The Problem With New York's Skyscrapers
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2023
- Thousands of Manhattan's tall buildings now have a problem.
Discover how to awaken your Sleeping Digital Twin with IES - bit.ly/3VI3uc3
This video contains paid promotion for IES.
Additional footage and imagery courtesy of IES, The Dronalist, DBOX for CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, CBC News: The National, CBS New York and Related-Oxford.
For more by Tomorrow's Build subscribe now - bit.ly/3vOOJ98
Join our mailing list - bit.ly/tomorrows-build
Listen to The World's Best Construction Podcast
Apple - apple.co/3OssZsH
Spotify - spoti.fi/3om1NkB
Amazon Music - amzn.to/3znmBP4
Follow us on Twitter - / tomorrowsbuild
Like us on Facebook - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on TikTok - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on LinkedIn - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on Instagram - / tomorrowsbuild
#construction #architecture #skyscrapers
Tomorrow's Build is owned and operated by The B1M Limited. We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules: www.theb1m.com/guidelines-for-...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact Video@TheB1M.com.
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2023 The B1M Limited
Finally, these big new buildings are being targeted for their energy usage. It would have been cool to see the ratings of more skyscrapers. The IES digital twin stuff is really neat, though it did take up quite a big section of the video.
the digital twin part was way to long, but youtube prove the > to skip past it. 👍👍
I can't imagine the cost of switching from 1 pane windows to 3 pane windows on those old giant skyscrapers.
Oh definitely since their isn’t any universal window sizes in architecture & lot of these old windows are curved rather than the modern builds which all have 4 point shaped windows like rectangles & squares
3 pane windows offer no economic pay back EVER
I imagine having these very tall, but also very skinny buildings (to maximize a small plot of land), means a much higher surface area to volume ratio than more typical structures, and therefore inherently more heat loss.
Right! 432 Park Ave will never be made very much more efficient because of that.
This video highlighting the need to reduce energy consumption in NYC buildings is eye-opening! It's crucial to address sustainability and make positive changes in urban architecture. Thanks for shedding light on this important issue and inspiring us to take action for a greener future. Let's work together to make a difference! 🌱🌎🏢 Keep up the great work! 🌆🏙📽
not to be a "stick in the mud "(as the saying goes) but there is currently not one human made commercial system that is, or ever has been shown to be sustainable (despite all the nifty slogans and public relations buzzwords like "reduce, reuse, recycle " or "net zero " ) . every single industrialized process and system accessible to the masses continues to consume a growing amount of finite resources with negligible considerations toward the consequences for exhaustion of such resources. while this entertaining video informs of another not well considered (by most) avenue of consumption are we any better off by being so informed? or does it add to the list of things to consider for which we can only feel impotent dismay? in a world where wealth creates problems yet suffers nil consequence for having done so does not the subject just add to one's burnt out apathy?
Sounds like the new local laws are going to increase the cost of housing for new yorkers for years to come. Big Yikes!
In return for lower cost of ownership bud
@@darthmaul216 sure but that wont matter when you can't afford to own/rent anything
@@darthmaul216
Lower cost of ownership being a relative notion here; though $50 million may be more affordable than $75 million, it does not mean it is accessible to the population at large.
@@darthmaul216I doubt there will be much savings when your rent has to amortize out all the expensive retrofits to reduce your energy usage by 40% in 7 years. And then the next set to reduce it more by 2050.
@@dabears87_76 Landlords, Wall St REIT & banks are the biggest culprits behind rising prices nationwide. Lack of a national resource extraction policy hurts, so does lack of construction colleges and lack of any national workforce development. Gangs play role in NYC prices, as do real estate agents. All the usual parasites. The biggest con ever played on the West was to start a Cold War with the Soviets and then kill JFK to keep it going. We could have taught them markets and learned about public goods.
Ok so I have just watched the whole video and from what I understand it's bad because:
1. The windows attract a lot of heat when it's hot outside
2. Tall skyscrapers which tend to be luxury would have fancy amenities like gyms and pools which takes an anornous amount of energy to maintain.
3. Lastly Elevators. Tall buildings need more elevators
So, if we design buildings to be windowless, no fancy pools, and a better elevator system(lol idk how) does that mean we would solve this problem?
No, just build smaller buildings that are better insulated.
also, what are most of these luxury apartments being used for? it's real estate for speculation, very few people actually live there; you have all these amenities built for something that is functionally a bank
@@ximira4089
Any real estate is “functionally a bank”, by that logic, irrespective of whether tenants or owners are of low or high income.
elevators are like EV's in that they recover the energy as they move the counter weight back down. There are losses though. The water can also be partially recovered by thinking of the sewage as a hydro electric dam.
He should have mentioned "Surface Area Ratio" in the video. Super tall & skinny buildings are all exposed surfaces that lose heat in the winter and gain heat in the summer. Efficient buildings are 20 stories or less and have more interior space. This means not every room in every apartment will have a window. The 432 Park building only has 120 apartments and has a pool. Spread that among more units and it is more efficient.
I accept the premise that taller buildings use more power than short buildings because they have greater exposure to sunlight. However, in a dense city like NYC, taller buildings are also blocking that sunlight from hitting the shorter buildings. A 6 story building in NYC basically gets no sun at all.
I wonder: if you were to even out all the building's heights, would you see the city as a whole using the same amount of energy as when the building heights were varied?
Thinking more about this, I would also hypothesize similarly for the elevator problem. If you remove X number of floors from one building, you have to add X number of floors to other buildings.
I wonder how the math on that works out and whether they end up being equivalent in the end
The supertalls in NYC have other issues as well though. There have been news articles reporting that some of the tall luxury buildings have plumbing and other issues leaking on floors and walls.
Yes averages out
432 Park Ave is one of the coolest skyskrapers I’ve seen. Fascinating.
Finally, a video that isn't sponsored by Masterworks!
The people that buy those fancy apartments probably own or rent private jets, yachts, big cars, travel a lot, and have multiple homes, etc so there is plenty of CO2 to be produced by them.
Tall buildings in windy cities should have small ducts for air to travel in and turn internal fans that act as generators to help produce some electricity.
I'm fortunate since my home does not need air-conditioning or heat thanks to its location.
This was very useful information especially for my upcoming english exam about the future of architecture in New York :) Thanks!
Every time I see these construction focused sponsors, it makes me wonder how many people actually watch this in the construction industry and how many are like me, who just watch with a passing interest
So if they don't lower their usage what happens? Fines won't be noticed my the mega rich, so unless there's plans to change the locks and tear them down I'm skeptical we'll see any changes
My first idea when hearing about the digital twin stuff, is how it could be used in game development. An accurately modeled New York, or a bunch of other cities, with the 3d models essentially already done.
There is not much many of these buildings can change for energy efficiency when they are mostly glass. There is no place to add insulation. There could be some opportunity to add films to the glass to help a little. Heat recovery with ventilation and morw efficient heating and cooling systems may make a small difference.
Blinds? I looked at a house that had an insulated blind that lowered and raised automatically based on temperature.
Would be worrying if someone actually lived there, but as most of them are for speculation... No problem 😅
I guess we should compare like with like, how does one of these luxury apartments compare with a multi million dollar mansion out in the country? It's pretty obvious that if richer people lived in smaller, less luxurious homes they'd use less energy, but that's hardly going to be an easy sell!
it's millions of people living in exurbs and rural areas who are using vast amounts of energy. If you want to confront climate change, find local giant truck & SUV owners who drive 25 miles outside the core of the city to get away from "those people" and then want paved roads in the country, along with new schools. Meanwhile, we've been closing inner-city schools for decades. Waste on top of waste. Yes, the rich are the worst offenders, and yes, I think they should lead by example. Solar + grid batteries. Permaculture farms. But we get chemical farms & carbon capture schemes instead.
@@Nphen Permaculture is too much hard work for the wealthy, they don't want to spend their free time doing farm labour.
It's a shame that lifts don't recover energy when going down so they can use less energy when going up.
It's also a shame that all those glass windows can't partially capture solar energy. Imagine if there were a photoelectric layer in the glass that you could dial from 0-100% transparency, so when no one is occupying a room all the solar energy can be utilised.
I think elevators do have a counterweight that recovers some of that energy
The solar energy you'd get from the glass wouldn't be that much, their angle towards the sun means they won't be nearly as efficient as rooftop solar.
@@Croz89 ...and rooftop solar isn't nearly as efficient as Solar panels on the space station - thus, solar panels should _Never_ be used on earth.
@@FancyUnicorn yeah, it seems like elevators likely use a similar amount of energy to move the car both up and down.
Lifts are balanced by weights so almost the only load they drive are the people. There is little to recover. Also recovery will slow speeds making trips longer frustrating bldg residents. FYI Elevators in very talls need to move far faster than gravity alone would drop them.
This is a very good and important video. We know that energy is a big contributor, but what the energy is used on and who uses it is a good point. And also how the richest keep increasing their emissions and wealth at the expence of working clas is just as important to share and talk about.
@@chemicalfrankie1030 Yeah that is a fair point. But the richest consume a lot more than working class people do. And also, if we take their businesses consumption and emissions in to account, it is really terrible. But obviously everyone needs to make a change to their habits! And that starts with all of us in the rich countries!
One thing the I was confused on in the video was are luxury residential skyscrapers the main culprit of carbon footprints or are office ones as well? Or is one worse then the other?
Yea, This video seems to not clarify on a lot things and leaves a lot unanswered.
@@stockstreamtwitch It seems like the video was just a premise for the advertisement at the end. It seems like the video was unfinished. The main point is that "ultra-tall" skyscrapers are the worst offenders. Someone else posited that it's due to high surface area ratio. So, the taller & skinnier, the worse it is, no matter what the use case. He did mention that building efficiency always drops after about 20 stories. You see a lot of 20 story apartment towers in Chicago. Plenty tall for most cities!
I don't think it generally matters, it would just come down to how each particular building is made and it's size and design. But I would imagine commercial towers have a bigger carbon footprint just guessing tho
Very enjoyable as usual.
Fred makes some of the best sponsored content on CZcams
Marty makes some of the most obvious comments on CZcams
I couldn't work out if the last part (about IES) was part of the video or an ad. If the latter then it was seamlessly done.
Fun fact! 432 Park Avenue is not on Park Avenue!
The not-rich will feel the pain of the new rules trying to pay for rent.
Great video. Easy solution that can save some energy. Force all new buildings with these huge inefficient glass windows to have a ceramic tint. I have these on my car, most car ceramic tinting can be applied to building glass. They can block out 80% of infrared radiation. Cheap relatively speaking but could likely save tons of carbon in reduced ac usage.
I wonder if it is even feasible to reduce energy consumption by 80% by 2050. Unless some new technology exists by then it is very difficult to achieve such a goal.
The biggest energy consumers in the building such as chillers, motors, heat pumps etc all need to be more efficient than what they are today. Then you have fresh air requirement which uses alot of energy to cool it to room temperature.
The technology exists today. Rolling blackouts/brownouts are the guarantee you're looking for.
Maybe 432 Park Avenue is doing so less emissions because nobody lives there ??
Love this
Hahaha!! Thank you for your cool video of New York.
And this is just NYC. Good to see things changing though. I remain positive about the future, though I do feel it will be much different than it is today.
We don’t need to cut back. We need to generate more energy. But from renewable sources. Growth mindset
That’s not true.
We need to reduce our energy needs.
There’s no green energy.
It doesn’t matter what we build, it’s environmentally unsustainable.
Doesn’t matter if it’s solar, wind or water.
All of them damage the environment more or less in some way.
And we can only build limited amounts of solar panels, wind farms or hydro dams.
@@GrillerRohde if you care about the environment more than people, then that's your problem. How are we going to colonize the galaxy without 1000x-ing our energy usage? clown mindset.
@@peachezprogramming
We need to cut back unimportant energy usage.
Sure at some point we need to use more energy than ever but it’s important to only use necessary energy.
Hey can you do a video about the planned affirmation tower?
1:32 Charlotte made it into a -B1M- Tomorrow's Build video! We're finally relevant, I guess!
A sleeping digital twin is great and all. But having worked as a BIM manager in the surveying industry for nearly 15 years now, I've found that what is within the BIM and construction documents and what is actually built on site can vary. Unless careful consideration is made to update the BIM as the building is being constructed, to document variations and changes in design, the BIM is already out of date and not reflective of what has been constructed. As the old IT saying goes, rubbish in rubbish out.
4:03 I like how the top 2 floors are just fake
9:36
_irregardless_
As a non-native I wonder what it means: regardless-less? without irregard?
Deeply puzzled.
WOW WOW WOW
I live in a shorter high rise per se, 38 stories, I wish the stairwell was accessible to access different floors. I have to take the elevator to go 4 floors to the gym/clubroom level which is stupid.
Wow, this video blew my mind! 🤖💡
This is a bit unfair to tall buildings because if you look at the energy usage compared to housing the equivalent number of people in single family homes, most likely it is much lower (residential buildings only).
Tall building with tall ceiling means higher carbon being released and energy usage regardless if it was insulated building or not.
@@chapter1762 Higher CO2 released compared to what? Do you mean because of the stack effect? Heat is lost through the building envelope (exterior walls), and there is significantly less exterior walls in a condo unit than a single family home.The other area is air leakage, which can be controlled via air sealing techniques in either case.
@@chapter1762 I think you mean irregardless...
@@JP_TaVeryMuch You don't know what you're talking about. You're probably worse than the people who say "irregardless" isn't a word.
@@keensoundguy6637
Humbled by your comment, I am naturally pleased to be of some little service..,
Vous me pardonnerez si je réfute certaines hypothèses qui sont implicites dans ce que vous avez dit.
So where is the data on the distribution of steel down the structures? Like the Twin Towers when they existed.
Carbon Net Zero simply means that Billionaires buy tree certificate from foresting companies all over the world, nobody checks that and no-one is sure if they haven't counted same tree once or twice. Also tree to be sufficient has to be healthy and grow for over 100 years, which doesn't happen in real life. Yet certificate is "valid"...
The name of the law alone was so inspiring that I refurbished my house and installed solar panels!
(09:36) Hooray!
Regardless of your pedantry score, you've got to cheer the welcome return of "irregardless"
0:40 Why is there a giant Dutch flag at the top of one of the sky scrapers?
Those are lights and are red white and blue for America. It is the Bloomberg building.
Wow you mean the mega rich that fly in jets and have 12 houses and produce more CO2 than 50000 normal people, their houses aren't engery efficient? Who knew
great again
Tall buildings lock in heat & aerosols below. It restricts convection. I'd suggest cool roofs or green roofs. The big problem is too much traffic. Set up an above surface monorail or gyroscopic vehicular system. I don't believe one should get punitive with the people like this banning of gas stove stuff. They could also try cool pavements. You can only mitigate some effects. You cannot stop a heat wave from forming.
How about heating to 21° C in Winter and cool to 25° C in summer - and not the other way around?
How much will NY's new climate rules lower the climate's temperature? If it is science there must be an answer but there isn't.
I would love to know how these "local laws" reducing carbon emissions will be enforced outside of "Fines. Can't imagine there's an amount high enough to make buildings on Billionaire's row care about changing when they could just pay the fines. The same way Tesla factories are incredibly dangerous and stay that way because the company would rather pay the fines (and workman's comp settlements) than improve their working conditions.
Refuse approval of the buildings until the offense gets remedied might be one way. Or fines based on a percentage of declared assets or profits from the previous year's balance sheets or tax returns.
With all that glass curtain walling coving skyscrapers, PV transparent panels over the glass could generate the building's energy needs.
🕋🌞
Do you really think real estate investors and insurance brokers would invest in somewhere if they thought it'd go underwater? These are the smartest people in the world.
Modern architecture is bad for the environment in general - no reuse of prior materials, long supply chains for specialty and energy intensive materials, but also for the basics like steel and glass, short lifespan (often because owners want to tear them down because they are so expensive to maintain and prone to hidden issues). Everyone who gets excited about BREEAM does not consider lifecycle energy consumption and emissions. The most environmentally friendly building is one built 200 years ago out of locally sourced materials, sturdy, amenable to reuse for new roles, and capable of being recycled if it is torn down. If it also takes into account climate issues, like natural cooling, ventilation, heat retention, then that is the greenest option. There is none better.
The most efficient shape is a.perfect cube
Use geothermal heating and magnetic elevators which need no electricity to operate ✌️♥️🇬🇧
Is it still true that cities pollute less CO2 than suburban environments? even with these huge energy usages?
Some energy recovery system on these buildings elevators would help, maybe they already have them?
I am sure newer elevators would use brushless motors like EV's and that would mean they would recover the energy as they move the counter weight back down. There are losses though. The water can also be partially recovered by thinking of the sewage as a hydro electric dam.
Here before the bots arrive
Bots has arrived
That's what a bot would say
Says the bot
They've outdone themselves this time.
Way, way up in the top ⅓ storeys of this supertall comments pile, the usual suspects - you know, the
"my friend Janice invested $X with... and now she's laughing all the way to the bank" nonsense have only gone and given themselves 111 likes too.
I don't see how these buildings "have" to change, nor should they.
If I could afford it I still would not live in a skyscraper. I ain’t trying to go pass the FIF floor.
Well I guess it’s a good thing they’re all empty!
It's funny that they want to show 432 park avenue as an "energy efficient" building when it's almost empty, even if it had all its apartments sold, there are one or two families PER FLOOR, obviously neither the air conditioning nor the elevator are used the same times that it is used in a building with more apartments, this even if it had people living in them (which it does not) the comparison with other residential buildings is ridiculous and it is even more ridiculous considering that Shanghai Tower was dedicated a whole video for being "half empty" and that the Shanghai Tower does have means to reduce the energy load and they called those means "loss of space".
Not only is 432 "half empty", practically all the buildings of the same style on Billonarie road are half empty... I suppose that as long as they are from the United States they will be treated as "energy efficient" if they were from the East they would be an "economic failure".
Good job Tomorrow's Build👏👏👏
We all know the only way to have 'net zero' is to stop flowing water, gas, or electricity into any such facility. Do you get it now?
Doesn't nobody really life in those?
Can you make a video on Le pledis Robinsons transformation
been done already.
What is the video called
If the effect is to make the windows smaller, that's really stupid. Especially considering the reduction in market value it would entail. The difference in value could be invested in fossil-free energy power plants that would easily do more good than smaller windows would.
And who would sponsor that power plant for a specific building?
@@danmur2797 can be done with legal requirements, for example that the building must build double the amount of the building's estimated consumption in a fossil-free power plant within 100 km distance
@@SUHPU1 Easier said than done. Would love to see that process play out.
Dont the elevators use counter weights so they only have to life the weight of people and not the elevators themselves?
If one was an engineer and looking to calculate the total thermal efficiency of a building, energy star and leed certification ratings are mostly useless, in fact they are more political than data driven.
Case in point, Installing bike racks and purchasing renewable energy will both increase your energy star and leed certification rating.
Gosh, huge piles of concrete with awful surface/volume ratios and extreme energy usage are bad for the environment?
Surprised pikachu face.
I wish all skyscrapers were just underground.
Are we SERIOUSLY going on the assumption that the REASON they're bad at efficiency is because of LED lighting?
The single biggest change that skyscrapers, and other high-rise buildings, can make, is in the MASSIVE amounts of glass they have; you can now get a totally clear photovoltaic glass (solar panels which look like normal clear glass but which create electricity from the light passing through them), if they put a layer of this solar glass on ALL the existing glass, and ideally add a large scale building battery to store excess energy for usage at night/when the sun isn't shining, then they could generate MOST of the energy they use, potentially ALL if offices are only used during the day. This would give them a HUGE saving in energy bills as well as MASSIVELY reduce their carbon emissions!
For more information do a Google search on the keywords: "Photovoltaic solar glass windows"
This is another technology that the fossil fuel billionaires are trying to suppress because it could lead to EVERY building having solar windows, even apartments that don't have a roof on which they could put solar panels on, reducing the demand for fossil fuel-generated electricity.
This is sorta going to be impossible to accomplish.
What happens when the building doesn't meet the energy target? A fine or tear down.
Net zero is stupid. 1-plants (including food) need co2 to survive 2-why not just destroy every creature that creates co2 if it was that important. Net zero is meaningless. You can still become morbidly obese while eating 100% fat free foods. Should building be made more environmentally friendly, sure. But how about turning lights off at stores that are closed instead of having their signs lit in the middle of the night when only 1 person drives past.
Imagine if they had just built new buildings to LEED standards lol
Do you mean besides the ultra-rich turning housing into a Speculative Market, thus forcing people into homelessness due to being unable to rent, nor inhabit currently vacant buildings so they don't "lower the Property value"?
😮
While the primary focus of this channel is construction, I'm curious if anyone has considered comparing the total cost of retrofitting all buildings to the cost of constructing new nuclear power plants, or solar and wind farms. It might be more efficient to augment our energy supply with carbon-neutral sources, rather than undertaking the potentially decades-long process of retrofitting every tower.
Of course a skyscraper as big as this need a lot of energy. But why not divide it by the number of apartments and compare that to a single house in a rural area? I believe we also should think of the need of landscape so it is more sustainable to build high.
Here in Germany we have more green electric energy than we need, so we export it to the neighbour countries. But when I visited New York this year I haven't seen so many solar cells and wind turbines. Why not building these and heating the skyscrapers with the result?
Maybe you missed the energy use per square metre metric.
It's been calculated to be 2½ times greater for these skyscrapers than normal buildings ~ whatever they might be.
Wow, it must have taken a genius to figure out that making a building out of concrete, steel and glass was inefficient.
I think it is more efficient than each person owning a single family house.
Individual housing would use more power than a skyscraper so i don't see a problem, it's already more efficient.
People equate skyscrapers with success, this is a self defeating mindset.
Yay let's make housing more expensive! By mandate of course!
Is anyone really surprised that the worst building is on billionaires row?
Well, it's a building for the absolute worst of people after all.
is there any calculation on how energy use pencils out when you build out vs building up? like how does energy consumption of skyscrapers compare to a single family home in american suburbia where everybody drives to the grocery store or cafe or restaurant and water and sewage lines have to be built out. additionally why not just put a carbon tax on energy consumption and liberalise zoning laws?
Its all about money
Why not use lifts as a sort of gravity battery or even gravity generator? When it's up high and it's needed below just let it drop and generate some power. Can even do it for water. Put some mini turbines in the pipes
Yeah I've always thought of the concept of putting turbines in downspouts for water recovery on these buildings, wonder if it would be efficient enough to be practical
I think elevators have a counterweight that recovers some of that energy
I am sure newer elevators would use brushless motors like EV's and that would mean they would recover the energy as they move the counter weight back down. There are losses though. The water can also be partially recovered by thinking of the sewage as a hydro electric dam.
@@drewdorkhead Even if it's minimal, if you have every highrise in New York doing it, surely it's worth it. Like every time somebody up in the penthouse flushes the toilet, has a bath or shower.
Great video and very important topic to cover and consider in our efforts towards achieving meaningful energy consumption reductions.
Ny is goin to fumble. Everyone see’s there paying entirely too much for NYC
B1M . . . is that you??? I'm confused. a new channel? orr
From the first, I hated these skinny sliver skyscrapers. They're aesthetically unappealing and a middle finger to the rest of us mere mortals.
New York's skyscraper are great...if anyone would actually live in them rather than using them as a means of tax evasion! GAHHHH So much money, resources and engineering wasted....
If one wanted to evade taxes, the last place they’d do business in is the state of New York lol
@@sergpie There is literally tons of buildings that lay empty but that are owned by rich bastards to tweak the financial markets, maybe tax evasion is the wrong term, but the fact is that they are colassal wasters
Technology got us here and trusting it to fix everything is a fools errand. Humans must change first then the long battle to save the planet can truly begin. It's happening but too slowly to save us at this rate.
The bit where the newest skyscrapers in NYC were the worst by far at conservation says it all. Cheers 🇨🇦
B1M is going to be so mad at you.
Yeah make everything 6levels... lol how spread out you wanna make your citys?
I’m glad they’re cracking down on the wasteful nature of those buildings. Patiently waiting to see if we actually reach the goals set.
They will never reach those goals, the building owners have more money and influence. The idealistic politicians will be removed from office somehow or bought off.
new super talls are also tremendously ugly. i belive it is the duty of the rich to build beautiful things, to the will of the people who have to live with the ugly thing living in their sky, and to of course build them with the climate in mind, hopefuly with local materials