But they won’t. They’ll act like they’re missing out on their extra bonus on top of their millions because everyone doing WFH owes them equity while they brag about how they’re valuable risk takers.
I’d really hate to live in a building like that. My friend was a manager at one and while it was super cool when I visited, it was also pretty loud and busy.
Housing I can see, but i’ve never really seen the appeal of vertical farms.
Even the cheapest possible high rise construction is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than some random patch of dirt. Your also going to have a problem using a lot of heavy machinery, which means a lot of unnecessary and very long hour hard labor. All of this to cut down on the energy used in transportation, but the energy needed to move the train car from the field to the city is tiny compared to even just harvesting and planting, much less growing things indoors or off season.
There are many potential economic benefits to vertical farms, but their primary appeal for many is to cut down on land usage to allow for more wildland to replace the farmland.
As far as I know vertical farms are always about growing crops not raising animals. Switching away from eating animals would already free enormous amounts of land for wilderness, without requiring that we stack farms for some reason.
Ok. Yes that is technically true, if everyone stopped eating meat it would also free up lots of agri land in theory. They arent competing ideas.
Eating meat made from crickets, from a non animal meat factory, etc are also possible ways for us to reduce land usage. None of that is really about vertical farms though, and none of that would address plant agri except for feed.
“Stacking farms ‘for some reason’” is an interesting and disrespectful way to engage with my comment providing a reason to do exactly that. That doesn’t give me a good indication that you’re here to engage in good faith.
My point is that vertical agriculture implies a plant based diet. We could already switch to a plant based diet and save most of our agricultural land. Vertical farming basically means getting light from somewhere other than the sun, as the upper floors block the sunlight. So it doesn’t really make sense, and won’t likely save any land. I’m happy to be shown otherwise!
Vertical agriculture is conceptually useful if you consume any amount of plants, or things which eat plants. This is as it turns out, everyone, not just meat eaters
Unfortunately it can be extremely difficult/costly to convert an office building into livable spaces. Taller apartment buildings are basically built around their water and utility infrastructure.
Instead of having a couple bathrooms per floor, you’re going to have to install at least one for every tenant. The pumps that force the water to the top of the office building would have to be swapped for a much larger one that could handle the increase in volume.
You’ve described how much of the world works. It’s almost as if the US has been living in an economic bubble for a long time and suburbs were never the answer.
Pretty sure they just mean that it’s not as easy as just converting former office buildings into livable space, and that developers are not going to want to pay the cost when it can be cheaper to demolish the building and build a brand new apartment building vs renovating the old office building. IMO, fuck what developers think about spending the upfront cost, we need housing 20 years ago now and the suburbs suck; but pointing it out to capitalists isn’t gonna get it done.
Pretty sure they just mean that it’s not as easy as just converting former office buildings into livable space, and that developers are not going to want to pay the cost when it can be cheaper to demolish the building and build a brand new apartment building vs renovating the old office building.
Not only is it more expensive, but a lot of the time it’s just not possible. Why would a developer add enough room in the utility columns to add enough extra space for enough piping to accommodate several times it’s original projected water consumption?
Add in local ordinance such as the increased fire protections required for multi family homes and you’ll begin to see some of the inherent problems people like to breeze over.
No, nowhere in the world do they regularly convert sky scraping office buildings into housing.
I wasn’t saying it’s costly or hard to build a tall residential building, just that the way the office and residential building are built are fundamentally different.
There’s quite a lot of interest - and action- inside the industry surrounding conversions. I’m on the structural side and have probably seen 3-4 articles in trade rags over the past quarter about strategies and opportunities in conversions. IT may not be feasible everywhere it for every budding, but the industry (including suppliers and designers) are interested enough that it’s part of the discussion on a regular basis.
Oh, I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of talk about it. It’s one of those Hail Mary ideas that would be easy to market if someone could make it profitable .
I could see it happen for older, not so tall buildings. I just have a hard time seeing someone turn office space in a glass sky scraper into up to code housing. Even ignoring the inherent engineering problems, just figuring out the fire safety for something like that would be maddening.
Why would the volume of water be much greater? Aren’t those bathrooms made for an office full of people to use, shouldn’t the amount of water going through the pipes be similar?
Good. Replace them with housing. And or vertical farms.
But they won’t. They’ll act like they’re missing out on their extra bonus on top of their millions because everyone doing WFH owes them equity while they brag about how they’re valuable risk takers.
Someone should tell them that taking risks sometime means you lose
That would be pretty neat to alternate floors with housing and farms. You could even do community gardens for each floor.
I’d really hate to live in a building like that. My friend was a manager at one and while it was super cool when I visited, it was also pretty loud and busy.
If they could do a ‘vertical version’ of what Barcelona does in some way that would be neat
Housing I can see, but i’ve never really seen the appeal of vertical farms.
Even the cheapest possible high rise construction is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than some random patch of dirt. Your also going to have a problem using a lot of heavy machinery, which means a lot of unnecessary and very long hour hard labor. All of this to cut down on the energy used in transportation, but the energy needed to move the train car from the field to the city is tiny compared to even just harvesting and planting, much less growing things indoors or off season.
There are many potential economic benefits to vertical farms, but their primary appeal for many is to cut down on land usage to allow for more wildland to replace the farmland.
As far as I know vertical farms are always about growing crops not raising animals. Switching away from eating animals would already free enormous amounts of land for wilderness, without requiring that we stack farms for some reason.
Ok. Yes that is technically true, if everyone stopped eating meat it would also free up lots of agri land in theory. They arent competing ideas.
Eating meat made from crickets, from a non animal meat factory, etc are also possible ways for us to reduce land usage. None of that is really about vertical farms though, and none of that would address plant agri except for feed.
“Stacking farms ‘for some reason’” is an interesting and disrespectful way to engage with my comment providing a reason to do exactly that. That doesn’t give me a good indication that you’re here to engage in good faith.
My point is that vertical agriculture implies a plant based diet. We could already switch to a plant based diet and save most of our agricultural land. Vertical farming basically means getting light from somewhere other than the sun, as the upper floors block the sunlight. So it doesn’t really make sense, and won’t likely save any land. I’m happy to be shown otherwise!
Vertical agriculture is conceptually useful if you consume any amount of plants, or things which eat plants. This is as it turns out, everyone, not just meat eaters
Unfortunately it can be extremely difficult/costly to convert an office building into livable spaces. Taller apartment buildings are basically built around their water and utility infrastructure.
Instead of having a couple bathrooms per floor, you’re going to have to install at least one for every tenant. The pumps that force the water to the top of the office building would have to be swapped for a much larger one that could handle the increase in volume.
You’ve described how much of the world works. It’s almost as if the US has been living in an economic bubble for a long time and suburbs were never the answer.
Pretty sure they just mean that it’s not as easy as just converting former office buildings into livable space, and that developers are not going to want to pay the cost when it can be cheaper to demolish the building and build a brand new apartment building vs renovating the old office building. IMO, fuck what developers think about spending the upfront cost, we need housing 20 years ago now and the suburbs suck; but pointing it out to capitalists isn’t gonna get it done.
Developers will always waste resources and harm the environment for money. It’s their job.
Not only is it more expensive, but a lot of the time it’s just not possible. Why would a developer add enough room in the utility columns to add enough extra space for enough piping to accommodate several times it’s original projected water consumption?
Add in local ordinance such as the increased fire protections required for multi family homes and you’ll begin to see some of the inherent problems people like to breeze over.
No, nowhere in the world do they regularly convert sky scraping office buildings into housing.
I wasn’t saying it’s costly or hard to build a tall residential building, just that the way the office and residential building are built are fundamentally different.
Shared bathrooms are often used.
Not to mention that some jurisdictions require windows in every bedroom, so you end up with some very weird layouts.
That’s for houses. You’re not expected to egress through the window when you live on the 20th floor.
There’s quite a lot of interest - and action- inside the industry surrounding conversions. I’m on the structural side and have probably seen 3-4 articles in trade rags over the past quarter about strategies and opportunities in conversions. IT may not be feasible everywhere it for every budding, but the industry (including suppliers and designers) are interested enough that it’s part of the discussion on a regular basis.
Oh, I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of talk about it. It’s one of those Hail Mary ideas that would be easy to market if someone could make it profitable .
I could see it happen for older, not so tall buildings. I just have a hard time seeing someone turn office space in a glass sky scraper into up to code housing. Even ignoring the inherent engineering problems, just figuring out the fire safety for something like that would be maddening.
Why would the volume of water be much greater? Aren’t those bathrooms made for an office full of people to use, shouldn’t the amount of water going through the pipes be similar?
Have you ever seen 100 showers going at the same time in an office building? Because that happens every 07:00 in an apartment building.
People in offices are not showering and running dishwashers three times a day.
No