7000 offices? Here we are now faced with a large amount of unused office space, spaces that can't easily be converted to something else. In many case, glass towers are sitting empty in major US cities, as the work from home lifestyle has emptied them out. Almost all new skyscraper construction here is for housing only, maybe with retail on the ground level. A lot of historic, older buildings, such as the Empire State Building, are sitting most vacant. Such a building can't be remodeled into housing: besides the enormous cost involved, it wouldn't be structurally feasible to make the changes needed, not with a building almost 100 years old. I hope that the builders plan for this issue - by making the building easier to convert to other uses, such as housing. Planning from the beginning to be able to convert the buildings to other uses, will work far better in the long term.
why not refurbished and repurpose the existing buildings? Their construction is already an environmental sunk cost. Updating them to modern standards would be less impactful than demolition and reconstruction....even perhaps a more charming atmosphere like how London looks and feels. I'm guessing but demolishing all those buildings doesn't seem like a better ecofriendly alternative. What about moisture absorption for all that wood?
Not sure this is really the world's biggest wooden city, I think even Buffalo NY may have it beat. Was wondering what the plan for the roof tops was? I know Buffalo ditched the wooden cedar roof thing over 100 years ago, and also, nearly all houses had to be wrapped in plastic, steel, or asbestos, to protect them from fire and rot, and seal up the historic lead paint problem, witch was the old way of preventing rot, as well as using local rot resistance woods that are now exstinxed due to disease. World's nicest wooden city might be more accurate here, given the sad state of one's I think are larger.
Lets switch that around. 7,000 new housing units and 2,000 new offices. Hell, forget the offices. There are enough of those and they are becoming less and less used anyway. Just build 10,000 housing units where people can work from home, such as office work. And no, cutting down timber forests is not sustainable.
It would certainly be much nicer than buildings made of concrete and steel. But I am very skeptical about sustainable forests. They would probably be fast-growing monocultures that are more or less ecologically dead.
We are utterly incapable of cutting more trees than the trees grown in a given year in the Nordics. We'd need to multiply our wood related industries several times over just to reach slight localized problems. And since wood quality is actually important, unless an area is designated for farmland, the cutting company seeds the area again so they can harvest high quality wood again in a few decades. It's the best material there is for many a thing when handled properly.
A dream city or a mega project living on a flammable knife edge?
One war occurs and it's all over.
Timber wood is less likely to burn and are more safe than concrete and steal
It burns just as easy but normally just the outside unless left to burn.@@tazzo_xy1938
Using self extinguishing paint (fire-resistant)
the wood will not catch fire. if you google about how it works you will understand its not a risk building with this type of wood
7000 offices? Here we are now faced with a large amount of unused office space, spaces that can't easily be converted to something else. In many case, glass towers are sitting empty in major US cities, as the work from home lifestyle has emptied them out. Almost all new skyscraper construction here is for housing only, maybe with retail on the ground level. A lot of historic, older buildings, such as the Empire State Building, are sitting most vacant. Such a building can't be remodeled into housing: besides the enormous cost involved, it wouldn't be structurally feasible to make the changes needed, not with a building almost 100 years old.
I hope that the builders plan for this issue - by making the building easier to convert to other uses, such as housing. Planning from the beginning to be able to convert the buildings to other uses, will work far better in the long term.
why not refurbished and repurpose the existing buildings? Their construction is already an environmental sunk cost. Updating them to modern standards would be less impactful than demolition and reconstruction....even perhaps a more charming atmosphere like how London looks and feels. I'm guessing but demolishing all those buildings doesn't seem like a better ecofriendly alternative. What about moisture absorption for all that wood?
I have no idea why this is not more thought out.
It's the obvious way forward, and path of least resistance.
Not sure this is really the world's biggest wooden city, I think even Buffalo NY may have it beat. Was wondering what the plan for the roof tops was? I know Buffalo ditched the wooden cedar roof thing over 100 years ago, and also, nearly all houses had to be wrapped in plastic, steel, or asbestos, to protect them from fire and rot, and seal up the historic lead paint problem, witch was the old way of preventing rot, as well as using local rot resistance woods that are now exstinxed due to disease. World's nicest wooden city might be more accurate here, given the sad state of one's I think are larger.
All for it, but is anyone afraid of fire, big, quick, devastating fires?
What a wonderful city! I can't wait to visit it in the future.
Hope you can cycle to it once air travel is banned because of saving the planet
Lets switch that around. 7,000 new housing units and 2,000 new offices. Hell, forget the offices. There are enough of those and they are becoming less and less used anyway. Just build 10,000 housing units where people can work from home, such as office work.
And no, cutting down timber forests is not sustainable.
I sure hope I don't spill my American General Electric Napalm Munitions
It would certainly be much nicer than buildings made of concrete and steel. But I am very skeptical about sustainable forests. They would probably be fast-growing monocultures that are more or less ecologically dead.
Doesn't wood have to be fumigated?
Heja Sverige 😎
How many trees has been cut down
We are utterly incapable of cutting more trees than the trees grown in a given year in the Nordics.
We'd need to multiply our wood related industries several times over just to reach slight localized problems.
And since wood quality is actually important, unless an area is designated for farmland, the cutting company seeds the area again so they can harvest high quality wood again in a few decades.
It's the best material there is for many a thing when handled properly.
Can someone like this comment in 2027 so I can check in on this project?
It will be on the news headline, world's biggest city on fire
I wanna build a city from living trees
How sustain against fire
Using self extinguishing paint (fire-resistant)
@@cenaga3bruh
Noem?
Uhhh, have you seen how most American homes are built?
Hello dear
How can I contact you