We need to firmly reject the deceitful propaganda of the overdevelopment brigade. For example they keep on claiming, or insinuating that high-density is "more sustainable".
But my research shows single residential is more sustainable.
A recent study shows the energy use per person in high-rise is double that of those living in single-residential dwellings. Think of power-hungry lifts, clothes driers, common lighted areas and air contitioning.
Further, my calculations show that the energy embodied in the construction of high-rise is four times that of single residential dwellings (assuming in both cases the buildings last for 70 years).
These two factors far outweigh any energy saved in transport in high-density areas.
The net result is that carbon dioxide emitted resulting from living in high-rise amounts to 9.2 tonnes per person per year, compared to only 6.2 tonnes per year in single residential - about 50% more!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Sustainability
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The points that you posit makes no sense.
First, why would clothes driers take more energy per capita in an apartment building than in a single family house? Why would it cost less to air-condition a large house than an apartment? I find it hard to believe that per person lighting is more in an apartment building than in a sub-division (street lights, house lights, etc light up a larger area per person than common area lighting in apartments). Also, I find it hard to believe that per person construction costs are larger for an apartment building than a house.
The only valid point that you are making seems to be regarding lifts. Yes, there are fewer lifts in the suburbs, but then again, not all apartment buildings have lifts.
Please explain your assertions.
In fact the opposite seems to be true:
http://www.newurbannews.com/EnergySavingsInsideJul05.html
Post a Comment