So many people worked for Katerra before it crashed and burned. I’m curious to see if there’s a pattern to how some of them get together to found new firms.
If you want to see mass timber, come to Milwaukee. My 3rd Ward loft was built by American craftsman in 1895. All the buildings in this district are on the national register of historic places. All timber on the inside with masonry on the outside. It's nice to see someone trying to bring it back in fashion. Great work!
How do we ensure, and end-of-life (2-3 centuries?) that the CLT infrastructure won’t be burned or composted, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere? As a oceanographer with some climate science background, I know the effects of anthropogenic climate change of the 19-th21st centuries will still be dogging in the 23rd century. Do we need a tax or trust fund to assure this long-term carbon stays locked up?
Hi Eric, I can't speak on behalf of Katerra, but perhaps I can provide a bit of useful info. When talking about reducing carbon footprint through the use of mass timber, really it comes down to several factors. Firstly, wood is a renewable resource that requires very little energy to harvest and process into a functional product (glulam, CLT, stick-framing for houses and so on) relative to steel or concrete which release huge amounts of energy into the atmosphere in their production. If sustainable forestry management practices are in place, this makes it a very strong choice as a sustainable building material and new technologies in fire safety and factory lamination have made it possible to build large, safe structures from mass timber. As far as end of life release of carbon, this is really a more minor benefit. The carbon in the wood will not be delayed from entering the atmosphere forever, merely delayed. However, while the carbon is captured in the wood of a mass timber building, new trees are replanted where the cut trees used to stand and these trees capture CO2 from the atmosphere. I like to think of the ideal scenario as a lifecycle somewhat similar to a traditional canoe: natural materials are harvested from the land, they pass their life as a useful structure for us humans and then at the end of life they are returned to land to be reclaimed by nature. While there's certainly a lot of work to do to get anywhere close to that, in my opinion mass timber represents a postive step in that direction. Anyhow, that's just my two cents, hope you find some of that useful :). (FYI I do not work for Katerra, I'm just an architecture student with an interest in mass timber who previously worked for MGA. This is just my personal understanding of the issue at hand.)
So many people worked for Katerra before it crashed and burned. I’m curious to see if there’s a pattern to how some of them get together to found new firms.
If you want to see mass timber, come to Milwaukee. My 3rd Ward loft was built by American craftsman in 1895. All the buildings in this district are on the national register of historic places. All timber on the inside with masonry on the outside. It's nice to see someone trying to bring it back in fashion. Great work!
How do we ensure, and end-of-life (2-3 centuries?) that the CLT infrastructure won’t be burned or composted, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere? As a oceanographer with some climate science background, I know the effects of anthropogenic climate change of the 19-th21st centuries will still be dogging in the 23rd century. Do we need a tax or trust fund to assure this long-term carbon stays locked up?
Hi Eric, I can't speak on behalf of Katerra, but perhaps I can provide a bit of useful info. When talking about reducing carbon footprint through the use of mass timber, really it comes down to several factors. Firstly, wood is a renewable resource that requires very little energy to harvest and process into a functional product (glulam, CLT, stick-framing for houses and so on) relative to steel or concrete which release huge amounts of energy into the atmosphere in their production. If sustainable forestry management practices are in place, this makes it a very strong choice as a sustainable building material and new technologies in fire safety and factory lamination have made it possible to build large, safe structures from mass timber. As far as end of life release of carbon, this is really a more minor benefit. The carbon in the wood will not be delayed from entering the atmosphere forever, merely delayed. However, while the carbon is captured in the wood of a mass timber building, new trees are replanted where the cut trees used to stand and these trees capture CO2 from the atmosphere. I like to think of the ideal scenario as a lifecycle somewhat similar to a traditional canoe: natural materials are harvested from the land, they pass their life as a useful structure for us humans and then at the end of life they are returned to land to be reclaimed by nature. While there's certainly a lot of work to do to get anywhere close to that, in my opinion mass timber represents a postive step in that direction. Anyhow, that's just my two cents, hope you find some of that useful :). (FYI I do not work for Katerra, I'm just an architecture student with an interest in mass timber who previously worked for MGA. This is just my personal understanding of the issue at hand.)
sign „catalyst“ in front of the building is made out of concrete, honestly? Hopefully a recycled one.
What