Thank you for making my dreams about sustainable construction more practical and easier for me to talk about with my peers. We need sustainable construction for our humanity and our world. I will most likely be rewatching this video.
I love this! I recently had the chance to speak with a sustainable materials expert, on my Building Green podcast, and we discussed many of the same ideas around how crucial material choices are in creating a more sustainable future. We explored the environmental impact of materials like wood, concrete, and even leather, and how life cycle assessments are becoming a key part of the conversation. It’s so inspiring to see others pushing for innovative, nature-inspired solutions - it’s exactly the kind of thinking we need to drive meaningful change in the built environment!
I’ve always wondered if there could be a way to make a living building. It wouldn’t be practical in the sense of supplying buildings at the speed of people’s demands but it’d be a neat concept for a building grown and shaped as it was grown.
It's not practical to supply buildings at the speed of people's demands in a consumerist society - satisfying our fleeting wants is what got us into this mess in the first place
@@OnufrievS @drowsystag46yearsago5 Agreed, but the need for housing in an ever expanding society isn't a fleeting need, a rather permanent one. And on top of that, if a grown building needs to be demolished for whatever reason, it's likely to not cause any problematic waste due to the biodegradable nature of the material. And I too have been fantasising about living buildings for a long loooong time, but problem I always get to is, how will the old structure, that's made of the materials that are needed to let that building stand, support a new addition and it's weight. You'd have to find a system that can grow its collums (or other main structural elements) as well as the newly grown spaces, so it won't collapse under its weight. But everything is possible, it's just a question of how.
@@faleravanbalen8175There's a difference between housing as shelter and houses as property - we have the capacity to house our entire society, we don't do it because of our attitudes to property and consumption - there's nothing wrong with building something to stand for 60-150 years, no need to chase novelty by rebuilding it every 30
@@OnufrievS Completely agreed!! Good points, and especially the building for longer term, it requires to future proof the buildings build, to make sure they solve today’s problem, as well as problems that might arise in the future.
When dealing with this, it's important to look into ancient architecture because they built with nature in mind. Its not just about mimicking, its not just about plants, it's about understanding the environment the sun the wind...the ancient aligned there shyt with stars, they were working with thd universe.
I know when I did research before- one thing I found out was that mycelium is a very good alternative material for heat resistance. It’s not flammable like wood, but the material would just turn black and absorb heat if there was ever a fire, which is why it’s one of the many effective alternatives to use as CO2 reduction in building material. In the video he has mycelium in his out line for alternative materials :)
looks like synthetic wood. Those arches are also very similar to what you would see in gardens and older wooden buildings already. What is old is new again but with a modern sheen and novel composite material.
It is sad that the lecture didn't cover a variety of eco-friendly materials. It is so one-dimensional to use mud as a binding agent for binding sustainable materials and wood as a building material, so there is a need to change or think more. The first is to rule out a negative view of chemically modified products and have the potential to invest. I was worried about the time to reach 'where we need to be' in the middle of the lecture, but I think it's worth investing. And secondly, it's a structure that has to rely on only one or two materials. The eco-friendly material presented is only wood, and if you think negatively about the rest, you should know the substitute, but it was a pity that this point was not presented. Natural structural beauty is efficient, beautiful, and futuristic. I'm looking forward to the technology that will be developed in the future.
very good presentation and i want to see more nature based solutions, to mass adaptation on climate change is very different concept from make nice looking buildings
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:41 🌍 *Sustainability is crucial in architecture due to the significant carbon footprint of the building industry, with homes being major contributors to emissions.* 01:48 🏆 *Sustainability should be embedded in all architecture, rather than being treated as a separate category, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach in design.* 04:47 🏡 *Longevity is a key factor in the sustainability equation, challenging the conventional rating system that often focuses on immediate technological features and materials.* 09:17 🔄 *Sustainability, by its nature, opposes consumerism, but the current trend commodifies sustainability, turning it into a product to be bought and sold rather than a mindset.* 13:46 💡 *Future-proofing buildings involves weighing upfront costs against ongoing running costs, emphasizing the importance of getting the basics right in architecture.* Made with HARPA AI
Will there be bamboo farms to replace some wood products? Hopefully, fewer trees will be cut down. Even fabric can be made from bamboo. Thanks for sharing your insights.
When the Bauhaus architects determined that form follows function, they probably never imagined that that principle would ultimately lead to true Art Nouveau.
It's heavy, requires much stronger structural support and much more energy when extracting, transporting and building. It's brittle comparing to many other materials. Plus it's not renewable unless in the scale of millions of years.
@@MerlinRanI think you are very slightly confusing the meaning of renewable. There is so much stone, it might as well be infinite. Unimaginable quantities of new stone form every day under the crust, in sediment deposits, and from volcanoes. But, that is also consistent with what you said. Things are not renewable if they can be used up in short time scales. So, oil, which is plant matter millions and millions 9f years old, won't come bavk after we use it. We could easily cut down every tree on earth if we really wanted to. But there is no way we could with stone. Stone might as well be an infinite resource. So, stone is definitely a renewable.
A few days ago I heard that perlite is gaining some popularity as a building material. I don't know if it's a nature friendly way, though. Every company is going to claim their product as profitable even when it isn't
Id say it needs to be easier and cheaper to get an exemption for an experimental project, more than a change of laws and regulations, which really are there for safety reasons. This way, the new stuff can be built tested and proved, while other construction around it, being done by people who dont know the new ways, is still done in the safety of the regulations.
@@dustinbrandel59well not to over simplify but bureaucracy could be the death of society. The USA came out of the end of the revival of Europe where people started to look to a broader group of people from multiple walks of life to perpetuate human society forward. Thus started the ends of single person rules (church, monarchs, dictators) but it’s obviously not over and came of it the Industrial Rev did. With now total global connectivity every country is now responsible for what happens on a world wide scale. Current laws socialize old industrial corporate way that we have literally made corporations huge of welfare and forgot about the importance of the individual same way the Soviet Union failed. We need to welfare state ideas and progression of nature/beauty not just machines and math because we have that already. The laws need to support new ways not old ones. Because effectively they do not. Law include subsidies and grants, other incentives, government partnerships, global coop, public school agendas, advertisement, etc
@@dustinbrandel59 Safety to begin with, then an economy comes up to surround the regulation, and the regulation becomes hardened and supports businesses, and discourages innovation.
@@sweetwetsugarmess Almost, it depends on the thickness of the wood. Mass timber is rated to a specific thickness not necessarily because it needs to be that large for structural reasons but rather to meet fire code. Most homes in America are stick built and are on the lowest end of fire rating due to the numerous, small members that comprise the structure.
it proves that architects know nothing about engineering. For example he proposed in the speech to carve off all portions of the structural materials which don't take tensions in order to save material cost. However, in reality, a structure subjects to various load cases and load combinations. In one case, it may subject to tension, but in other case it may compression. Besides, structural members, like beams and slabs, behave in coupling effect of tension stress and compression stress. They are twins. Cutting off either the tension zone or compression zone, it will significantly reduce the structural capacity of the member.
What if there's a fire? In Middle Age they also used wood and plants to build their houses and I don't think it was so funny😅 But this really opened my eyes, I didn't know that buildings are that bad for the environment...😮
Wood can be made so that it only chars on the surface, and doesn't light up in the kernel. Some trees do this in the nature itself. People claim wood buildings can be made to pass current fire standards.
Wood is a strong material that could be used at least for thousands years, you could check with Japanese and Chinese temple. Same as bamboo. Francis Kéré is a Architct to use mud to build a school. It truly inspires me!!!
@@sirasira9002 A simple example is that the fabrication of curved components is ten times more difficult and labor-intensive than box-shaped ones. To achieve this, you would need to hire more Mexican carpenters because I cannot afford the cost of hiring American laborers
Totally. Furthermore, the architect knows nothing about engineering. For example he proposed in the speech to cut off all portions of the structural materials which don't take tensions in order to save material cost. However, in reality, a structure is subject to various load cases and load combinations. In one case, it may subject to tension, but in other case it may compression. Besides, structural members, like beams and slabs, behave in coupling effect of tension stress and compression stress. They are twins. Cutting off either the tension zone or compression zone, it will significantly reduce the structural capacity of the member.
And how about cleaning and maintaining those structures? I'm all for saving resources. I have given up taste pleasure for ethics. So I'm honestly curious if this is possible in real life. Unless we let moss grow on those structures, they are gonna look not lovely very fast.
Who is going to cut the wood and work it in such shapes. The environmental friendly material takes a non environmental amount of energy for the crafting of such material.
What about technology for a such material and form? Is that not counting as a future waste as well!!! Why people ignoring one fact, the cost of growing new trees is so minimal compared to all innovations, and no one is telling about it! That because it is not profitable compared to new materials with new machines to create them and maintain!!
What does he mean with "clearing" the understory of a forest? Does he mean that understory can be easily be cleared as a kind of waste, unnecessary for the forest so "our company" shall use it instead?? I would believe he is directly advocating for an effective way of killing forests ...😓 Save the industry or save human life on this planet, unfortunately at this point (and at least in this case), it is not reasonable to believe that you can do both.
It's a common misconception that clearing forest underbrush is bad, in actuality it's more healthy for a forest. Prior to the colonization of America Native American's would frequently practice controlled burns to clear out underbrush to allow for existing trees to grow taller, improve travel, and promote favorable plants (among other things). By allowing unfettered growth of non-fire resistant trees like conifer to dominate the landscape, mostly due to the lumber industry, we've grown what are essentially massive burn piles resulting in the out of control fires the pacific northwest has been experiencing the past several years. What Michael Green is saying is correct, proper forest management means clearing out the understory or allowing for more frequent but smaller fires to persist. Fire is very healthy for a forest (some pinecones only open and reproduce in the presence of fire), and needs to be allowed to happen more often or else it gets out of control. Google "Indigenous Fire Practices" it's very interesting and a little sad it's so misunderstood.
Boring for Germans. We have done this for a long time. On top solar panels and heat pump. The office locks horrible for me: too loud, too busy, no privacy.
@@tofuyun77climate change is basically propaganda. Carbon rises after the temperature rises. Not the other way around. Most everything is made of carbon. Also a carbon molecule is tiny compared water molecule and there is much more H2O in the air. AFTER it gets hotter the ocean which takes up most of our planet releases carbon naturally (most things in the ocean is made up of carbon) and that leads to the raise of carbon in the air. It isn’t anything humans are doing. If we were to stop all modern civilization practices nothing would change. It’s just the nature of our planet. There has been proof of many drastic changes in climate that predates humanity. And our climate has barely if at all changed.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for making my dreams about sustainable construction more practical and easier for me to talk about with my peers. We need sustainable construction for our humanity and our world. I will most likely be rewatching this video.
I love this! I recently had the chance to speak with a sustainable materials expert, on my Building Green podcast, and we discussed many of the same ideas around how crucial material choices are in creating a more sustainable future. We explored the environmental impact of materials like wood, concrete, and even leather, and how life cycle assessments are becoming a key part of the conversation. It’s so inspiring to see others pushing for innovative, nature-inspired solutions - it’s exactly the kind of thinking we need to drive meaningful change in the built environment!
So profound! Need more of this👏
I’ve always wondered if there could be a way to make a living building. It wouldn’t be practical in the sense of supplying buildings at the speed of people’s demands but it’d be a neat concept for a building grown and shaped as it was grown.
It's not practical to supply buildings at the speed of people's demands in a consumerist society - satisfying our fleeting wants is what got us into this mess in the first place
@@OnufrievS @drowsystag46yearsago5 Agreed, but the need for housing in an ever expanding society isn't a fleeting need, a rather permanent one. And on top of that, if a grown building needs to be demolished for whatever reason, it's likely to not cause any problematic waste due to the biodegradable nature of the material. And I too have been fantasising about living buildings for a long loooong time, but problem I always get to is, how will the old structure, that's made of the materials that are needed to let that building stand, support a new addition and it's weight. You'd have to find a system that can grow its collums (or other main structural elements) as well as the newly grown spaces, so it won't collapse under its weight. But everything is possible, it's just a question of how.
@@faleravanbalen8175There's a difference between housing as shelter and houses as property - we have the capacity to house our entire society, we don't do it because of our attitudes to property and consumption - there's nothing wrong with building something to stand for 60-150 years, no need to chase novelty by rebuilding it every 30
@@OnufrievS Completely agreed!! Good points, and especially the building for longer term, it requires to future proof the buildings build, to make sure they solve today’s problem, as well as problems that might arise in the future.
When dealing with this, it's important to look into ancient architecture because they built with nature in mind. Its not just about mimicking, its not just about plants, it's about understanding the environment the sun the wind...the ancient aligned there shyt with stars, they were working with thd universe.
Why is the audience so small? This should be heard by more people!
nerves
Because most of what he said is bull.
@@hopetemple1616why do you say that?
Very nice:) I can't find the company online. Can you please provide the links?
Yes please share
I am curious about fire resistance properties of such materials?
He mentioned he was a big proponent of Mass Timber. If it's anything like that, it's incredibly fire resistant.
Exactly my question
Do building is in Mexico burn like steco?
@@dianeibsen5994 I don't understand
I know when I did research before- one thing I found out was that mycelium is a very good alternative material for heat resistance. It’s not flammable like wood, but the material would just turn black and absorb heat if there was ever a fire, which is why it’s one of the many effective alternatives to use as CO2 reduction in building material. In the video he has mycelium in his out line for alternative materials :)
looks like synthetic wood. Those arches are also very similar to what you would see in gardens and older wooden buildings already. What is old is new again but with a modern sheen and novel composite material.
Truly insightful video.
I find Ted worth for this.
But then, look at the no. Of viewers !
wonderful speech, message and speaker!
It is sad that the lecture didn't cover a variety of eco-friendly materials. It is so one-dimensional to use mud as a binding agent for binding sustainable materials and wood as a building material, so there is a need to change or think more. The first is to rule out a negative view of chemically modified products and have the potential to invest. I was worried about the time to reach 'where we need to be' in the middle of the lecture, but I think it's worth investing. And secondly, it's a structure that has to rely on only one or two materials. The eco-friendly material presented is only wood, and if you think negatively about the rest, you should know the substitute, but it was a pity that this point was not presented. Natural structural beauty is efficient, beautiful, and futuristic. I'm looking forward to the technology that will be developed in the future.
Lime stabilized adobe or compressed earth blocks are masonry with a low carbon footprint
👌 i dont have word to describe how good is this
Is there a higher chance of rot if the materials are organic?
We appreciate your efforts ❤
This is amazing!
very good presentation and i want to see more nature based solutions, to mass adaptation on climate change is very different concept from make nice looking buildings
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:41 🌍 *Sustainability is crucial in architecture due to the significant carbon footprint of the building industry, with homes being major contributors to emissions.*
01:48 🏆 *Sustainability should be embedded in all architecture, rather than being treated as a separate category, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach in design.*
04:47 🏡 *Longevity is a key factor in the sustainability equation, challenging the conventional rating system that often focuses on immediate technological features and materials.*
09:17 🔄 *Sustainability, by its nature, opposes consumerism, but the current trend commodifies sustainability, turning it into a product to be bought and sold rather than a mindset.*
13:46 💡 *Future-proofing buildings involves weighing upfront costs against ongoing running costs, emphasizing the importance of getting the basics right in architecture.*
Made with HARPA AI
THIS is new. Wow.
Will there be bamboo farms to replace some wood products? Hopefully, fewer trees will be cut down. Even fabric can be made from bamboo. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Nature shows the way!
this was so inspiring
When the Bauhaus architects determined that form follows function, they probably never imagined that that principle would ultimately lead to true Art Nouveau.
i recite this speech for my NSDA program :D
Love this idea. But not convinced that the Empire State building made of *Wood* would still be standing 90+ years later ...
Isn't stone a good material to build with? If not, why not?
It's heavy, requires much stronger structural support and much more energy when extracting, transporting and building. It's brittle comparing to many other materials. Plus it's not renewable unless in the scale of millions of years.
@@MerlinRanI think you are very slightly confusing the meaning of renewable. There is so much stone, it might as well be infinite. Unimaginable quantities of new stone form every day under the crust, in sediment deposits, and from volcanoes. But, that is also consistent with what you said. Things are not renewable if they can be used up in short time scales. So, oil, which is plant matter millions and millions 9f years old, won't come bavk after we use it. We could easily cut down every tree on earth if we really wanted to. But there is no way we could with stone. Stone might as well be an infinite resource. So, stone is definitely a renewable.
Better then constructing with stones, we can cut and stay in as cave man did. Why do you want to cut and take and instal at other place.
A few days ago I heard that perlite is gaining some popularity as a building material. I don't know if it's a nature friendly way, though. Every company is going to claim their product as profitable even when it isn't
Informative ❤
The major element missed
Out is GLASS. May not be structure but forms almost 50 to 100%of the envelope
Just make easier laws and regulations for organic construction.
Id say it needs to be easier and cheaper to get an exemption for an experimental project, more than a change of laws and regulations, which really are there for safety reasons.
This way, the new stuff can be built tested and proved, while other construction around it, being done by people who dont know the new ways, is still done in the safety of the regulations.
@@dustinbrandel59well not to over simplify but bureaucracy could be the death of society. The USA came out of the end of the revival of Europe where people started to look to a broader group of people from multiple walks of life to perpetuate human society forward. Thus started the ends of single person rules (church, monarchs, dictators) but it’s obviously not over and came of it the Industrial Rev did. With now total global connectivity every country is now responsible for what happens on a world wide scale. Current laws socialize old industrial corporate way that we have literally made corporations huge of welfare and forgot about the importance of the individual same way the Soviet Union failed. We need to welfare state ideas and progression of nature/beauty not just machines and math because we have that already. The laws need to support new ways not old ones. Because effectively they do not. Law include subsidies and grants, other incentives, government partnerships, global coop, public school agendas, advertisement, etc
@@dustinbrandel59 Safety to begin with, then an economy comes up to surround the regulation, and the regulation becomes hardened and supports businesses, and discourages innovation.
Let’s go!
Yes
What about earthquakes? Are fires not spread more easily as well ?
Nope, wood buildings are made in layers. The outer layer chars while the inside stays intact. There’s videos of how it works on RUclips.
@@sweetwetsugarmess Almost, it depends on the thickness of the wood. Mass timber is rated to a specific thickness not necessarily because it needs to be that large for structural reasons but rather to meet fire code. Most homes in America are stick built and are on the lowest end of fire rating due to the numerous, small members that comprise the structure.
@@ethanf5207 True, but not what I was referring to.
Cant the Co2 be captured at the point of cement making . that way even if we use cement it won't have a carbon footprint
What about Bamboo?
it proves that architects know nothing about engineering. For example he proposed in the speech to carve off all portions of the structural materials which don't take tensions in order to save material cost. However, in reality, a structure subjects to various load cases and load combinations. In one case, it may subject to tension, but in other case it may compression. Besides, structural members, like beams and slabs, behave in coupling effect of tension stress and compression stress. They are twins. Cutting off either the tension zone or compression zone, it will significantly reduce the structural capacity of the member.
This a good idea but it likely won’t be in our lifetime with the building codes.
Is it a fire hazard?
My man has the same name as me 😂😂
So you have to build injection moulded gigantic…tables.
What if there's a fire? In Middle Age they also used wood and plants to build their houses and I don't think it was so funny😅
But this really opened my eyes, I didn't know that buildings are that bad for the environment...😮
Wood can be made so that it only chars on the surface, and doesn't light up in the kernel. Some trees do this in the nature itself. People claim wood buildings can be made to pass current fire standards.
Wood is a strong material that could be used at least for thousands years, you could check with Japanese and Chinese temple. Same as bamboo. Francis Kéré is a Architct to use mud to build a school. It truly inspires me!!!
You also must realize that nearly every house built (at least in the US) is made from wood right?
@@ethanf5207 yeah I don't live in the US
Boring video to see in 2070's. Revolutionary in 2020's
As a structural engineer for more than 10 years, this again proved that architects are all delusional.
could you please elaborate how this is delusional?
@@sirasira9002 A simple example is that the fabrication of curved components is ten times more difficult and labor-intensive than box-shaped ones. To achieve this, you would need to hire more Mexican carpenters because I cannot afford the cost of hiring American laborers
Totally. Furthermore, the architect knows nothing about engineering. For example he proposed in the speech to cut off all portions of the structural materials which don't take tensions in order to save material cost. However, in reality, a structure is subject to various load cases and load combinations. In one case, it may subject to tension, but in other case it may compression. Besides, structural members, like beams and slabs, behave in coupling effect of tension stress and compression stress. They are twins. Cutting off either the tension zone or compression zone, it will significantly reduce the structural capacity of the member.
Biomimicry
And how about cleaning and maintaining those structures? I'm all for saving resources. I have given up taste pleasure for ethics. So I'm honestly curious if this is possible in real life. Unless we let moss grow on those structures, they are gonna look not lovely very fast.
Call Greta. 😊
Who is going to cut the wood and work it in such shapes. The environmental friendly material takes a non environmental amount of energy for the crafting of such material.
What about technology for a such material and form? Is that not counting as a future waste as well!!! Why people ignoring one fact, the cost of growing new trees is so minimal compared to all innovations, and no one is telling about it! That because it is not profitable compared to new materials with new machines to create them and maintain!!
What does he mean with "clearing" the understory of a forest? Does he mean that understory can be easily be cleared as a kind of waste, unnecessary for the forest so "our company" shall use it instead?? I would believe he is directly advocating for an effective way of killing forests ...😓 Save the industry or save human life on this planet, unfortunately at this point (and at least in this case), it is not reasonable to believe that you can do both.
Everything he claimed contradicts himself. It’s ridiculous.
It's a common misconception that clearing forest underbrush is bad, in actuality it's more healthy for a forest. Prior to the colonization of America Native American's would frequently practice controlled burns to clear out underbrush to allow for existing trees to grow taller, improve travel, and promote favorable plants (among other things). By allowing unfettered growth of non-fire resistant trees like conifer to dominate the landscape, mostly due to the lumber industry, we've grown what are essentially massive burn piles resulting in the out of control fires the pacific northwest has been experiencing the past several years.
What Michael Green is saying is correct, proper forest management means clearing out the understory or allowing for more frequent but smaller fires to persist. Fire is very healthy for a forest (some pinecones only open and reproduce in the presence of fire), and needs to be allowed to happen more often or else it gets out of control. Google "Indigenous Fire Practices" it's very interesting and a little sad it's so misunderstood.
i' m dubious about your arguments and examples, but I should study to be sure.
Boring for Germans. We have done this for a long time. On top solar panels and heat pump. The office locks horrible for me: too loud, too busy, no privacy.
Carbon Neutral Stupidity Alert.
elaborate for me pls i donno much abt carbon neutral stuff
@@tofuyun77climate change is basically propaganda. Carbon rises after the temperature rises. Not the other way around. Most everything is made of carbon. Also a carbon molecule is tiny compared water molecule and there is much more H2O in the air. AFTER it gets hotter the ocean which takes up most of our planet releases carbon naturally (most things in the ocean is made up of carbon) and that leads to the raise of carbon in the air. It isn’t anything humans are doing. If we were to stop all modern civilization practices nothing would change. It’s just the nature of our planet. There has been proof of many drastic changes in climate that predates humanity. And our climate has barely if at all changed.
This is a really unarticulated project. How are things connected? How do you account for irregular situations? Seems like a kind of a nothing burger.