Reply to Scrapping the DC Height Limit

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Scrapping the DC Height Limit "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. [b]Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.[/b] [/quote]

I assume you are referencing this study which came out last year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

If so, you should know that this study has very serious limitations. One big one is that it doesn't attempt to account for differences in transportation or transportation infrastructure associated with different building methods. Higher density makes it economical to provide more extensive public transportation, and that gets people out of cars, reducing carbon emissions. Plus, commuting and other activities at high density typically require shorter travel distances, which reduces emissions regardless of the transportation method used.

A second is that it assumes a constant lifespan for buildings of 60 years regardless of the materials or methods used. High density buildings may be renovated or re-skinned, but the vast majority of skyscrapers are still standing, even ones over 100 years old. Lower buildings tend to have significantly shorter lifespans, which substantially offsets the higher fixed emissions costs associated with building taller buildings.

[/quote]
You realize that there are actual climate scientists here, right? The concensus findings of AR5 are that you have no clue what you talking about. I do find it funny that you have decided to come on the internet anonymously to larp as an expert. [/quote]

I'll admit that I'm an economist, not a climate scientist by training, and there's surely literature on this topic that I'm not familiar with. Maybe I'm not the kind of expert you're looking for. But I have a PhD, know how to read papers, and I'm well trained in thinking about explicit and implicit costs. I'm not larping, thanks.

I read and remembered this paper because it got a bunch of popular press at the time it was released last year. The points I made are valid, the authors clearly call them out in the text.

If you want to provide a lit review, I'm all ears. I took a spin through the Buildings Chapter of AR5 and I see relatively little that talks about building height. There is some discussion of the role of compactness in reducing heating loads, and of roof surface area in installing photovoltaic cells.[/quote]
So you did not read AR5, bit skimmed a WG chapter and you don’t even understand the findings that you did read? You don’t even know [i]how[/i] to read AR5.  Everything they say about economists is true. You should stay in your lane.[/quote]

DP.  Why don't you provide something to support the contention that tall buildings are not climate friendly?  I really don't know, but what you are doing is just saying you know best, for reasons.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics