houses are better for the environment. But they are not as big of a deal in Europe. It is an expensive choice that some families do.
For the US this is the first thing that came to mind. Green buildings are great but aren't going to matter if you also building spralling single family developments down the road.
I mean, they're certainly there in Europe, but the numbers are not comparable to the USA in the % of houses being detached.
Fe, in Germany, only 26% of households live in Detached houses, while 62% live in Flats
@@1crafter176 So walkable cities result and racist zoning doesn't happen, as in Canada and the US
@@timbushell8640 no, zoning in Europe works quite differently to how it does in the US. Fe, in Germany, the lowest residential density can still have small blocks of flats, and businesses, Fe. And there wasn't (IIRC) any form of redlining that encouraged segregation
In the management world we have a saying: “what gets looked at gets done.” There’s a very real human reaction to constantly seeing what your actual energy usage is vs your goal, and it leads to reduction in usage like what you saw.
The cool thing is that you don’t actually have to build a whole new building in order to incorporate this mentality! The ipad and sensors that you saw in the first building could just as easily be slapped onto any existing building, in fact, my utility company offers to do this for free for any home in the area!
And getting the constant reminder of how much energy we use has led to my wife and I using 29% less electricity! But obviously individual action can’t solve all these issues so it’s still important to revamp how we views housing and cities as a whole.
It's also a psychological phenomenon that if you make it competitive then it works better as a behaviour modifier. It gives context to your consumption. You feel rewarded by being told you're improving, so it's reinforcing. Our power bills like in many countries shows how your consumption compares to the norm for how ever many people live in your house. People like to know they're doing better than normal or feel bad if they're not meeting the standard everyone else is setting.
Exactly. Planting trees in cities is cool and all and gives a sense of satisfaction. But the change is minimal to just leaving forests alone and letting it do its thing or reforesting some land far away from habitation. But that's less visible to humans so it won't feel as satisfying.
Whats the name of the utility companie that build these electricity measuring sensors? Can you do it with a Raspberry pi, Arduino or some small electrical control measure compontent ?
@@bernhardtrian7471 no idea. Most of the utility companies in the LA area seem to do it. So LADWP, BWP, and GWP all are ones that I know for sure do it.
No it's just first world problem. Compare per capita it's always the Western countries who make the top 10 and always we the USA top the list with double than the second.
Turn off the lights and PC when you leave the officer. I never see anyone do this in my career. Lights on and PCs run 24/7
"40% will be devoted to social housing, and most of its residents will be queer women of color"
... what?
Does that mean that "queer women of color" are usually lower on socio-economic scale? Or does that mean that those aren't social housings since the requirement is personal identity, sex and skin color instead of economic ability?
I am confused and whichever it is, it bugs me because it's either prejudiced or discriminatory.
Found the cishetwhitemale. Five seconds searching Google would have given you the facts about the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by queer women of color (no need for your scare quotes).
yes
They are usually lower on the socio-economic scale.
@@alenanela1743 Do you have any data to back this claim up?
Nop, men of color are usually on the low, men are the highest percentage of people who live in the streets
As a historian, I am very grateful that you mentioned the embodied energy in historic buildings. Amateur environmentalists often just see old structures as energy drains, failing to realize that many of them have great advantages for energy conservation once you upgrade their climate control systems.
I've never seen a building with less need of an AC than my parents 180+ year old farm house. Massive walls of sand and stone (no concrete), so superb insulation. They needed to get an EU energy Rating when they renewed their central heating, and of course the official energy rating is... F. Because modern ratings don't account for ancient building techniques and their advantages...
@@mlippert Very interesting standpoint, often overlooked. Also these houses accumulate heat, so when you heat them up (which does take quite a lot of energy), they do not need much to stay warm.
Modern system is brutal. And sustainability built upon modern system is a brutal scam.
@@mlippert That is physically nonsense. Massive walls have the worst insulation and have the biggest heat losses.
@@Stefan_Dahn So you're saying an 80 cm insulation of any given material is worse than a 10 cm insulation of the same material? I think it's your physics that's inverted...
Good video. I hope you zoom out in "part two", and explore in what degree the location of a building is more important than it's energy efficiency. I.e. how zoning, density and transport matters to overall long term human emissions.
Noted as a possible future topic :)
I would love to see DW do this
While DW does produce high quality videos I think you can also have a look at other channels that might provide equal quality, like Not Just Bikes, Climate Town, Alan Fisher or Adam Something, channels that nearly exclusively focus on urban planning ;)
@@fireskorpion396 Thanks, that is exactly my point! Planet A and all their other stuff is great. I already watch those guys you mention, and eco gecko, citynerd, active towns, urbaburble and more. But having DW have a go at this subject matter (which is very much related to this video) through the prowess of a proper journalistic lens, - that could make a great follow up video, and it would make the wider implications of the subject at hand more approachable to a wider audience.
@@truls4643 fair, more people might get into the topic, and I'll definitely have a look at the channels you mentioned! :D
Everyone's house tracks their energy use. You get a bill for it at the end of the month. The difference is that it is easily available on an ipad rather scattered across several meters that you would have to read if you wanted an update before you get your bill.
It's a bigger novelty in Germany, where you usually get an estimated bill every month and the power company comes maybe once a year to check your meter and adapt your bill accordingly. At this point you either pay them an extra bill, or you get money back. In my old building i didn't have access to my meter anymore because the basement was locked.
In the US you can often just acces your hourly electricity consumption with an app on your smartphone, no need for an ipad on your wall.
Wow, here in Quebec, the the utility provider gives a nice online portal where you can track your consumption live, as well as providing live estimates of what your bill will be at the end of the month at your current consumption levels. No ipad necessary. I sorta assumed that was widespread by now.
And compared to the building's average... the and in time compared to your average, say in monthly bands
I don't even see my electricity and water consumption as it's paid by my landlord. They have to reimburse us every year if we paid more than actually used, so it really doesn't help tracking my actual consumption.
I'm glad we have our energy consumption (power and gas) visible in an app. And we use it a lot. We charge the car when the sun is shining (if possible) and use our household appliances during the day.
1. Please provide the cost of a green building compared to a concrete building.
2. Queer women of color? What about trans, one footed little people from Madagascar?
Easy to say than done. As a civil engineer, budget is the most important thing. If it is for residential buildings and looking for greener solutions, so little companies are willing to pay for the high initial costs unless that's one of their selling points and consumers are expecting to pay a lot more. Also, we often see well graded and certified green buildings literally fall into much lower grade in a year or two, not sure why but it is what it is. Another issue is most carbon emission during construction is produced by transportation, not the construction itself.
Can you please link a source for "green buildings literally....". I don't belive that.
The transport energy (co2) is quite low compared to the embedded energy => co2 footprint in concrete and stones etc...
concept of single family housing in USA are the worst environmental culprits residential apartments & mixed use of shops , office & residential multistory buildings with walkable distances are best which makes a spread-out city a small city
- every single home roof is exposed to sun & external atmosphere consumes energy for both cooling & heating
- many miles of roads , power , water , sewage , broadband etc have to be constructed & maintained each year
- no grocery store near the homes they have travel many miles to make a purchase every day carbon emissions & even online deliveries should travel more miles
- large areas of farmlands forests have to be cleared for every single house
- on same building foundation 4 storey buildings can be built but laws do not allow embodied energy value is high
In a very individualistic culture it is extremely difficult to sell the idea of sharing space with other people as the ultimate success.
'Like proper reporters we just barged into someone's house.'
I laughed louder than I should have, thank you!
I also laughed pretty hard when they said the guys lives in the basement haha
I just bought a house, and everything I do to it and change creates so much waste that goes only to a landfill. I keep thinking to myself, how can I do this sustainably? Our solutions need to be available at our local hardware store, and every contractor needs to be well versed in those materials and methods, otherwise these changes will never come.
The real truth is that urban living is by far and away the least environmentally impactful way of life, and it is extremely disingenuous to present these facts and figures without comparing and contrasting them with what the alternatives would be, if they were replaced with lower density structures. There is no human way of living that does not cause some environmental change, but we have a moral duty to cause as little damage as possible. Highly dense urban architecture is far more efficient throughout its entire lifecycle than any other type of architecture.
Many climate change activists complain about construction method with concrete and steel but they don't calculate that those are the most reliable material for longer sustainability. The only thing that would be accomplished is the green energy usage of every resident in that particular residential building. Also building on flat surfaces, not high building is waste of land and requires more energy usage because of material transport. Urban citys are the best thing for the enviourment.
Wooden buildings are a privilege in this day and age, whereas sand for concrete is everywhere. Yeah one can say that every tree that was cut down had a replacement planted and thus is renewable, but that can only work for designer houses. Especially when you even see railroads everywhere replacing their wooden ties with concrete or synthetic ties. Railroads! The most environmental form of transport. Just goes to show that wood will always be precious.
@@bernhardtrian7471 Activists cant calculate or think logically! Hence they are activists. They think we with emotion and yell and scream like a petulant child!
They don't argue against density. They argue against tearing down fine buildings to replace them with better ones instead of upgrading them.
Just for the records , our cities urban planning sucks too.
When did people start calling pollution "carbon"? Really narrows the perception of actual harm being done by various pollutants/emissions mixed together
it's just that companies can sell solutions that lessen the carbon footprint while ignoring everything else
It's both. For climate change, carbon is more relevant than general pollution. But of course we should reduce all kinds of pollution.
"Look!!! we emit 0 carbon"
Emitting sulphur and fluorine to the air on the background
People did start that in the year 2525.
@@Stefan_Dahn my mans came back from future to comment here.
a house that tracks energy use.. isnt that just the power company with their monthly electric bill?
sounds like 1st world problem to me, mostly self gratification.
companies are the real problem
And the governments that are scared to take actual measures because they don't want to piss the owners of the companies and investors off. None, and I really mean NONE of them takes this issue seriously.
So Germans banned their own nuclear power plants and set themselves on russian oil anc gas needle, now you ditching building construction? We will overwatch you with a pleasure.
9:00 I understand why 1% of people living in ecological buildings is bad thing, but I am interested how big % of German society is composed of queer women of colour that need social housing. There are probably many other women that need it, work immigrants are mostly men and many many more people need that housing not because of their skin colour or sexualities and gender, but because of their financial state. Btw good video 👍
Good content approach, but while you are here why don't go deeper on this subject?
I live in a house where i can track my energy usage by the electricity bill which i get..:p
Firstly I don't have a permanent apartment in Berlin. In Berlin they don't pay enough salary to be eco friendly. I can't afford it.
This is the very challenge in my town - Boulder, Colorado USA. The University of Colorado at Boulder, has negotiated the annexation of land they own into city zoning, in order to move forward with a complicated project including municipal flood protection, affordable housing, and educational facilities. The challenge now presents itself: this new development is proposed on a site that is originally in a floodplain - a natural riparian, wetland habitat, rare in this arid climate, and no less during a historic drought.
If affordable housing where the issue, why isn't the university looking at housing that is closer than 5km from their main campus, in buildings already constructed?
It's sickening to see an institution push their world class environmental studies department, while blatantly chosing profit over people, and insisting on using their leverage in the city to highjack a flood project, use it to negotiate annexation T&C, and ultimately dictate water rights. Isn't this gaslighting, greenwashing, and a ruse?
How do we change the system indeed....repeal the annexation by referendum in our upcoming election. Vote YES.
That’s a huge shame. The UC capital planning division is likely siloed from the sustainability department. The UC system sees the high cost of building and high land values in Boulder, and does not account for the environmental services of the flood zone to the residents of the city. The risks and externalities of development are then outsourced as costs to the public, while UC profits from development is privatized.
@@mk-oc7mt I would bet you are right! And you know who is not at the table when discussing how to "use land?" ANY of the dozens of indigenous communities in the "state" of "Colorado" - I wonder how much less climate crisis we would be in, IF the settler colonialism mindset took a backseat to Aboriginal knowledge systems....
9:00 hello, if housing only 1% is a failure, what percentage of the population in Germany is queer women of color?
In Israel it's standard to use a solar water heater since it's super cheap, basically just a large glass panel with black piping in it . While most houses still have an electric one just as a backup, we won't use it most days of the year unless it's a cloudy winter day
Lucky you for having so much sunshine. In the Netherlands is mostly cloudy.
I’d absolutely love an energy tracker. Especially if it came with tips and features such as weather ai acknowledgement or something like that.
Following are the key aspects of a sustainable/green building
1) Durable and high quality-This increases the lifetime of the building and thus reduce the need to rebuild
2) Energy efficient building envelope- Glass buildings are the least efficient kind of building, in any climate.
3) Energy efficient service equipment, such as cooling, heating, and ventilation systems
4) Located in a right place- building's location and how it connects to the rest of the built environment determines how people access the building, such as, whether they walk, bike, take public transit, or whether they have to drive.
5) Comfortable for occupants- Thermal comfort, good air quality, etc.
6) Well integrated to the surroundings- This determines how a building contributes to it surrounding, which affects the quality of the public realm.
Buildings covered with Solar PV or built with recycled material, are not necessarily green, if they are not complied with at least these criteria. Most of the old and refurbished buildings in Germany are greener than to most of the 'green washed' buildings we see in media.
I would be interested to see more on this topic. I think that in the long run, we need to brace retrofitting buildings with green technology. If nothing else, people need to deal with the fact that the technology will change faster than we can build! I would be curious to know about some more tailored solutions to energy efficiency. We have gotten used to building the same way regardless of local climate and that doesn't make sense.
Your local power company may have suggestions on their website. I know mine is willing to come in and assess my insulation and appliances for free.
the challenge there is that there is a threshold below which retro fitting is not feasible. Consider places with a proliferation of single family homes. By simply having more walls exposed to the outside, the need for insulation is drastically higher, on a per individual or family basis, compared to say apartments. If we can build with mostly wood, the choice between retro fitting or simply building denser becomes closer.
Beina Xu is a really charming reporter, honestly, I think the most charming reporter I've yet seen on DW Planet A
Aspern, Vienna must be quite eco-friendly with it's HoHo
In my car I can see how much energy I'm consuming. That was for me the biggest trigger to change driving behavior!
I would absolutely like to live in a house that tracks my energy use. But ofcourse that's not for everyone the best to change or be able to relax in your own home.
IMPORTANT. Your video article discusses the WALL SECTION !!!
This is FUNDAMENTAL for every discussion on energy reduction and building physics architecture.
THIS IS a great documentary. 10/10.
We need to change fast, a neighborhood getting developed near where I live have fake triangles adding to the attic to make a house look bigger
...how do you live in a house that doesn't track your energy use? I mean, I suppose it's the energy company doing the tracking, not the house, but that doesn't really seem meaningfully different?
Have you ever wondered why a building is called "building" if it's already been built, idk it's been bugging me for a while
....You just made me think that . And now its bugging me too . How about we call it "builded"(cool right?😂)
Wonderful start, thanks for the whole team for amplifying these thoughts, hope to see pt2 pt3 pt4 etc, a whole series on the subject, as others suggested in the comments.
Density in itself is a most complex issue, with regards to its effects on the psychology of individuals, the political power of a community, the geography, historical change and the "laziness" infrastructure of production and living (i.e. what we people #do and how we spend the rest of our days), and so on.
The huge question of "building for who" is definitely a vast & suspenseful topic with lots of ghost-projects and investigative journalism.
A very romantic one would be: why is it or is it really a quite selfish addressing of the problems to secess, to move out of this network of power we call cities to find village life (again?) for the masses, with the cave communas in Spain to the rootlessness of "digital nomads" (man i hate that expression, we re just kids forever, afraid of speaking up for real change), or the guy living in a bike with his goat, and so many other strings in the fabric of sustainable(?) living with real impact outside of cities.
wishing the best to the whole crew!
"The construction industry accounts for nearly 40% of global CO2 emissions"
Highly misleading.
All those compress wood not suitable for all. Some places particular in tropical climate, those wood will be a major termite nest, bugs and if not regularly maintain might rot away pretty soon. Maintenance add cost
All I see is greenwashing. Real sustainable housing looks nothing like any of this.
In your opinion, how would actually sustainable housing look like?
@@E1Luch Small, good design over size, well insulated, efficient appliances, try to use local and and abundant materials like dirt, which has excellent qualities for almost any environment. The way we do architecture is ridiculous. Brainless termites do way better.
@@dustman96 There are tradeoffs though. Smaller buildings have bigger ratio of surface area to internal volume, which means it's easier for heat to escape and you need more power per volume to keep it warm. Also building small means your settlement, however big it would be, is intrinsically low-density, and it means it's much harder to get adequate infrastructure to everyone, because you need more roads, cables, pipes per person, and increased land use comes with it's own environmental problems
@@dustman96 But also, wouldn't we still need some frame to build with dirt? How good of an insulator is it and what kind of strength a dirt house would have? Btw, if you have any article or video or whatever on the matter to share, please feel free to do so, I would love to take a look
Designer: OK, here are the basic plans for your new house. This is just the standard design. It's going to be about $150k. But let me ask you, what are your thoughts on the environment?
Buyer: Oh yeah, we care about the environment! Definitely want to do what we can to help make this better!
Designer: Great. In that case, here are the designs for the EcoFriendly house.
Buyer: Wow, those are incredible ideas! And it looks beautiful and creative!!! We love that!
Designer: I thought you might. We're very proud of it. So, it's going to be about $250k...
Buyer: $250k? Um... Uh... Er... So, if we go with the original design, can we get some recycling containers with that?
What's with the high rise building in the thumbnail? The housing responsible the most for climate change are single family homes, which use a lot of land to house a small density of people and also lead to higher private car ownership and lower public transport use, besides being energy inefficient and costly when it comes to infrastructure. High rises are the exact opposite, and it would be better if more were built in the west.
Why does the voiceover sound more like ASMR than journalism?
I would live in a green building like those towers in Mailand, shown in the video @ 8:59 because it is beautiful as well
Milan is Meiland in English. Keine Problem, ich helf Dich weiter.
In The Netherlands most construction has been on hold for about 2 years because of a court ruling. There's too much nitrogen in the ground. Major construction companies are now slowly turning their heads towards wood construction. Things can change rather rapidly. You just need the proper legislation in place, and institutions to enforce it.
Wow, thanks for the info, didn't know that. But how did so much nitrogen get into the ground in the first place? As far as I know its only by humans with fertilizer. The rest is by Biomass or rain that carries nitrogen excess from phonotsynthesis. But by that there was never an issue with overwelming amount of nitrogen deposition in the underground. Especially near urban places, where everything is already concrete for cars buildings and infrastructure
The "circular economy" based on cradle to cradle certification is a great strategy. Thank you William McDonough and Michael Braungart! I totally gutted my 100+ year old house heated by natural gas. I installed new exterior doors, triple pane windows, R27 high insulation in all the exterior walls, basement and ceiling into the attic. I now heat my house with renewably powered electricity and only use the natural gas heater when super cold. Next week I will finish my solar air heater. Our future is renewably powered.
Natural gas is not renewable lol
@@halcyonrain2209 While that is true, did you expect my house not to burn a little natural gas when it is -40 C outside? Biogas for dispatchable heat and electricity in each city would definitely help...toilet nutrients, kitchen nutrients and yard nutrients are all biological nutrients.
I loved.... the humor in this such serious... professional documentary..
The last bit: investors want fast and often outsize return on capital is why the world is facing a crisis.
Earlier, houses were built of wood and stone, which are natural materials and therefore sustainable by definition. Also, they employed local craftsmen and tradespeople, thereby generating local employment.
These are simple concepts, which need to be revived
What about:
1. Chemical leakage from repurposed materials?
2. Cancer risks from living in a building that decomposes?
3. You do not know what exposure even the cleaner materials you are using had before?
4. Is there exposure to non-ionizing radio frequencies?
Sadly in Chicago huge old factories and warehouses are instead demolished wholesale just for another concrete based structure to be built on top instead of renovating and reusing the same building which would be far less wasteful and more ecologically sustainable. Older buildings that are still standing today do so BECAUSE they are solid - sure they may need a lot of work, but they truly don't build em like they used to. We need to make buildings that last, enough with this wasteful consumerist mindset in architecture that designs buildings with human lifespans. Build right, build strong, build to last, not to demolish and replace every 50 years. I hate that mindset of many architects that think buildings should have short lifespans - it's unsustainable.
You gotta slap an ipad on everything, to make it look "smarter" 😂
Pretty sure most of us are being tracked on energy use.
You know... because the Providers want to get paid.
If the average inner-city apartment is bad for the environment,
then the Single Family Zoning complex is nuclear!
Architects need to stop designing boxes. Construction companies need to stop making boxes. We literally live and work in boxes and yet, we cannot seem to think outside the box.
I have to wonder if the general rule of having buildings be independent standing rectangles is part of the problem. Could we connect more of them, even if just superficially and share their heating/cooling requirements?
No, there are regulations of how close buildings can be because it will block the airflow causing huge problems.
Yes, rowhouses and townhouses are far more thermally efficient than freestanding houses, in cold climates.
> Do you live in a house that tracks your energy use
Yes, my house is connected to the grid, there's a power meter right. There.
That female head of the green council seems to be living in a home, from her video background. She should move out onto the streets to minimise her carbon footprint
I think the main problem with all these tall buildings is that allot of them aren't used to live in. Rich people buy these to spend like a month of their time in and move to the next home.
What needs to happen is higher taxation on people who have more than 1 house and people with higher income. Then we can start talking about repurposing old buildings!
The amount of tyranny required to enforce this futuristic nightmare would be Stalin or Mao's wet dream! Classical and traditional architecture with walkable suburbs and townhouses work best for the majority of people. They are the best antidote I think to the collectivist, totalitarian future proposed in this video.
I'm so happy i live in small town with 12.000 people..
People like Dr. Lemaitre often "forget" to mention the most important consideration for 99% of Germans when deciding to tear down an old building and start again new.
It is simply a matter of cost.
Trying to re-engineer an existing structure into a performance building is significantly more expensive than just ripping it down and starting over.
Given that the housing prices in Germany have exploded over the last 10 years, the additional costs are simply too high for the average German to bare.
Sure, in Frankfurt the average salary may well be 60k€ / year, but people living in a flat like that family in downtown are absolutely not making only 60k. Likely the average for that area is 3-4 times that.
Most people would like to "live Green", but the truth is, we simply do not have enough in our bank accounts to do it.
One of the greatest challenges now is electrifying existing building stock that relies on technologies like natural gas.
The majority of electricity is still generated by burning gas, wood or coal. Wind and solar make only 3-4 % of the spectrum. Gas has the least CO2 emission, so keep gas in your homes. Unless you want to use nuclear energy, which has the lowest CO2.
@@mardiffv.8775 gas leaks in infrastructure are underrepresented in the emissions analysis.
I agree that in many places electricity is produced with carbon intensive processes.
I suppose my perspective on electrifying existing building stock comes from living in a state that mostly excludes coal from our electricity grid
We need negative population growth. Big business will never support that, and most people hate the idea.
What about electric cars? The way electric cars chips process has carbon footprints. Everything we do in our daily lives has carbon foot print.
The core part of this video is after minute 8 - there is no industry for this. I remember watching similar documentaries already in the 90s.
If you dont care for the structural issues in our economy why we keep using/building unhealthy and polluting stuff... these documentaries are not very helpful.
Ms Lemaitre says it in the ending. The industry followed the "wrong strategy" - but forgot to say that "the industry" had good reasons to do so. They all have good reasons and mostly it has to do with nice little papers with numbers on it: Money.
So... these documentaries are nice but I really think its very important to adress the crazyness of all our huge industries. Cause it doesnt matter where you look at - there is almost in every branche pure crazyness happaning. Cause... money.
Btw - the quote: "But dont humans need competition for change to happen?" after 3:40 is quite an ideological reason why our industry often goes so wrong. Cause they (like you) really think "competition" by itself is good. Which is just wrong. Competition can lead to really bad habits and situations. If even highly educated people like you throw out such ideological ideas... do you really wonder that all industries also follows ideological approaches?
The non sequitur opening line of the video: "Cities are growing, which means we keep on building." Right there, you lost me...
Due to mechanization of agriculture jobs are lost in the countryside. The jobs are now in the cities, so people move to the cities. Take Sweden, where 88 % of the population lives in urban areas. So we need to build more housing in cities.
Cities also need to grow to let people live near their jobs, so the cycle or take public transport to their job. Which also reduces congestion of cars. City houses are much more energy efficient, living in an appartement building shares your heat with others and you live smaller, easier to heat up.
I think people in tornadoe alley need to stop using wood.
Like a rock home made in the 1800s is still there but the wooden home next to it rebuild like 8 times.
How can people be so ignorant to the planet continue logging to help rebuild there wooden home rather then use rock and potentially just fix the roof after a tornadoe but they will rebuild the whole house.
If the timber is sourced sustainably. It results in carbon negative footprint. Carbon is trapped from the atmosphere into the wood.
Add a giant fan to the design. Then they wouldn’t suck, they’d blow.
Average salary 60 000 euros. Man in Bulgaria its about 7000 euros lol. And probably 80% of people earn less than 6000 euros per year. Things would be great if we had free energy like you
Better to house people in an urban high-rise, even a less efficient one, than in a suburb where they'll depend on their car...
"...And he lives in the basement" 😂
World population is rising, we need more houses and land, u cant escape form this fact
The sad part is while these videos give me an extensive view of how advanced/wealthy areas of the world try and reduce carbon footprint, I for one live in a part of the world where the concept is almost completely unheard of and people aren’t really doing much to reduce their carbon footprint… You ask the average person hear what a Carbon Footprint is and they’ll probably just look at you with a blank stare
HI Drew, have you seen this video yet? "Why Big Oil loves to talk about your carbon footprint" ruclips.net/video/vqZVCEnY-Us/видео.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section. 🌍
Maybe energy tracking is good way to compare what electricity companies, water and gas companies are counting is being used and so charge us. To me how they have 'monopoly ' on control is little more of problem than giving up on that part of privacy. Just thinking as i have lots of experience with mobile providers stealing and charging me more than what they should and i can't do anything about it. So who guarantee me that energy providing companies are fair?
The Building Administration standards are designed to always be timely, adept, as well as environment friendly, from its inception,all throughout. It is the anticipation of architects, designers both internal and external in delivering the best things in building administration, this pertains to geodetic standards, codes, and safety and sanitation protocols and standards, in an Industrialized society. Materials from numerous sources are to be as efficient as possible, in order for the quality/quantity to be maintained. SMEs..General practices and standards/Building administrators/city administrators/Geodetic/structural/Chemical/Electrical-Civil/ENGRs, SITE ENGRS, GP/NP/MCR/Tiers 1 and 2, Lvls 1 and 2, are coordinated regarding completion standards/requirements/implementation and maintenance standards. Respectively: G.M Industries. Don't DELETE, this is information/Informative reports generation/implementation measures.2022 onwards.
Circular construction is just a pipe dream.
"could you live in a house that tracks your energy use? I'm not sure I could" hmmm this is something you would have to really struggle to avoid, since every use of energy by building inhabitants is tracked and sold, nearly universally. But even if one were living in a flat that didn't sell access to these things, living in there while having your energy tracked would not require any effort, so why say that you doubt you have the courage to endure such a small form of adversity? It's like the narrator is mocking the entire concept that this video is promoting.
"Would you live in a House that tracks your energy use? Not sure I would". You already do... The difference is that instead of the electricity company, you cal also see the data... Is perfect for programing electrodomestics to work on peak production hours and stuff.
Pure captolism is competition with no $ involved. To be the best is the reward
If the majority of industrialized nations was doing this, it would not be as difficult because there would be more people learning faster and more efficient processes and systems.
New systems always begin difficult but when the decision is made it becomes easier and faster…take building cars for example.
Just don’t build more cars:)
why not look at your energy bills to know how much you are using? everyone has access to their meters and data! you can get kits to smart house those readings for a pittance....
Why should we care if emissions are up overall? Wouldn't a better measurement be emissions per family or per house? Obviously emissions are going to be up if we are building more buildings than ever before.
In regards to your last question the answer is money. Its always money.
Yes its harder to build sustainable as mentioned but its not the difficult rather compensation for that difficulty. if you work harder you except better pay right? Well no one wants to pay for you to work harder on this, most dwellers wont pay more for this so how would you make more money for it? would you work harder for the same amount of pay? If you are already wealthy and live in a wealthy country, maybe. If not then probably no.
Given the crisis of homelessness. It seems wrong headed to end this by focusing on the “investment” aspect to real-estate.
It is horrible to encourage Single Family homes and I DETEST the idea of more suburbs being developed!
on 4:40 i laughed more than i should , silly 😂
Why do we have to live in the cities?
Because we've centralized almost everything in our lives. In cities we're fish with no water.
The rural is empty.
How about not demolishing old buildings just to build new ones.
Everything that different just a little bit - is expensive
Great video, thanks for sharing, cheers
I apologise for the nitpicking, but in the title of this video has been used the term "suck", which negative meaning is of a highly vulgar origin. No matter the truthfulness of this videos arguments, a respectable channel such as DW should not use profane terms, which debase its image and provide innapropriate examples for communication.
seems like bizzare priorities. instead of addressing single family housing in gigantic suburbs that encourage car use, you instead try and make marginal efficiency gains in what is already far more efficient than single family homes?
Somehow this episode left me on a hook... We got noticed what is wrong, we got information about the solution for the rich, we got information about one very very small scale project... But we didn't hear anything about the real possible solution... Don't get me wrong - I think it is great to show the problem... But not very useful without at least hinting the solution... Also, I would be very curious where and how live the speakers... If they live up to the standard they call out for 😎😃
Good chill vibe of this one. Nice host :)
Great. We need buildings like that in Frankfurt everywhere 🥺🥺🥺❤ or that in Beijing*
OMG look at the way wood frame homes are made, all of it ends up in a landfill in 40 years, where it can off gas and emit co2 forever! Concrete lasts possibly forever. 18 story composite wood buildings, hmmm, what happens when the bentertaining
I worry that green now doesn't equal green later. Wood and straw? if the wood is truly natural it won't be saturated in preservatives and hydrocarbons like most lumber is these days, good luck keeping that in one piece after a decade. And Straw? really? who is paying to replace that in a few years?
Maybe I'm wrong and these things last, but I don't have hope for it. As much as concrete sucks, it does last and with some work we can find a better mix.
Is it just me or is the intro audio quality bad?
3:10 You cannot have that kind of building in America the tenants will destroy it or steal it.
The problem of planet earth is human demography....
@ValentineF That nobody is talking....
About Circular Houses :- Will the sustain the empact of adverse nature(Harsh Rain, tornado,etc) which we(humans) have to face for next decade & is going in increasing yera by year because of Global Warming, Secondly aren't we going in to older housing methods used by tribal peoples but with the modern engineering, to save environment.