Wooden skyscrapers could be the future for cities
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 янв 2018
- Wooden skyscrapers are an ambitious and innovative solution to the problems posed by urbanisation. Not only are they faster to build, they have smaller carbon footprints than high-rises made of concrete and steel.
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on RUclips: econ.st/2GCblkl
By 2050 the world’s population is expected to soar to almost 10 billion people and two-thirds of us will live in cities.
Space will be at a premium.
High-rise offers a solution. But concrete and steel - the materials we currently use to build high - have a large carbon footprint.
An answer might lie in a natural material we’ve used for millennia.
Throughout history buildings have been made of wood.
But it has one major drawback. It acts as kindling.
Fire destroyed large swathes of some of the world’s great cities.
But by the early twentieth century, the era of modern steelmaking had arrived.
Steel was strong, could be moulded into any shape and used to reinforce concrete. It allowed architects to build higher than ever before.
So why, after more than a century of concrete and steel, are some architects proposing a return to wood?
Concrete and steel are costly to produce and heavy to transport.
Wood however can be grown sustainably and it’s lighter than concrete.
And crucially, as trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the air, locking it into the timber.
One study showed that using wood to construct a 125-metre skyscraper could reduce a building’s carbon footprint by up to 75%
Regular timber isn’t malleable like steel or concrete, and isn’t strong enough to build high.
But engineers have come up with a solution. It’s called cross-laminated timber, or CLT for short.
CLT is light and it’s comparable in strength to concrete and steel.
But how does it cope when burnt with a high heat source?
London architects Waugh Thistleton are already designing buildings with this new kind of timber.
Andrew and his colleagues designed Britain’s first high-rise wooden apartment block and have recently completed the world’s largest timber-based building.
Behind these bricks is a timber core, made from more than 2000 trees, sourced from sustainable forests.
And this London practice is not alone in advocating the use of CLT.
Ambitious wooden high-rise buildings are also being constructed in Scandinavia, central Europe and North America.
As yet, nobody has used CLT to build beyond 55 metres.
But Michael Ramage’s research centre in Cambridge, working with another London practice, has proposed a concept design of a 300-metre tower, that could be built on top of one of London’s most iconic concrete structures - the Barbican.
Making that jump in height will be a difficult sell.
The cost of building wooden skyscrapers is largely unknown, but those costs could be reduced by prefabricating large sections of buildings in factories.
And city-dwellers will need to be persuaded that CLT does not burn like ordinary wood.
As an attractive, natural material, wood is already popular for use in low buildings.
If planners approve, it could rise to new heights.
Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.
For more from Economist Films visit: econ.st/2GCbm7T
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: econ.st/2GCbnIZ
Follow The Economist on Twitter: econ.st/2GAXgUa
Follow us on Instagram: econ.st/2GAXhrc
Follow us on LINE: econ.st/1WXkOo6
Follow us on Medium: econ.st/2GAXivg 
Кино
Is the floor creaking... or is it the entire building?
Wooden structures tend to do that, though its a good thing. If you build in earthquake prone zones, building structures that respond to exterior forces allows for the structure to survive thwt said event.
The movement of the wood allows the energy to dissapate into the structure and not in a focused point. Many concrete and steel skyscrapers do this inconjunction with special equipment such as mass dampeners and control joints.
The Japanese have been doing this for a long time and most of their temples last for centuries.
@@momsspaghetti9970 actually NO. Their temples are all reconstructions, they need constant repair. The oldest part in one is no more than 100 years old...
Actually, one of the benefits of cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor slabs compared to traditional timber joists and planks is that it is and feels completely solid as though you are walking on a concrete floor (without the cold feeling under your feet). 😊
Just turn off Fire Spread in the settings and bam, you good to go
You might need to ask the superior for admin about the world first
😂
The charred wood is extremely insullating, when you remove the source of flame it distinguished itself. Moreover, wood burns in a more controlled way than steel does. Steel tends to explode sometimes
I guess California never got the hint
/gamerule doFireTrick false
Termites: “I’m boutta end this mans whole career”
Quite literally, if that man is a structural engineer
@Lvis Gaming Roblox YT isa joke
Fire: "Am I nothing to you?"
@@99certain45It's fire proof...
nah one minecraft fire can do the job just right
Someone’s been playing too much jenga
Fortnite 1 underrated comment lol
Jet fuel can't melt wooden beams!
hawk0485 ha! Good one!
hawk0485, But jet fuel can easily burn wooden beams! In many ways, wood is a worse material than metal when it comes to being flown into. It's best if wood only is used to build low rise structures 4 storeys or less high!
The Utopiano Utopioan he's being sarcastic. It's a reference for the twin towers on 9/11. Why else does he get likes for his comment? Inside joke
Nor can a plastic nosecone break them ( you need birds to beak them, er, nosecones that is). But whatever happens. I'm sure the shock will send nearby skyscrapers into freefall? could be the weight of birdpoop? Oh, & for the idiot uploader, CARBON IS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE, MORON! To quote carbon footprint is an utterly misleading thing to say.
hawk0485 lol
Front desk.... yeah there is a woodpecker banging on my wall again....
Get the BB gun!
Henry Ortlip
Haha that’s hilarious
LMAO
No, fuck the BB gun... I'll get my ladder
@stefanos2691 ...it means Laughing My Ass Off
Can you imagine living on a 67th floor and have a woodpecker bang your structure everyday lol!
💦😝😝😝😝
People owning chainshaws could be deadly😂😂
Lmfaoo
people owning boxcutters flying on planes could be deadly
just add a not othin not too thick layer of cement on it
For high-rise building I don't think so... The sheer weight of the building makes it be compressed extremely hard... chainsaw won't work...
@@aristtara006 why so serious?
“It has the same protection as what a tree uses to protect its self against forrest fires”
Cali: “um.....”
Flabigail - exactly what I was thinking
There are some trees that _aren't_ protected by charring. Eucalyptus Trees, for one.
And there's a LOT of flammable brush that can burn.
Think about that for two seconds. If exposed lumber created self-extinguishing insulation as it burned... then why were fires such a problem in the era of wooden buildings? Because the surface he was torching was bare wood. You should be able to do the exact same thing to dimensional lumber, and yet it doesn't seem to work this way in the real world. Odd that.
@@tomewyrmdraconus837 wood buildings in the past used pitch and tar for insulation and waterproofing, it wasn't the wood itself that was burning easily it was those materials.
The problem is, you have other materials that go into construction (and later, furnishing) that will ignite as well. Increasing burn times and allowing far more severe compromises of the CLT structure.
Then the fire nation attacked..
Underrated comment 😭😂😂😭
Funny😂. I was just in the Avatar mood for that 👍
Ooooo oooooooooo
Fucking underrated af
Is this a joke from Ants Canada?
Is it just me, or is this new "technology" just a Jenga reboot?
what about hurricane winds?
Wood is elastic, it wouldnt get destroyed in wind that fast, like steal or concrete
Skyscrapers are built on land, not in the ocean.
@@scottab140 Yeah because big cities containing large buildings never get hit by hurricanes. Only in the ocean.
Waving from Houston, hey how's it goin?
@@moritzk3004 You want rigid materials for strong winds, like reinforced concrete. You want a 125m tower to sway back and forth?
@@moritzk3004 yea i don't think my skyscraper being super elastic sounds like a good idea.
Looks good, sounds good but wondering how big of a forest needed to build one skycrapper..
Miguel Ferreira yeah but what happens when supply doesn't meet demand and they aren't able to regrow trees fast enough?
Miguel Ferreira that's cause too many dumb people in your area imported highly flammable trees. It's like when California had all those Eucalyptus trees burning. 1 they aren't native which means that they are taking space from native trees and 2 they contain a highly flammable sap that's basically kerosene.
Miguel Ferreira huh that is a really huge problem personally I would say the only trees we should grow commercially are the crappy gmo pine trees we use for paper. Other than that I would say leave it alone. I mean trying to save a species of tree so you move it to a non native location is different then just planting trees for lumber that will ruin eco systems.
Miguel Ferreira where I am from in South East Texas there is a huge paper mill and most if not all the tree farms in the area are filled with gmo pine trees. They grow at almost double the rate as most other trees. I bet that place smells horrible I know the paper mill here does. You can watch them pull in trailers full of nothing but pine trees for days if you can stand the smell.
Miguel Ferreira hahaha that's so funny it's the same way in Texas. The name of the city the paper mill is in is Evadale but most people who live around it call it evil smell. They don't have filters either but they do keep a large barrier of forest around 75% of it. They get most if not all their trees from family owned tree farms in the area.
Nobody talks about the fact that wood is terrible in very humid places.
Yup, In my country it rains almost every day
that's why these buildings are only in Europe and Cannada presently
Exactly, the famously dry climate of Vancouver.
Plastic spray coating
just another problem that science will deal with, and i really think that will find the solution to that
_Steel-Reinforced Concrete:_ *"AM I A JOKE TO YOU?"*
Welp its proved inaffective againt planes🤔🤷♂️
ThisIsSketchy yes but imagine what happens when wood explodes. Tiny shards of wood hitting your body at high speeds causing a lot of it to dig deep within your body
@@thisissketchy9339 cuz you should simple concrete in compression and not in tension which melt due planes, steel melt not concrete.
@@thisissketchy9339 nah, its ok against planes, its not ok with thousands of liters of jet fuel slowly making steel beams less ressistant.
@@Kelekky concrete explodes violently when heated, wood doesn't. especially the wood they use which is kiln dried.
As much as i love this idea and concept. I feel like our time and resources would be better spent in using all that wasted roof space in cities. Can you imagine if buildings were made strong enough so that roofs could be connected together and made into nature parks. Just imagine your city, being able to walk around on the top of buildings, with grass, lakes, tree, bushes, good for humans, good for animals, insects, good for environment.
well that would destroy everything on ground level, making it a sewer like old new york in futurama
Lakes on top of buildings?
food for termites
:^D
This wood is treated with chemicals that would kill termites.
The tallest wooden structure all time was built 700 years ago in Lincoln, England. At 148m tall the Lincoln Cathedral was the tallest building in the world for 238 years and then it blew over in a gale in the year 1549. If a bunch of Medieval artisans and carpenters could build that tall then we could surely beat that record in modern times.
Not in mild climate, termites are unknown thing for us in Europe and Northern America.
Novusod Producing chemicals doesn't seem that great for the environment.
Zdeněk
Not in North America
I am cautiously optimistic. To those using deforestation as an argument against, mining is also quit devastating to the environment.
Yeah exactly. I'd like to see a proper analysis of the tradeoffs between concrete and wood.
yes, i live in tropical region.
The government need to remove the trees before digging out the iron. Its pretty self-explanatory.
Unless you are Russian who mine in the polar circle.
So should we have dirt houses then?
dafuq are you talking about?!?!
Deforestation isn't really an argument. The wood used in these project is sourced from managed forests. When one tree is felled, they replace it with (on average) 5 more. After 5 years they harvest the 2 smallest ones, then after 5 more years they harvest the other 2 smallest leaving the strongest to grow to full strength at 30 years. It's a completely certified practice. There's a distinct difference between logging and forestry. The Dalston Lane project (100% CLT building, 121 homes and 3,600m2 of commercial office space) used about 2,325 trees which, if you look at the total growth time of all those trees in German & Austrian forests, took about 3 hours to grow. We wouldn't be able to continue our work if it wasn't sustainable.
dude acting like CLT is new and revolutionary, isn't it basically plywood just thicker?
One other difference is that plywood is made using wood veneer, which is basically the outer, softer part of the trunk. CLT is made using the inside, which is a lot sturdier. But yes, the concept remains the same
@@Avandale0 You are mistaken, they use the whole trunk clear to the core.
it is plastic impregnated wood, so we are really talking about plastic building. There so much hype about wood highrise bldg. we know - all the foundation cannot be wood, the core should be steel or concrete, tension members should be of steel. Architects are just salesmen, it is waste of time to listen to them, we want to hear from engineers, manufacturers, specialized agencies, security guys, they should test this system and then architects can coordinate their design with those requirements. Shame on architects who talk a lot about something they know little.
@@parch123456 it's not plastic impregnated - there's two ingredients: wood planks and glue that binds them. I've been to a CLT factory. If you're talking about who's competent enough to talk, then you'd better get your facts straight.
In Finland we grow more wood, than harvest it.
It s artificial forests with low biodiversity.
@@towaritch And how many times have you been in a finnish forest?
@@avaragecracker6986 in German and French forests same problem
@@towaritch well we have no biodiversity problem
jenga!!!
Pretty much lol. Cross laminating sounds fancier though
timmy D, people already do that, though. Plywood is literally based on that concept.
Just unleash termites in the middle of a city. Billions in property damage.
jenga actually translates to 'build' in my native language. i think the inventor of the game understood swahili
Lol
As an architect, wood looks nicer but knowing developers, they will over-log forests and forget the sustainability aspect of it all
Not likely if they own the forests. Replant the land and maximize its value.
Logging companies are the reason forests have increased in all 1st world nations. Because they replant even more trees then they cut down because the more trees they plant, the more money they get in the future.
Yeah exactly! they will forget, this would be post-Trump future after all.. And I was also thinking about the nutrients in the soil, if this is to ever become popular a lot of forest space would be needed and the same soil would be used over and over. I admit it looks pretty but ppl really should get their heads out of their arses
@@RoskinGreenrake How's it going now four years ago you?
so, you will build further with cement, steel, pushing co2 up, even more ? thats no solution. or? its your duty to change the developers and not just go along with them. the easy way
The hippies from the sixties are out in full force
I doubt unless they are idiots as this is a death sentence to whole forests
@@darkapothecary4116 except eventually it will cost to much to harvest wood and will be better to use genetically modified trees from likely their own tree farms in the places where they cut down the original trees, and then bring in cheap labor, (amazon rain forest)
besides all, cutting 2000 trees to build a building is not convincing.
And they will find a way to convenience people it's going green. What jokes.
The Cathedral of Notre Dame alone consumed a forest when built.
@@vexcarius7100 and how does it make it right? Nothing against the place but think of the trees that had to die because people needed a external temple than what they already have in them? Still sad to see the place go down but what do you expect from cultist fighting? Makes a person feel dead inside.
How about some real numbers? There was probably an equivalent ~500k board feet used for this project, U.S. and Canadian forests grow that much wood in 4 minutes. In fact, Less than 2% of the standing tree inventory was harvested with a net tree growth of 3% over the past 50 years, according to "Sustainable Forestry in North America". Trees are incredibly sustainable. Guess what isn't? Sand that we use for concrete.
@@darkapothecary4116 Did I say that consuming a forest is right? You are attacking me with a wrong context. My context is that because of man's vanity, we consumed a forest just for a mere cathedral.
You are clearly an idiot.
I've got serious doubts about this tech.
Me too. And they seem to have not actually considered the consequences of bringing down so many trees for the construction of such buildings.
Yu Chen Chen We should not destroy anymore old growth forest. Most "forest" on earth are secondary forest (mainly small trees, shrubs, ferns and tall grasses).
We can plant trees in secondary forest, it is even better since big industries will have motivation to restore the forest (so they have abuse it again... cough cough).
He acts like the flame test proves that the material will not burn down. But he put a gas torch to a perfectly smooth vertical face. Any wood wouldn't be flammable in that situation.
"Yeah me too. No way I'm getting into that steel bird. How will it even stay up?"
Easy. A lot will be invested into transforming open spaces into profitable forests. We'll need less coal mines and steel quarries that pollute the air more by just getting the raw material.
The whole point of using timber in buildings is to save the nature, not use it up and be leave ourselves with dicks in our hands.
It'd be cool if they built some kind of hybrid skyscrapers with this. The lower levels could be steel and concrete with the top being CLT. It'd be cheaper than building it completly with steel and concrete and lower the risk associated with fire/termites!
Yes I can imagine the bottom few floors being steel & concrete would be a good way to help lessen the risk of termites, as the wood would be a fair way off the ground
YoungSole Usually can never go wrong with Hybridizing! Not a bad idea!
That's a good idea
I could see that working, using concrete/steel for a strong, heavy foundation, with a strongish, light and flexible material for the remainder, flexible materials become useful for especially tall buildings that have to deal with wind, could allow for even taller structures
I think this would look cool too
For those saying "mah forest"
Remember that you can farm a forest without deforesting the planet,
Not that I agree with this guy's plans but the forest problem isn't that much of a problem
@Mr. P. Enis They are clearing the Amazon for farming, not for profiting from logging.
@Mr. P. Enis fixed it
that's a problem. who will wait for tree to grow in 20 years? it's not maize stalk you know.
@@lolguy-x9n We do it in Norway
@@KrissFliss Norway is a famous country some of us wish to visit. what do you mean you farm the forest
Forest fires... Imagine City Fires...
Most American cities are already made up mostly of houses made of wood
I beg to differ. There aren't enough trees to support this trend. It can take up to 20 years to grow a tree in the forest
Master Baloyi thinking optimistically it would be possible with strict regulations
Confucius say: "Best time to plant tree 20 years ago. Second best time is now." So let's plant a few billion trees around the world!!
good currency pair however audusd is better
Actually wood used for building today comes from sustainable tree farms.
From my very brief stint of internet research, you are talking about some pretty high-end timber there. There are all kinds of different species of trees that grow at different rates, and some of the fastest growing can be cultivated for timber in under 7 years.
Next idea: make skyscrapers out of ice
Next next idea: make skyscrapers out of fire
A sky scraper, a water scraper, an ice scraper, and a fire scraper... well what would that be... a Super Mario Scraperland!
Alexander Richter we actually tried making an aircraft carrier out of ice once
bad idea, considering theres a big conflict called global warming
Fnargl oh shit you just solved the fire hazard problem!
2000 trees for a small multi storied building. The world will need at least a billion new homes for the additional 3 billion people. How many trees is that? Add carbon footprint to grow those trees, harvest them, build logging roads, transport them and prepare them to CLT. What a stupid idea.
Jet fuel can’t melt wood
What if a wooden plane crashed into it?
911
Wood literally can't melt...it's scientifically proven with all non alien substances
Haha people don't get the joke.
+T Lee It can't melt steel either... but shhhhh...
Concrete isn't that expensive. Wood is expensive. Usually a tree costs around 1k in the US soooo
Layback Studios wow.. you can buy about 1k of tree seeds for less than 10dollars and plant them and you would get about 10k trees :D but that would net a lot of space..
Tree is priceless
@@Zombieguy123 it'd need time. That's why it's expensive.
^^ 10 dollars in seeds and a 20 year wait
And time, and water, and energy and money to harvest, and energy and money to transport to a processing center, and energy and money to process.
ummmmmm what happens if it rotts
I thought about that. Rotting happens when moisture gets into the wood. I think that because it is made of thin wooden panels that are glued together, the glue would prevent the moisture from entering the inner layers and rotting. IDK though.
it's treated .. I've never seen rotten wood in a sport / conference hall
^ because it's inside
# when it rots
70 yr old furniture: glue dries out and basically disappears, every year goes by increasing the flammability
What about the wood rotting..?
Jenga
Jenga
Jenga
Jenga
Proper roofing and foundations. Some wooden houses in Europe are 500 years old. Concrete won't last that long.
"trees are running out" "lets build huge buildings with it!"
R E G R O W T H
And T R E E F A R M S
its not sustainable as of now, and besides, it takes over 50 years for a tree to mature to its full strength (which is necessary for a building that size.) so yeah, we can plant the trees now, no problem, but we need to wait over 50 years for the trees to be usable in a building this size. academic.oup.com/jof/article-abstract/115/5/397/4599897?redirectedFrom=fulltext
No, just make more wood.
@@unregisteredaccount6555 And that too
@@foodadventurist oh it absolutely is, see literally every first world country and how they practice forestry.
Glue tho. Glue hardens and becomes brittle and loses its adhesive quality over time while cement continue to harden over the years. Quite an engineering hurdle there.
Brian LO. Not a hurdle. It's the goal. Steel and concrete lasts forever, so there's less money in it for developers over time. Planned obsolescence.
Equality Four well I suppose that can be a good thing. A lot of the cities built in the past , the planning are largely obsolete due to changes in population size and structure. Makes a society more flexible. But it better be a lot cheaper than concrete these wooden structures.
Brian LO. Maybe, but I'm not so sure flexibility is a worthy goal when it comes to housing and working life. England is still trying to recover from the social ills precipitated by enclosure and the industrial revolution. Also, wood burns.
Regular timber burns, but CLT doesn't burn like regular timber. It loses structural integrity when it encounters open flames, but no more than steel does.
Looking into alternative building materials like CLT could prove to be worthwhile. At least in certain circumstances, it may be the better choice.
Erik Dumas Cause jet fuel can burn CTL wood.
I find it somewhat hard to believe this material is cheaper and better than concrete and steel. If it was, wouldn't we be seeing its widespread use by now. Developers aren't stupid, if there is a new technology that significantly reduces the cost, they will adopt it, unless it has some drawback not stated in the video.
Luke Rustin CLT is a relatively new creation. More conventional mass timber construction has been around for a very long time and is probably more prevalent then you realize but has quite a few limitations when it comes to large builds which CLT overcomes
Luke Rustin
No, they will keep continuing doing what makes them more money because we live in a capitalist society. Look to green energy for example. Mass production of clothing. Food. The list goes on.
Luke Rustin If you’re a developer who has been building good buildings that are in demand, you don’t usually go looking to change up your methods.
fabio
You just helped his point. If they can produce the same thing, at a cheaper cost, then they would all jump onto that new product.
Also, what's wrong with capitalism? What would you rather have to replace it?
Bryce Rothschadl
Did I say there was anything wrong with capitalism? I am just arguing how it generally works.
when your Mum tells you to make structures using Jenga 😂
Interesting idea, however,
I found it equally interesting
that stresses from wind and
extreme weather not to
mention seismic activity
were not addressed at all.
There is also a question of safety during an earthquake. Since wood is more flexible than steel and concrete, there could be a greater damage limitation factor if buildings are constructed of wood.
How does it not burn like normal wood? Anyone who has ever started a fire know that all wood behaves as that stuff did in their demonstration...
Engineering Nonsense But anyone who’s started a fire also knows that it takes a lot of time and effort for a large piece of wood to catch fire for a sustained period of time. Logs are awful for burning. That’s why we split them. A building made of CLT would need a high temp and long lasting source of ignition to make the CLT a self sustaining fire.
Tyler Peterson things like furnishings--Things that would be inside of a house made from wood. Go put that tourch used in the video against your drywall and let me know if it starts a fire. I bet it would behave better than the wood did in that test, yet houses burn to the ground daily.
I'm not saying that the idea is dumb, I love it, but saying that it is better with fire seems silly, given it is being compared to wood and it is... Ahem... Literally wood.
Tyler Peterson how is it any different than plywood? Instead of ply they seem to be using 1x8's or something like that, but it is essentially the same thing. Houses are made, in part, from plywood. Js
Engineering Nonsense here's a simple test, you can do at home. Start a fire and see how long it takes for some sticks to burn, then compare that to how long it will take to burn through a decently thick log.
There is also a logical assumption that it is treated for better fire resistance. Pressure treated wood comes to mind.
Darknightx33x I understand that. And that's what I originally assumed when they brought up fire resistance--I thought it had some sort of treatment, but they never mentioned any such thing. It doesn't matter how long it takes to burn if it sets fire in the same time. People on the inside will have sure footing when they burn to death.
This is a great idea if you can figure out how to successfully (and I mean successfully in real life, not theoretical, conditions) deal with the combustibility of this new type of wood. We need to go slow on this, and not start filling cities with wooden skyscrapers until we have significant real-life data.
CLT = Plywood with extra steps
So we're going to cut down all the trees to build skyscrapers?
He said that will be made through sostenible forests
Carlos Baena Navarro yeah like chickens are free range lol 😂
we can always grow them back
You can grow trees in a sustainable way, i.e. that doesn't reduce the overall amount of CO2 captured by forests. Also, the biggest cause of climate change is the amount of CO2 being produced, not the amount absorbed. If you look at global CO2 trends, you'll see that they go slightly down in the northern summer, because all the trees in the northern hemisphere (the hemisphere most covered by land, thus having the most trees) are capturing CO2 from the air.
Deforestation is not caused by excess wood demand. Rather things like agriculture and poor forest management.
Using steel reinforced concrete on a building of less than less than ~50 meters is overkill structurally speaking. If timber gets the job done and saves money, then it may find it’s niche in mid size towers
Hundreds of species would go extinct...... besides that ya I guess it works...
Mined iron, nickel etc. have more carbon print i think. Because you literally put a lot of effort to mine that stuff. But trees, absorb those metals by themselves and make wood. And we can plant them again. A pine tree, could reach to 5-10 meters high in like 5 years, I've seen that. If it is done properly, I think we would be fine.@@marliz9354
@Seinfled your "sustainable forests" are
Taking the place of primeval forests rich in biodiversity. It s nothing more than green concrete.
Don't forget: To be renewable, trees have to be grown sustainably with new trees planted to recut the ones lost on an interval of steady harvesting. If this catches on you will need to expand growing operations globally or you'll over farm. I do agree though that would can work.
Past eight years I was thinking about this and you gave me a solution.
Thank you
In my graduation programme my teachers taught me it is not possible to have skyscraper in wood
For people who don't know how buildings work, or never studied architecture, highrise wooden structure IS possible.
Yes, there hasn't been a skyscraper made completely out of wood, but there has been one with 16 storeys, known as Brock Commons.
Fire hazards? Fun fact, EVERY MATERIAL is fire hazard (yes even concrete, but it's quite complicated to explain).
What they are saying is that they are trying to create a wooden structure that its fire rating is not bad as a common standard wood.
Also, wooden structure is MUCH MORE SUSTAINABLE AND HARMLESS TO THE ENVIRONMENT THAN STEEL OR CONCRETE.
Please. Think before you speak.
And before you say, wooden building kills trees, the total carbon footprint and waste created by steel and concrete buildings are much, much worse.
Asterbel Music Good explanation , but there must be a reason why we haven’t had a wooden skyscraper, and most people with logical minds think of the same reasons, fire, strength, stability, infestation, and not to mention the 2.5 metre columns at the base to hold this thing up, so you can understand why most people would think it to be unsafe
Hey hey hey, but what about taking an axe and intentionally fucking up the foundation and watch the whole building collapse?
Asterbel Music
What offends me most is that you ask me to think before I speak
I refuse to think
And I shall continue to speak, Sir
Morty Sanchez it is better to remain silent and be thought of a fool then open one's mouth and remove all doubt
B D
I take a stand
I dare to be stupid
One fool with a flame and we're all doomed.
The Hierophant They better make fireproofwood.
fire proof wood is not really fire proof forever. If the coating and chemical degrades faster, you can have Burning Man in the middle of London.
Joseph Mason Wooden skycrapers sound like a death trap.
www.wooddesignandbuilding.com/fire-testing-completed-on-full-scale-mass-timber-building-with-promising-results-2/
Reminds me of that 1988 Cheap Trick hit song.
**
significantly weaker than a building made of flex tape
nitai matan why havent we been using flex tape for buildings anyways?
No thanks, sounds all "green" and all, but I'm not convinced. Sure build 1or 2 tall buildings, but don't make a habit of it.
Qartveli84 moron
Please enlighten us with you outstanding thoughts on the subject.
I think perhaps you underestimate just how carbon intensive the cement/concrete industry is. They use natural gas (CO2) to burn off CO2 from mined limestone. The cement industry has a very high limit as to how much it can reduce its carbon footprint.
Tell us something we don't know Tyler, actually don't bother. Replacing cement and concrete by simply going back to using wood, doesn't solve shit. its the 21st century for fucks sake, I am sure there are more then enough people with brilliant minds to come up with something better in the near future. Just a matter of time.
So aggressive, and yet, we still haven’t heard why their idea sucks from you. Why don’t you enlighten us. Pine trees grow under 7 years. 50ft. Their wood doesnt deform unlike the materials used now.
Explain why their idea sucks.
I like the idea,but what about termites???? Pre Treated wood won't last too long. The buildings are too big to wrap in a tent like we do in the southern parts of the US. Maybe in northern states without drywood wood which could sustain a colony above ground. BTW I own tent fumigation company so I speak from experience.
how does concrete emit carbon dioxide??
the workers smoke when the are using cement mixers
2:46 jenga isn’t a game , its our future
Wouldn't that promote deforestation even more?
Henry Georgist so you support these psychos?
killedbythedocter not of the timber comes from sustainably managed forests like FSC
killedbythedocter
Dunno; does eating French fries promote "de-potato-fication?"
Jimmy Ware you can. But humans generally haven’t been doing that. Hence deforestation. Like yea if we had farms for lumbar that would work, but right now we don’t have enough of those to meet world needs
bcubed72 we have enough potato farms to meet world needs. That’s the difference. We don’t have to cut down ecosystem containing potato forests to eat our French fries
TERMITES
Depends on the grain of the wood. Hardwood is harder for termites to dig into, but expecting architectures and contractors to give a shit about what wood to use is a little optimistic.
Very cool idea
I wonder if they can do this with bamboo. I always thought bamboo grew faster.
Gotta find a good article about this. Thanks for posting
Never been in a wood apartment building that wasnt incredibly noisy. cheers
Didn't realize there were so many civil engineers here in the RUclips comments section. And why are they all so angry?
You know that wood can be treated against fire, right? Even without treatment, some types of wood are damned near impossible to set on fire.
if you use water to get rid of the fire the would would just get ruined anyway
Rayan Khan Flame retardants exist, coating them onto wooden structures would help them combat fire effectively. They are not 100% fireproof but neither is any material used in regular buildings anyway. And as demonstrated on video, there is a charring when cross-laminated timber is exposed to fire, but it naturally puts itself out when the source of fire has disappeared.
Rayan Khan Yeah that's one point, I think the crusade for building skyscraper-high will be more of an engineering endeavor, and as an architecture student (in design, not engineering) I don't feel qualified to talk physics behind it.
However considering the many
@@rayankhan6101 "common sense" is usually wrong. The truth is often counter intuitive, like quantum physics.
Fireproof Wood😂
Steel isn't fireproof, either (cough, cough...9/11)
We need Fireproof Fire :-)
*_-DEACERING.EGG-_* whats your point of course a simple wood cant start a fire if nothing ignite it
There's no such thing as fire proof, only fire resistant. With that said, fuck wood.
Ok the timber might char, but I think it’l still be a good idea to passively protect it from fire with things like fire rated drop ceilings and gypsum wallboard...
That would be cool ass skyscrapper.....
But can anyone explain how can we prevent from termites from eating it
im guessing first floor concrete
CLT!!! the industry is using it more than most people know.
stephen powell sounds like plywood or OBS
HERPY DERPEDY nah bruh way different but commonly misconstrued
If the wood is the same then is it a different type of glue used on this type than plywood? Are they pre engineered units like I-beams or channel shapes?
CLT is glued like plywood or OSB but that's all that is similar speaking very broadly as the type of glue is far different. The main difference is that it is made from dimensional lumber rather than random strands of scrap wood or thin wide layers in plywood. Yes, CLT is pre-engineered in a factory. I attached a few articles from case studies on CLT for familiarization.
research.cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/clt-panels/home/
www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/Byle-CLT-Montana.pdf
ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/p5547t37x
www.archrethink.co.uk/2013/09/glulamclt-what-difference.html
www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/presentations/workshop-salt-lake-city-march-2012/Presentation_Mayo.pdf
www.structuraltimber.co.uk/timber-systems/glulamclt
stephen powell what’s that like LVL?
what about thermites and earthquakes
how would it handle them
is cross laminated wood not strong enough to withstand earthquakes? and im pretty sure there are arid cold climates that hardly have termites, not to mention there are tons of preventative measure you can take with a buildings foundation to prevent termites.
ooDirtyMickoo what about a plane
Alexis Toxqui r u referring to 9/11
CLTs can handle earthquakes as well as any solid wall construction... solid concrete, cinderblock... ect
Earthquakes, termites,shear stress,high speed winds, Rains can really challenge these.
What about m&E services can it be conceal inside or need to do another layer of wall?
Oh hell no. This is why economists did not become engineers. Yeah let’s help eliminate carbon by cutting down millions of carbon eating trees to build skyscrapers.
John Wick's pencil You know what sustainable trees are right? Of course you do, you're a man of commitment, focus, sheer will...
Gauntlets 28
I know they make pencils out of them
Oh no. We might run out of trees.
Maybe, we could plant more?
John Wick's pencil full grown trees stop collecting much carbon, much better to be replaced with new young growing trees.
And environmentalism has dumbed people down as much as it enlightended others.
Deforestation is a real issue in some places, but reforestation is often more common in many places, that technically have far more timber than when logging first occurred. In many areas animals had long been adapted to the clearing on large areas of forests, giving way to low vegetation with surrounding forest to retreat to, as clear cutting is done in patches.
But I am still not sold on wooden skyscrapers yet though.
Dan F
I agree that old trees are limited in purpose for carbon absorption. Young thirsty trees are much better for that purpose. The area I find difficult to reconcile is greed, in that how do they avoid the temptation to overcut or cut into areas that should be left alone when that demand is higher than the supply and they need materials now for their next project. Man has already shown themselves to be insatiable with resources. Will law be enough to keep them tapping replenish-able trees only.
yeah no. Wood burns, wood bends in the wind a hell of a lot more than steel, wood rots/degrades (even pressure treated), wood is weaker, and yes, I don't want to see anymore forests being clearcut.
Wood for construction comes for plantations (you need a stable supply of ideal wood), the same way the bread you eat comes from wheat plantations. They can be sustainable.
AzerGhost16 No need to be rude guy! I did in favt watch the whole video. I'm just of the opinion that trees are better used for actual forests to provide an ecosystem for animals and air for the Earth. But even disregarding that, my other points are still valid. Wood is an inferior building material than concrete w/ rebar.
AzerGhost16 I don't think the video addressed my "valid points" well. It didn't say anything of the fact that wood is more elastic than concrete/steel and therefore will bend more in the wind. And about that demo in the video about trying to catch it on fire... Take any torch and do that to the side of any normal plank of wood, and the same thing. Charred but nothing much. But (my point), like wood planks, if this CLT has an existing fire below it, it'll catch.
I dont really get whats so hard to understand about "sustainable sources". When we talk about it, it means that things are "harvested" in a controlled manner, as to became... sustainable:
video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film-showcase/iceland-is-growing-new-forests-for-the-first-time-in-1-000-years
video.nationalgeographic.com/video/sustainable-logging
Its not like just because you say its sustainable, they become sustainable, there is a preservation work involved, hence the sustainability.
Also... Flexibility is crucial when building, you dont want to create a super "stable" structure, its terrible, specially for earthquakes:
"Because shorter buildings are stiffer than taller ones, a three-story apartment house is considered more vulnerable to earthquake damage than a 30-story skyscraper. When planning the seismic safety of a building, structural engineers must design the support elements of shorter buildings to withstand greater forces than those of taller buildings.
Of course, the materials a building is constructed from also determine its strength, and again, flexibility is important. Wood and steel have more give than stucco, unreinforced concrete, or masonry, and they are favored materials for building in fault zones."
Source:
www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/damage/building.html
As for weaker, thats a structural thing. and thats what this CLS does, so no argument there either. Why do you think that many times higher buildings have similar aesthetic "lexics" like X shapes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-bracing
Also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel
Steel is strong yes, but what has allowed for architects and engineers to develop higher and more complex buildings, its physics, mechanics and structure.
This is not to say that I dont understand entirely your point of views, but most of them are just grossly misinformed.
Oh and one more thing, even though its implicit on one of the videos that I linked, but if you are so concerned about forsests, maybe perhaps stop eating meat?
wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/unsustainable_cattle_ranching/
But if there's a raging fire how is steel not better to prevent fire spreading than wood? The demonstration with the blow torch suggests that if a serious fire does start the timber wouldn't catch alight but it definitely wouldn't provide a safe barricade from fire like steel. Maybe I'm wrong but it just seems like they're underestimating how fire friendly wood is?
I am a student in the fire service. Fire is a crazy thing. Steel untreated still contributes to the growth of a fire. Most materials will. Steel is able to conduct heat allowing the temperatures in other locations to grow and having thing begin to combust. The demonstration shown in the video means nothing, treated timbers, hell even normal untreated wood will act like that. The issue is the glue. The glue melts and burn faster and hotter. The fire service has seen similar processes done with smaller pieces of wood to create "large dimensions timber" using in heavy timber buildings. Unfortunately it makes things worse in Fire conditions.
Norway: I have already started, here have some brunost and relaxe
Mites
Pressure treated wood.
still, wood degrades faster than steel and concrete. Japanese "disposable" house are mostly made by woods, only lasted for 30 years.
yes right?
Benjamin Connolly Japanese shinto shrines and Buddist temples are maintained heavily every year.
Restoration and rebuilding projects are not uncommon for them.
But here we are talking about tall wooden structure, while shrines and temples are mostly a 1 to 3 story structure with stones and concrete as their foundation. The only tall structure is the Pagoda which is common in Buddist temple. The tallest one is in Toji temple, 54.8 m tall. It's been rebuilt several times in a timespan of hundreds of years. It is maintained throughly every year. But no one is living in Pagoda, or going in there, except in some occasion. Unlike what we are talking about in here.
The more comparable structure is Japanese castle which is a multi story wooden structure sitting on top of pile of stones. They are maintained heavily every year. The cost of their restoration and maintenance are very expensive compared to modern building. Otherwise they won't withstand earthquakes and typhoon. Here they had to move the structure, literally.
ruclips.net/video/JgPW4W6ystk/видео.html
This is a terrible idea from literally hundreds of angles.
oneviwatara what about them?
oneviwatara you don’t seem like the kind of person I can have an intelligent debate with on this subject so I’m not going to waste my time.
with globalization is just time for make disapear amazon and congo rain forest.
Josh Correa Note: Chicago Fire
I was about to say that! Cutting down more trees hurts the environment and people are too lazy to replant more, wood doesn’t last that long, animals will want to be a part of the building, wood isn’t that strong....
Screw all that call the first Hokage and grow the skyscraper like a real shinobi...i mean architect.
3:28 that E46 and EVO tho!
There are so many things wrong with the logical thinking behind this. There is ABSOLUTELY no way of using wood on this scale and remaining sustainable. Even pole pines take years to grow, and no matter how pressure treated they get, they still dry rot in time. There is, however, an excellent point that concrete and steel structures do indeed tax mining infrastructure. That said, the United States scraps enough steel to build entire cities in China on a yearly basis. There is also a willful ignorance and omission of the true building material of the future to pair with this recycled steel... Air Crete. A relatively small amount of cement is mixed with a relatively large amount of air to create it. It can be blown in around steel beams and entirely insulate them from the heat of flame... Not that any part of air crete is flammable in the slightest. It's also not susceptible to rot or vermin of any kind. The Germans know this. The United States is beginning to use it. This video is extraordinarily misleading given the point of view of the architecture firm not being countered in the slightest. Absurd.
Actually building regular buildings several stories high are accomplished in a few weeks by prefabricating as well.... Soooo
3:28 that Evo tho 👀
How do you tie a scaffold into it for construction work?
Because steel-concrete skyscrapers last forever and there's less money in it for developers?
Steel-concrete construction doesn't necessarily last forever -
just look at montreal, it's falling apart. Reduced costs come from standardized building practices with many suppliers. If this new practice of building skyscrapers with wood becomes the norm, it will be just as cheap for developers. It will take an ambitious company's persistence to make it the norm, like tesla has done with pushing electric cars.
That's not how it works bub
wooden structure degrades faster
Wood that is properly taken care of can last for a very long time. Let’s just hope that there isn’t a termite infestation in one of these high rises.
So many people in the comments talking about the "risks" and how this is "questionable" when they have likely never worked with wood in a in depth manner. I'm currently studying wood sciences and the physical qualities of wood are incredibly astounding. Plantation grown pines ( Not old growth, no deforestation) can be grown to suitable sizes in 25 years, cut milled and laminated into CLT and GluLam boards. These products are capable of keeping more than half their structural strength even after an hour of being engulfed in fire. Compressed wood, thermally altered wood and so many new engineered products are being developed. The level of wood building is so unlike what has been used before it isn't even comparable. I'm sure there are a lot of doubters and this video really does not do the products justice or pose a very sound argument, but if once you see these products preform in the worst conditions, you will be very impressed.
And lets say that this technology is put to an end by doubters, what alternative do we have? The use of energy and fossil fuels to extract concrete and steel is likely going to put us into a major environmental disaster, or serious massive depletion of resources sooner than we can expect.
Wood is the only sustainable, renewable building resource we have, either use that, or lose everything.
Why not just use renewable energy sources in building concrete and steel buildings, like using electric trucks instead of the current ones?
Electric trucks are actually terrible for the environment, EVs have a weight to efficiency ratio problem. While Tesla and other automakers market longer range EVs to satisfy the market they would actually be far more environmentally friendly with half the range due to weight savings. I'm sad to say electric truck and perhaps even sprinter van fleets make little sense.
because its not just the trucks and equipment, there is also the smelting, refining and other chemical byproducts in the equation. the process to cut and laminate wood into CLT creates significantly less waste, emissions and chemical byproducts than the creation of creation of concrete or steel I beams. Wood has little to no waste product currently, as every part of the tree can be processed into a usable product (lumber, CLT, OSB, Resins & other lignin based chemicals) and what is left is often burned as Biomass and used to generate energy. Timber is one of the few products where energy can be created from its production, rather than required to smelt the ore/limestone into a usable substance.
Matthew Tolentino
Concrete production is horrifically carbon-intensive. The first main chemical step is to turn "Calcuim Carbonate" [CaCO3] into "Calcium Oxide" [CaO] by baking it for several hours. *_What is missing from CaO, that is present in CaCO3, perchance?_*
So, EVEN IF YOU COOK IT IN A SOLAR OVEN, you unavoidably produce CO2 in a roughly equal weight to the lime product you end up with. If you use "industry standard practices," try DOUBLE the weight of lime.
Dumbass thinks he can just use electric trucks, and everything's hunky-dory!
Lumber has a LOT of drawbacks - I live in a 3 story wooden building and it's been hard to insure - prone to weather deterioration - termites etc.
Insurance of houses is a con. Save your money and make sure you turn off the stove every time.
people who have no idea what they are talking about should stop talking about it.
1) home insurance covers a great deal
2) it is cheap
3) when something happens, good luck containing/clearing/cleaning up/rebuilding at the cost of homes
These are design issues, not material choice.
And this applies only to certain geographical locations, what about cities that are prone to earthquakes or hurricanes, those buildings would tumble like a pile of wood.
This is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard
Somehow this means we'll live in the trees
...bodies of dead trees..
Abdul Kader huh, this sounds creepy
So living in stone building means were living underground? No.
Заклетник is a form of stone*
It's a tree house.
I, as young person with the dream of large scale sustainable city design would like to see where this goes. While we shouldn't immediately dismiss it, but we should give it a chance. If this all goes well the opportunities could bring are immense.
Mi concern is, how does it work in places high seismic activity? How is its flexibility? How are the parts bond together for stability and rigidity? Cause it seems like the old structural wall systems, that tend to break with an earthquake
Does the economist not have a single Mechanical Engineer they could have consulted on this?
The compressive strength of wood is quite poor, no amount of lamination changes that.
philip frick Probably they did, architects can be engineers too. And you think someone is gonna invest in a building made of wood without having the proper structural analysis?
It's an architectural practice, not two arts major's pipe dream.
A wooden sky scraper? Pure fantasy.
They seem to have the dimensions for the structural members calculated so the math is probably solid. They're professionals after all.
I am saying this is a puff piece. Any engineer, myself included, could have told the writers that the material properties of wood place a finite and low maximum height on wooden structures (this has been known for hundreds or years).
In general architects are not engineers and I have never met one that is a Professional Engineer.
If you aren't an engineer (civil, structural, material, etc.), I don't think you are qualified to criticize this material as unfeasible. I'm sure there are many areas where it would be, but I know for engineer, they ask themselves "how can I make this work." Remember, critics told Elon Musk his ideas were unfeasible at first, but his engineers eventually made them work.
dojokonojo Criticism is important too it makes things foolproof and if they really do want to make this idea work they'll need people to believe in it.
I think it's a middle ground. Criticism is fine and encouraged in order to make a better product. But those on RUclips commenting without a background in engineering should realize that their complaint has probably already been thought of. As long as the armchair criticizers realize that they aren't as smart as the engineers and come with HUMBLE criticism it should be welcomed.
iamverysmart
I’ve built several large structures with large timbers about eight years ago and in retrospect, I wish I had used more steel and concrete. Steel holds its form over time far better and is less a worry.
Cross-laminated timber is new material? Been in boat building for years.
Huge fire hazard
HapticGamerHD No shit. As well as potential decay especially from the weather.
Did you watch the video?
Diletantique hahaha got eem
The experiments being done show these buildings are every bit as safe in a fire as a steel building
www.wooddesignandbuilding.com/fire-testing-completed-on-full-scale-mass-timber-building-with-promising-results-2/
Is CLT not the same thing as plywood?
Eric Wright nope
This is nothing new. basically all houses are built in the U.S. It will always burn with enough heat.
When one burns...for WHATEVER reason....the hue and cry will be..."who's bright idea was it to build in wood?".
To be fair, you can coat CLT with a fire-retardant coating. Other than concerns about flammability, there are also other issues that can come about such as pests, biofouling, and aging effects.
Trees absorb more CO2 than these wooden buildings
That's the point. The time when trees suck in the Most CO2 is when they are young and growing fast. By cutting them down and planting new ones in their stead you are taking even more CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is why cutting down trees is good for the air because then a new tree that is growing fast will take in more CO2 than if you left the old tree alone. It sounds counter intuititve but using thousands of trees for these skyscrapers is much better to decrease air pollution because then you can plant thoussands of new trees.
Sounds cool, just don't build them here in California.
It's like these engineers have never heard of forest fires or Grenfell.
Except Grenfell was because of extremely flammable cladding and the internal fire-slowing systems not working properly (firedoors not functioning, and sprinklers barely working), the cladding was much much more flammable than wood.
Solid wood is really difficult to burn, try burning twigs and you'll see them burst into flames, then try with a solid log, that'll take ages, you'll probably run out of fuel before it catches alight, there's a reason we cut logs up into firewood before trying to burn them, because you have to maximise the surface area, and this is normal wood, not treated, you can treat wood to make it much much harder to burn than usual, in fact with CLT and proper treating wood should be more fire resistant than steel and concrete, as steel begins to get soft and with the weight of a building above it, can shear. Concrete begins to crack and isn't strong enough on its own to hold up a building.
There's also the whole fact that steel and concrete buildings are awful against earthquakes, whereas wood is much better due to it being able to bend without weakening, whereas steel and concrete are brittle and crack. There's a reason wooden buildings can stay around for hundreds of years in Earthquake prone areas whereas modern concrete & steel buildings collapse.
Does anyone know what study they are referring to? The 75% reduction in carbon footprint?
Okay, but i'd like to know how they also plan to protect the wood against things like mold, mildew, termites, and other things that attack wood. Yes, it's lighter and almost as tough as the concrete, but what are the downsides?