Scraping the bottom of the sky

Let’s first reflect on a few things…

The clips that I don’t own come from here, here and here. Also as a disclaimer, I am not affiliated with Google Glasses nor do I own any (RIP).

Setting the scene

Perth has big plans for it’s CBD. As part of a so-called construction boom, there are some new skyscrapers in the works – including what would be the tallest of the bunch! The $100 million, 62-storey apartment complex at almost 250 metres high will undoubtedly be a tall order. But will this help us to reach new metropolitan heights or will it just make it harder to keep our feet on the ground? There are many factors that make it difficult to determine whether or not building upwards is a good thing in itself – regarding the social, economic and ecological implications. However, for the sake of this argument let’s assume that construction of these beanpole buildings is going to go ahead. This blog aims to develop a business case for how these can be built in better ways, given that they are going to be built at all.

The base case

Skyscrapers are generally not considered eco-friendly – Dr. Ken Yeang, an expert on ‘ecoskyscrapers‘ says that tall structures usually consume over a third more energy and material resources than other types of buildings – during construction, operation and demolition. From an engineering standpoint, one of the most obvious concerns is ensuring that the building remains structurally sound under any possible conditions. At higher altitudes, the wind has more attitude produces larger bending moments on the building’s structure, hence expert engineering is required to ensure sufficient reinforcement. Add to this the complexity of pushing objects against the force of gravity (aka lifting) – cranes are needed to lift building materials, elevators are used to lift humans, and water needs to pumped up to the highest floors.

Time-lapse of a skyscraper build. Image: EarthCam

Some of these issues are unavoidable when building a high-rise. It’s not easy to make something that tall. But when it comes to people achieving the seemingly impossible – they usually can, within reason. Technology advancements would allow us to build almost anything conceivable, if it wasn’t for certain limiting factors. In financial terms, the limit is represented by the cost. However, as discussed in my blog post on ecological economics, the financial cost is really just the way we quantify its perceived value. The real limits are due to the finite resources available on this planet. One of the big ones is energy, which is needed for practically everything. There’s a pretty significant world crisis revolving around this crazy stuff, and everyone is wondering what’s going to happen if we continue to consume resources without replacing them. It’s clear that we need to minimise excessive energy consumption.

There’s something else that needs to be pushed to the extremities of these towers – air. Specifically, air at highly regulated temperatures intended for optimal human comfort. Air conditioning is a huge part of modern building design. According to Professor Alan Short, an expert in Architecture from the University of Cambridge, buildings in western cities account for around half of all electricity usage, heavily contributing to carbon emissions. Short suggests that these numbers are so high partly due to poor design for air circulation and temperature regulation. The conventional design of large buildings has involved sealing them up and relying on powerful A/C systems to make them habitable.

Conventional tall buildings require enormous quantities of energy. It is grossly inefficient to build something that has no natural resilience to the climate, and to overcome these shortcomings with excessive electrically-powered air conditioning. The base case considering ‘conventional engineering’ is looking pretty stagnant and bleak…

Surely there’s another option?!

You better believe it! Maybe we can compare ‘conventional engineering’ to its fresh-faced younger cousin: ‘ecological engineering’. Imagine if it was possible to design a building that provided all the necessary services and similar levels of comfort, without resorting to blasting A/C all day everyday? What if a building could regulate its own temperature, by integrating with the environment rather then being sealed off from it? The good news is we know it is possible – because it’s been done before. Long before – hundreds of years ago actually.

19th Century buildings such as hospitals, theatres and schools had dedicated a large portion of their design to improving ventilation. A driving motivation behind this were the recent outbreaks of diseases such as cholera.

Inpatient ward at John Hopkins Hospital. Images: Stephen Verdeber

One of the geniuses behind these revolutionary building designs was John Shaw Billings. The images above show the inpatient ward of the John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore (from Stephen Verdeber’s book Innovations in Hospital Architecture). Aspects of this design included small vents in between the beds which allowed for fresh air intake, and a basement level which acted as a fresh air reservoir.

This concept of natural ventilation relates to the issue of dependence upon technology. Modern hospitals now have computer-controlled systems to regulate the air conditions. I am not suggesting replacing those, but rather finding an optimal hybrid system which utilises natural and artificial methods. My point is that we could reduce power usage by using as much natural, passive technology as possible, and using the artificial, carbon-heavy technology as a support or back-up. This same idea can be applied to air-conditioner usage in skyscrapers.

Because technology is capable of reducing the consequences of risks, we tend to care less about the likelihood of the risk. I find it interesting that you can apply this idea to so many things. Lack of hygiene could result in infections spreading, but is it really that important when antibiotics are readily available? Making mistakes while writing a paper was once costly, and you may have had to start again. But modern computers allow you to undo so easily, so we care less about sloppiness. You might make a blunder while playing sport, but hey you can always blame the referee! Oh, and so what if this library can’t cope with the climactic variation? A few more power generators will sort that out.

No-one needs to know that I suck at typing! Image: KyTyper

In all these cases, I think we rely too heavily on the back-up plan and in fact expect it to eventuate. Back-up plans should be treated as a last resort, and we should take responsibility to prevent these issues from occurring wherever possible. I think this is a key to developing smarter designs as an engineer, and in doing so fewer resources will be consumed. This is why we shouldn’t design dumber, just because smarter designs are less crucial thanks to technology.

This is everybody’s business

There are many benefits of designing buildings to integrate better with the surrounding ecology, and questioning the conventional use of technologies. Let’s go through a few of them. This link also lists some advantages of using eco-friendly construction companies.

Keeping the birds and the bees (and the trees) happy

The environmental benefits have to be the most obvious. Of course green buildings that use less electricity also provide less pollution to the atmosphere. Also by increasing the efficiency of building technologies, fewer natural resources would be consumed. Adding green roofs or walls would also complement natural ventilation to regulate temperatures and reduce the amount of cooling required. These could also become part of a green corridor that encourages biodiversity in urban areas. Another important factor is how these buildings deal with water – by collecting rain, reducing waste and providing efficient ways to filter and recycle water, this valuable resource could be preserved.

Money money money

The people who carry briefcases and enjoy nodding their heads while sitting in long boardrooms love this one. The reality is that in this economics driven world, financial factors are really gonna make or break the case. People who oppose these projects (those that make $$$ from the alternative) will argue that ecoskyscrapers will be too expensive to implement:

“Yes, yes, we get it, you like green things but get your head out of the clouds ya dumb hippies” – Mr. Mining Magnate 2017

Don’t worry about that guy though. The fortunate flip side to this coin is that ecological design actually improves the economy. For starters, the ecology contains an incredible amount of intrinsic value that is difficult to observe or quantify – see Growthless Value if you haven’t already. One thing about building smarter – and greener – is that capital costs can often be offset be lower operation and maintenance costs. This can be achieved through efficient use of resources such as water and energy.

A study by GSA found that green buildings were performing with 45% less energy consumption, 53% lower maintenance costs and 39% less water usage. These buildings also have lower vacancy rates in general, and a lower overall life cycle cost. In addition to this, the expansion of the green building industry will add to the job market.

It looks good and feels good too

Okay so I know appearances are subjective, but come on – surely you would agree that this looks a little more interesting than the steel and glass pillars that erupt from our cities?

Does green or grey suit me better? Image: Inhabitat

Green buildings have also been found to have a positive effect on human health (through the use of non-toxic materials), and improved occupant satisfaction. Isn’t the ultimate goal to improve quality of life? If the environmental and cost benefits weren’t enough, green buildings also provide psychological benefits! These smart designs provide natural lighting, high quality air and ergonomic features that improve living conditions.

It’s too late?!

There are so many tall buildings that are already built, we’re not just going to knock them down and start again are we? No. While there are many exciting new designs to push the limits of what’s possible and challenge preconceptions, it doesn’t mean we should ignore existing structures. Slowly but surely, their carbon footprints could be reduced through renovations. The skylines in the United States are not a pretty sight, when you’re looking at their electricity bills (urban buildings in the US were found to consume three times as much energy per floor area than in China). However, promising improvements are being made to some of the biggest office buildings the US, as shown in the infographic below.

 

It’s a good start guys! Image: Inhabitat

Wrapping it up

The case is clear that skyscrapers, and buildings in general should be designed to be more eco-friendly. By taking steps in the right direction, we should be able to design buildings that can improve our lifestyles, consume fewer natural resources and are more cost efficient. This can start with questioning the technology that is taken for granted, and investigating alternative ways to provide the same outcomes.

Thanks for letting me share these ideas with you, and please let me know what you think about it!  

Growthless value

A good friend once told me: “This supply constrained economy is deleveraging the commodity boom at an alarming rate!” To which I replied: “What on earth are you on about? You’re speaking complete gibberish.” Okay, so maybe this conversation never happened, and I just mashed together some economics buzz phrases to form a nonsensical sentence. Regardless, my response would have been the same. As someone with no background in economics, some of the jargon can be a little confronting. So I’m going to try and do the Googling for you and explain any terminology I use in layman’s terms. Hopefully this will keep you from closing this window yawning during the first paragraph.

Great, we made it to the second paragraph! Let’s talk economics. Incidentally, I haven’t grown up with a strong interest in the subject. Until recently I could have only told you that it was somehow related to business and money. I wasn’t that interested in dealing with numbers all day long (decimals, high frequencies – it’s all very acidic).

Ee-Ee-Ee

Honestly, I was way off the mark here. Economics is not just a meaningless study of a man-made construct we call money. By definition:

“Economics is the study of how individuals, governments, businesses and other organisations make choices that effect the allocation and distribution of scarce resources.”

Let’s break this down. We need resources to live. Ideally we would to love to have an infinite supply, but in reality these resources are limited. Somehow we need to distribute these resources. Economics is everything – whether or not we agree with the economic system put in place by our government. It cannot be ignored, as it affects everyone. We shouldn’t be intimidated by the term economics, it’s really a very simple concept that people like to talk about in not-so-simple ways. If economics is about the distribution of resources, and we can recognise that humans rely heavily on natural resources provided by ecosystems, it isn’t difficult to connect the dots: . . . . . .Economy. . . . . . .Ecology.

Ecological economics (maybe we should call this eco squared?) is a field that deals with the interdependence between economics and ecology. Now that I realise the importance of this relationship, I believe it should be the first consideration of any economical decision making. For this reason I am astounded that this is actually a relatively new field. As the great David Attenborough said:

“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad or an economist.”

But it doesn’t need to be that way; ecological economics looks at the whole picture – attempting to understand the ecological and social factors that influence and limit the economy. The problem is conventional economics can fail to properly account for these limiting conditions (which they refer to as externalities), and financial gain is seen as the holy grail of success. Let the legendary Clarke & Dawe (will be sadly missed) give you their perspective on financial systems:

Clearly the world in which we live is ruled by economics, and money is the form in which we express financial value. As John Clarke (impersonating the market economist) put it in the above video, “The system needs money, imagine the economy as a body it needs blood pumping round it”. So if we’re observing economic growth, we’re winning right? Money generates more money, and this money can buy whatever we need. But the problem that is making people widen their eyes in shock and fear is the realisation that money means nothing if resources continue to be consumed more rapidly than they are produced. A ceiling will inevitably be reached unless ecological economics takes over from conventional wisdom.

The Impossible Hamster is an analogy used to consider the notion of infinite economic growth. The hamster doubles in weight every week until it reaches maturity, but like all natural processes it cannot grow indefinitely. As the economy is dependent upon natural systems to provide resources, the idea is that it will also reach a growth limit. Robert Costanza is a leading ecological economist who reflects my opinion that we need to focus on forming better relationships between parts of the system, as development is possible without growth. Take the hamster analogy – a fully grown hamster still develops over his lifespan, building strong relationships with friends and finding more efficient ways to chew carrots… Okay, that one definitely needs work.

Robert Costanza (wait, an economist with ‘cost’ in his name?) did a TED talk in 2010 with the topic of ‘Creating a Sustainable and Desirable Future’. The addition of the word ‘desirable’ is subtle but significant. Sustainable is necessary, but can come in many forms. We do not want a sustainable future that is unpleasant to live in. So first we have to figure out what is desirable, so that we can attempt to mould the world that way. This relates to the open ended question of what is success? Do we strive for happiness above all else, or are we driven by a greater sense of purpose and responsibility? I don’t expect humans to limit their own success for the ‘good of the planet’ – personally I find it a relief that it doesn’t have to be one or the other! I am greatly hopeful about the future, as I feel more people are beginning to realise that the ‘good of the planet’ and the ‘good of humanity’ are the same thing.

Eco Eco expert Robert Costanza

In economics the term capital refers to something that has value, or is worth money. Natural capital therefore describes everything in the natural world that provides value to humans. This confused me a little, because isn’t everything that humans have originally from nature? Okay, so whatever is called ‘man-made’ isn’t directly from nature – it has been tampered with – but it had to start somewhere. Human ingenuity allows us take raw materials and create something more valuable, and this is great for the economy – provided we don’t permanently damage the ecosystem that we’re a part of. Nature provides value in obvious ways (we eat food and drink water), subtle ways (trees produce oxygen) and hidden ways. I touched on this in my previous blog – that lesser known benefits of nature are still being explored, and that we take for granted much of what we depend on.

From an engineering perspective, it may seem like some of this stuff is not too relevant. Engineers do calculations and build things, at least according to the stereotype. But what I want to emphasise is that all of it is everyone’s problem. Different fields of expertise such as anthropology, physiology, psychology are all part of ecological economics. There is so much more potential to increase the quality of the economy if the integration of these parts is improved, and a collective effort is made to create the future we want.

In the next instalment I aim to apply what I’ve learned about ecological economics to develop a business case for an ecological engineering project, so stay tuned for that!

 

Urban biodiversions

I used this link for facts about the graceful sun moth.

So what is this blog all about? Biodiversity is a term that is thrown around a lot. The word is a contraction of biological diversity, and most people would understand this to mean the variety of plants and animal species that can be found in any given environment. It is also common belief that biodiversity is good for the world; of course we want more birds in the sky! However, to truly appreciate this concept and give it the attention it deserves, a more in-depth and thorough understanding is needed on a much wider scale. I hope to use this blog to increase awareness of biodiversity and other ecological issues, and discuss how these can be applied to influence engineering and design in the future.

There is in fact more to biodiversity than just increasing the quantity and variety of living things. The secret lies in how these things interact with each other. An ecosystem depends on many complex relationships between its inhabitants in order to maintain its health. An important concept is that biodiversity provides stability in the face of unpredictable change, explained nicely by this video:

As mentioned in the video, biodiversity is generally broken down into three types: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity.  This page provides a helpful breakdown of these levels.

Genetic diversity refers to the variation within the genes of a particular species. Humans are very well conditioned to identifying genetic variations within their own species. You can’t deny that the variety of shapes, sizes and colours that make each of us a unique individual are fascinating, and it certainly makes it easier to recognise people you’ve met before! However, the benefits of having a large gene pool go much deeper. Genetic variations result in evolution, allowing populations to adapt under changing conditions. This ability to deal with sudden disturbances makes me think of the impressive manoeuvring performed by a school of fish under attack.

Image credit: Popsugar

This feat in itself has likely developed from years of genetic variations. The result being what seems like a perfectly choreographed dance, but in reality is purely instinctual behaviour, fine-tuned through evolution – nature’s own version of rehearsals. I’ve found that once you become aware of genetic diversity and its implications, it’s impossible not to see it everywhere. Think of a classroom full of people with different backgrounds, ideas and personalities – although the analogy is a bit of a stretch, they could be thought of as a healthy ecosystem, better equipped to tackle challenging assignments by combining their knowledge!

Species diversity is what seems to be most commonly associated with the term biodiversity, referring literally to the number of species within an ecosystem. Both the environmental conditions and genetic diversities influence the diversity of species. At a higher level is ecology diversity, which not only deals with the complex relationships between each of the species in an environment, but also between communities and ecosystems. The exact nature of these interactions is largely unknown, an idea that is emphasised in an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy about biodiversity. This uncertainty means that humans should be especially careful about interfering with ecosystems, as the removal of certain species as a result of our actions may have more severe repercussions than originally expected.

If you are reading this blog, there’s a good chance you would agree that it is morally criminal for humans to be apathetic towards ecosystems that have existed far longer than ourselves, and cause other species to become extinct through our actions. It could definitely be argued that humans have a responsibility to replenish the resources we consume and avoid causing ecological imbalance. The problem is that this case isn’t strong enough to convince people on a large scale. There needs to be a tangible benefit to the human race. Here are some responses by biologists to the question:

“What is the point in preserving endangered species that have no practical use to humans, apart from their aesthetic appeal or their intellectual interest to biologists?”

From a purely logical standpoint, while cold-heartedly dismissing the beauty and romance of the natural world, protecting species still makes sense. Biodiversity plays an important role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, which in turn provide us with essential resources that are taken for granted. These systems can generate oxygen, purify waste, regulate the climate, produce fertile ground for crops and provide protection against natural disasters. One thing that needs to be appreciated more is soil. We walk all over it every day, but really there’s a lot going on beneath the surface. Check out this infographic, and ponder why soil means ‘to make dirty’, despite its incredible cleansing properties.

Image credit: FAO

Biodiversity also has many important health benefits, including providing food security, proving resources for medical research, and regulating infectious diseases. A famous example of the importance of genetic variety is the Great Potato Famine in 19th Century Ireland. At the time they depended heavily on a particular variety of potato nicknamed the Lumper. A blight infestation wiped out a large proportion of the food supply, and the potatoes had no ability to adapt as they were genetically identical. In three years 1/8th of Ireland’s population died of starvation. Who knows what will happen if biodiversity degradation continues along with depletion of natural resources. Could you see yourself in a future powered by exercise bikes?

Image credit: fishsticktheatre

So how can we apply principles about biodiversity to the engineering design process, in order to support a healthy ecology and improve sustainability? Before starting this blog, and having little knowledge of the subject, I had an idea about how urban areas could be redesigned to better accommodate ecological systems. I realised that cities tended to be built wherever seemed most useful for humans, with only superficial (if any) consideration given to integrating with the existing environment. I was concerned that too many of the links within this complex network were being severed. We were driving roads and infrastructure between woodlands and rivers that once supported each other, as each environment flowed seamlessly onto the next.

In order to preserve the relationships between ecosystems, I thought that new cities could be designed as a cluster of islands enveloped by a sprawling web of the existing habitat. This is not unlike the fascinating layouts of cities such as Venice and Braavos.

Image credit: Wikia

For example, in Australia the canals could be replaced by paths of vegetation that connect areas of bushland. This relates to the ecological principle of designing for site-specific context, meaning that a unique solution would be required for a given geographical location and climate. Ideally this design concept could be implemented to combat the process known as habitat fragmentation. The challenge lies in converting this rather romantic idea into a practical solution. A number of questions need to be answered first – What happens to the road network that we so heavily rely on? Can we justify making infrastructure less compact while the human population is growing? Is it viable to have wildlife living in such close proximity to human dwellings? These questions only scratch the surface.

As habitats are divided into smaller fragments, species can become isolated, thus reducing their genetic diversity. This increases their susceptibility to inbreeding, and vulnerability in the face of changing climate conditions and invasions by introduced species. An influential works called the Theory of Island Biogeography found that smaller islands had a greater rate of species extinction than larger, more ecologically diverse islands. It has been logically inferred that similar trends would occur in habitats that have been fragmented by humans. Another consequence of habitat fragmentation is increased edge effects, which refers to the different conditions that arise at the edge of a habitat. For example, a road being placed through a forest will change the temperature and brightness of the surrounding area. This can significantly affect the proportions of species within the ecosystem, while at the same time inhibiting migration.

Image credit: EEA

Ecosystems around the world take on so many different forms, so again it is important to clarify that a one-size fits all solution is impossible. If we had a chance to redesign cities from scratch, I’m sure we could find a better way of integrating with the surrounding environment. However in reality, it seems a feasible solution would need to be designed around existing systems. The concept of a city of islands may seem fanciful, but I believe it could still be applicable on a smaller scale. Increasing the amount and variety of plants between roads, on nature strips or even on rooftops can have important ecological benefits. In same cases complete interconnectivity would be extremely difficult, so reducing the distances between habitats could still facilitate species migration. Perhaps there should be regulation on the use of artificial lawn and pavement, which is increasingly replacing areas of vegetation?

The use of wildlife corridors or green corridors to connect ecosystems is not a completely new idea. According to the National Wildlife Corridors Plan, these could provide:

“Diverse, connected and healthy landscapes that support and sustain biodiversity, communities and wellbeing”

Image credit: First for Wildlife

Not everyone is sold on the idea however, with one opposing argument being the potentially high costs involved. I believe there needs to be more education on the ecological benefits of increasing biodiversity, as these extend far further than just sentimental value. An example of a large-scale wildlife corridor is the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, which is essentially a natural land bridge between North America and South America. Mesoamerica (meso- means ‘middle’ out of interest) has such an extensive range of unique habitats that an estimated 10% of the world’s known species live there! The wildlife corridor was designed to support migration across the thriving ecosystem without interfering with human development.

The relationship between engineering design and ecological health is clearly mutually beneficial, and worth exploring further. I think that with enough knowledge and understanding humans can come up with better ways to reach new heights without destroying their surroundings.

Feel free to leave a comment with any thoughts or feedback, and don’t forget to follow this blog for more ecological engineering discussions!