Wooden skyscrapers could be the future for cities
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- 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 UA-cam: 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
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 UA-cam 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
[PLEASE READ, ITS JUST A PERSONAL INSIGHT ABOUT THIS... UHMM... THINGY]
I personally like the idea that it would reduce the carbon footprint if they used that material, especially now with the different global issues we're facing such as global warming. But, if we are going to view it in a different perspective, let's say, this will be the very common material that maybe if not all, many structures in the future, it would need more and more trees. I know that the wood will be gathered from a very sustainable and easily replaceable (Is that the right term?) source of wood but if we are to build hundreds of these buildings all at the same time, considering that trees grow in like 20-50 years span for it to be readily cut down, all the trees from that sustainable forest might be cut down and possibly will regrow only for a very long time. Did you get my point (or whoever is possibly reading this)? The Lumber material will be at high demand but only will be available periodically because take this example:
Year 2050:
+ Approx. 1000 new buildings will be built with greatly of the same material -- lumber
It would need tons and tons of supply of wood. And where would we get that?
Temporary answer: That "sustainable and replaceable forest."
BUT, of course we cannot fully empty the forest just to meet the demand of these infrastructures because we also will be needing trees.
+At that year, the forest will be replaced again with new trees through reforestation
+And at that year, the forest must be wiped out ONLY AT THAT PERIOD, because new trees will be grown again.
Year 2051:
+ In my opinion, no one can build another wooden infrastructure at this time because the source of wood is completely used for the infrastructures of last year and must wait for like decades for the trees to be completely ready for harvesting, UNLESS, another area of forest will be used for the harvesting of lumber, but is risky, because you do not want to completely cut many acres of trees just for infrastructure needs, many animals, mostly classified as endangered, will lose their homes.
Year 2080:
+ New buildings of the same material -- lumber, will be built again since this is the second generation of the reforested forest back in 2050.
DISADVANTAGES:
+ it is a LOSE=LOSE situation for both man and the nature.
For the nature, they had to be cut down just to demand infrastructure and i predict that it will be gone for that moment until new generations of trees are fully grown which is a very risky move because without trees at that time, many global hazards and disasters may pass at that time such as flooding and the rise of sea level and that the only thing that could save them are trees, but, there weren't or there are only a few of them left at that time.
Also, habitat. Forest has been the home of many increasing number of endangered species and will still continue to rise. These animals play a certain role in our ecosystem that if they were to disappear, many animals will be affected, including us humans.
For humans, although it has many advantages in terms of many engineering, construction and architectural aspects, it would take such a long time to build infrastructure like this because the material used are not readily available and is already very critical nowadays because it plays a very important role in the changing global climate, which is very impractical.
There might be or there are already many readily available materials that might help reduce carbon footprint other than trees, why not research on that instead of using one of the essential organisms on this planet?
QUESTION: WHERE THE HECK IS THAT SUSTAINABLE FOREST???
QUESTION: HOW CAN YOU SAY IT IS SUSTAINABLE IF IT WOULD ONLY BE CUT DOWN AND REPLACED BACK AGAIN??? I don't really get that, can someone clarify that please. Thanks.
QUESTION: A THOUSAND GODDAMN TREES ARE NEEDED FOR ONLY 1, JUST 1! BUILDING, WHAT ABOUT, TENS OF BUILDINGS OR EVEN A CITY???
QUESTION: IS THIS SOME SORT OF LIVE ACTION OF THE LORAX MOVIE??? SERIOUSLY??? WELL, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE AT THE END OF THE DAY...
NOTE: THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL INSIGHT ABOUT THIS THINGY, NO HARSH INTENTIONS INTENDED. IF YOU (A RANDOM PERSON WHO IS READING THIS) HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY, CONTRADICTIONS, ETC. FEEL FREE TO STATE IT...
PEACE!!!
Earthquakes, termites,shear stress,high speed winds, Rains can really challenge these.
I thought 3d printed models were the future not cutting down trees to build skyscrapers. That's insane
PrincePhase you know that wood which is used for buildings is always planted trees, not just some random trees found in a Forrest?
I don't know how to say this lightly, but I think you miscalculated something. Cutting timber down and destroying forests will hardly reduce a carbon footprint...
It would still burn like normal wood. Cross laminating doesn’t do anything to promote fire retardant. And the heat in an actual fire as opposed to a blow torch would more than the times the heat.
You cannot cantilever much on wood. You cannot build parking building out of wood. Wood cannot be structurally sound in a long span. You need concrete and steel also to build a foundation. Wood needs treatment for termites. I agree on wood for residential use and in interior structure and interior carpentry, wall, ceiling, floor, subfloor, furniture, and cabinetry.
All organic materials are subject to rot, and the processes required to prevent this would far exceed the cost of the products currently used. Not to mention, with all of the research done on the different alloys and compounds in steel and concrete, wood would simply never be able to be engineered to the same structural standards of what’s currently used, at much less the cost.
And what about we just stop building these hideous and massive skyscrapers ? It s not 1940 anymore guys
If carbon footprint is a concern, i dont see building a skyscraper out of wood is sustainable. The high rise in the video required 2000 trees to build. That is roughly 2.5 acres of forest for one building. Concrete may release co2 but what about the co2 that can no longer be absorbed by forests? Yea we can regrow trees but that would take years for a patch of trees to be mature enough to be used as building materials.
Do you understand how many acres of trees there actually are? Billions that are constantly being harvested and replanted. We are producing trees at such a rate that U.S. and Canada forests regrow that many tress every 3-4 minutes.It's a difficult concept to grasp but in actuality deforestation isn't a thing.
It’s better to use timber made from cross laminated bamboo since it’s the fastest growing plant in the world. The fibers can also be as strong a steel. That would be more sustainable.
❌ " Great " to see using Bricks to provide a FALSE Facade to a wooden Building
So Generous of them to use Less Materials
Not sure if we can grow trees fast enough to meet demand... not to mention the devastating effect of deforestation will have on the local ecosystems.
So what about earthquakes?
Yeah, that's one concern. Since that is London, at first, i thought that it wasn't much of an earthquake prone area, but when i started searching, there was a newly discovered active fault line there. Plus, others cities in the world which have active fault lines too, so... which is pretty impractical...
It can deal with earthquakes to the extent glass could (or much more). I would not replace cement with it tho.
Maybe a follow up on this test...
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/earthquake_shake_tests_at_uc_san_diego_toward_20_story_earthquake_safe
Wood is flexible and can handle earthquakes better then concrete. This has been tried and tested in California
I have always wondered why when there's a fire the building burns it buckles, and here's my answer. Thanks The economist :D
That doesn't sound safe. What if the building catches fire and you're 65 stories up in the air?
This is not eco-friendly by any standards, and it's not as healthy as they might like you to think. Engineered timber is made with lots and lots of glue. That glue, if scaled to the size of the concrete and steel construction industry would be an environmental disaster, needing monster factories that spew carcinogenic formaldehyde and urea into the atmosphere. That same formaldehyde is also embedded in the engineered wood, because it is the main component of the glue that binds it, and is released gradually as VOC, together with other toxic compounds. You know that "new furniture" smell? That's formaldehyde and other VOCs. Imagine living in a house MADE from that and filled with other furniture also made of that. Pure cancer.
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
this will have to go through decades of proving itself before people can accept it as viable.
And the more deforestation. So you should youse grass(bamboo) instead of other trees. It will not cause deforestation if maintenance is okay.
I understand the motive for this, but really... A skyscraper should be designed to last half a century or more, and steel structured ones fit that bill. I understand the steel uses a high carbon footprint, but only once. Honestly, how much of a carbon footprint is it really, over such a large time period? You build it once, and that's it. How about building cars and their parts out of wood, for example? I feel the highest carbon footprint of any material is greatly influenced by how often that material is being replaced, not just the initial manufacturing of a product. I applaud the efforts to go green, but I am a bit skeptical about pushing the limits of a material who's core properties have been abandoned in favor of steel for reason of it's properties. What if a fire breaks out? Treatments and coatings to make it withstand natural indoor conditions, they get used up or easily breached, and will only buy it time. Will degradation show up in periodic inspections or will it fail catastrophically without warning? How about earthquakes, lightning or flooding? I'm sure a lot of this has been thought of, but I don't feel we are ready yet to abandon steel or other metals yet for super tall or heavy duty structures.
still not convinced that this is better than concrete and steel vs fire. it might be better than regular wood but from the average consumer standpoint it's hard to sacrifice personal safety and security just to be more eco-whatever. and what about termites and moisture rot and the difficulty of repair?
Oh a partial wood building, better hope you don’t get it wet.
If this was to take off and we start using wood for buildings like they say imagine the destruction of this planet if they don't have huge regulations on sourcing the wood. No need to go over the destruction petrol has caused because of it's demand but now concrete is causing massive problems with sourcing the sand used, with beaches being eroded globally due to dredging and things the black market sand in India.
Black market sand in India I didn't know that?
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
Whatever wood product he's talking about should be used first in short buildings which are easy to evacuate in fires. There is a huge list of innovative materials and techniques that were supposed to revolutionize and then proved really risky. A wooden skyscraper/ No thanks.. Even non wooden skyscrapers have lots of combustible material. What's the horrible tragedy in Sao Paulo in 1974?
Plot twist : fire is now friends with dried wood and burns only steel n concrete.
cool concept, but i think having lots of these buildings would be bad as you have to cut down trees to do it, even if you plant new ones. At least have a reasonable limit to how many they make, we need all the trees alive that we can get. also for the larger buildings, the pieces should fit perfectly like japanese furniture and temples.
Don’t cut down trees, cut down trees... I can’t keep up
Don't forget to replant after cutting down the timber
its all good until we actually use the trees that we plant and grow and not deforest.
this is already being done in Iceland. no more of forest are being cut. instead they're are using woods they had planted and grown
3:28 that E46 and EVO tho!
Tokyo used to be made out of wood and paper, guess what happened?
A wood that don’t catch on fire
Uh, I worked on a downtown high rise in Chicago last year and we had a three day deck pour so that whole ‘quickness’ thing he said is BS. I’m all for alternative materials, hence why I’m watching this. But, how the hell are we going to sustainably accumulate that much wood while restocking the demand in time. This is foolish we need our carbon elimination and oxygen more than big buildings.. Also, screw concrete and steel huge buildings cause those are even more of a carbon consumer than tree scrapers would be.. We should just begin a political sustainable life movment with #earthship homes.
Interesting material can possibly be used more but even the fastest tree farms take up alot of sapce and at least take 40 to 50 years
It'd be sick to have a concrete building up to halfway say 50 floors and then switch to jenga- er tinder app- er lumbar support- er wood of the morning- er i mean just damn tree the rest of the height! And then to drum up support, it'll have to do something special and unique, why yes it will be the first building to flip over the course of the day to concrete on top of the wood by night and then back to concrete on bottom by day. Now that's a plankin good idea!
Just don't light any matches when your there
3:36, something unusual on screen.
hey, at least they'd have no issues making people believe that the jets burned the towers down. ;)
Something something, hurricanes, something something, three little pigs
maybe dont skyscrapers at all in places that get hurricanes?
ohh no but their headquarters isnt made out off wood instead its made out of bricks oh nooo
They should build it in recycled concrete that can save our planet not woods
can concrete be recycled?
Evolve! Don't devolve!
Next making building made of plastic..
This video lit my mind like a match
Will be like London Great Fire
Probably a person will grab a single match and throw on to the building,Let’s see what happens
Let’s make it wood, 100 years later, No, No, No, concrete & metal, 100 years later, No, No, No, Brick,..... on & on it goes.
Get flat area of concrete, steel beams as support then just timber?
This and all other Timber videos would be an Excellent repost for the "Team Trees $20M by 2020" thread.
Sequester Downtown
Those wood eater your worst enemy
An 85 meter tall CLT-building, Mjøstårnet, is nearly finished construction in Norway at the moment. It already stands at its complete height.
While I understand that CLT has some advantages, I'm curious how susceptible it is to rot and fungal growth over long periods of time in humid climates. I am also interested in hearing what maintenence is required, and what the cost of maintenence will be long-term. I am glad that there are companies willing to take the risk so we can assess as a society if it is a viable solution for the future.
And thats why crazy architects shouldn't project buildings, sane engineers should be the only ones allowed to do so.
I say this because at my graduation it was so common to hear teachers say about how some stupid architects would draw some shit and ask for a engineer to build it.
Nowadays architecture courses must have engineer classes as mandatory by the government. After so many shit happening killing people. This in my country.
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
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). 😊
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
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
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?
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
Someone’s been playing too much jenga
Fortnite 1 underrated comment lol
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
“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.
Can you imagine living on a 67th floor and have a woodpecker bang your structure everyday lol!
💦😝😝😝😝
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.
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.
Is it just me, or is this new "technology" just a Jenga reboot?
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
_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.
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)
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?
This is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard
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.
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.
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.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JgPW4W6ystk/v-deo.html
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
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.
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.
significantly weaker than a building made of flex tape
nitai matan why havent we been using flex tape for buildings anyways?
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
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.
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.