The Elephant(s) in the City

Let's talk about building better buildings

Housekeeping note: I’ll be experimenting with a new publication schedule over the next few weeks as I work on a few side projects. Ideally it’ll still come out to ~2 CityBits/month but apologies in advance for any confusion!

Today’s read is ~5-7 minutes long

---

Hi all,

Today we’ll be talking about one of a city’s most recognizable parts: skyscrapers. These towering structures have been a staple in almost all major metropolitan areas ever since the first skyscraper (the Home Insurance Building) was built in Chicago back in 1885.¹

However, as iconic as they are, with the specter of climate change looming over pretty much everything these days, many cities have begun efforts to make skyscrapers (and the construction of them) more sustainable, affordable, and resilient.

In this update I’ll explain the efforts that some cities are taking to modernize skyscrapers, what advantages/disadvantages each method has, and why it even matters in the first place. As always, this analysis will be lightly seasoned with historical examples and memes. Let’s dive in.

What’s wrong with current buildings?

To start with, why do cities care about modernizing their buildings in the first place? Well, a lot of these buildings are, to use the scientific term, old as shit. And that means that their utilities and the way they manage/monitor energy usage are similarly, old as shit (OAS).

My grandparents are actually super progressive but you get what I’m saying

Now being old isn’t always bad², but in this case it means that these OAS buildings are rife with outdated heating or cooling systems (that often use fossil fuels) or lack smart monitoring/energy management technology. This leads to a lot inefficient energy usage and/or excess carbon emissions, both problems that could be reduced with more modern technology or monitoring systems.

And this issue is particularly pertinent with skyscrapers because their sheer size also leads to a lot more emissions. For example, in Boston, MA, 60% of all building emissions come from just 4% of structures, all of which are over 20,000 sq. ft. Buildings (big and small) account for ~40% of all US energy consumption, and roughly the same percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, so tackling skyscrapers first is a huge step towards reducing overall building emissions. It’s not that skyscrapers are all bad (their size leads to plenty of economic and spatial efficiencies!) but many of them definitely could be made more eco-friendly.

So you might be thinking at this point “blah blah blah, another sustainability-focused CityBits article. We get it, the environment is important.”

Well… yes, it is important, so there’s a sizeable sustainability case for modernizing buildings, but there are other arguments as well.

• Cost efficiency: An ACEEE report found that 27% of buildings (60% if we use government subsidies) could be electrified and recoup costs within 10 years.

• Job creation: Creating green energy jobs is an increasingly real phenomenon, and one study found that an estimated 62,000-104,000 jobs³ could be created annually just in the state of California alone.

• Public health benefits: Modernizing buildings also reduces the negative health externalities that come with these 80 year old heating/cooling systems using fuel inefficiently or producing excess emissions. New York City’s recent gas stove ban might seem like an overreach until you start reading stuff like how children living in homes with gas stoves have a 24%-42% higher chance of developing asthma, or that old-fashioned skyscrapers significantly contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect, which in turn increases the risk of heat-related deaths.

So even if you don’t care about the environment (though you should), there are still economic and public health reasons to modernize buildings as well.

Building buildings better

So how are cities tackling this issue? A lot of the existing efforts focus on electrification, which means converting older, gas-powered utilities (esp. HVAC systems) to electric ones. However, there are a variety of other ways as well which I’ve bucketed into three main categories and tried to explain in layman’s terms below:

1. The first is Preventative: Making sure that any new buildings being built adhere to strict, sustainable standards.

2. Next we have Adaptive: Taking existing buildings and monitoring/managing them more efficiently through smart, sometimes AI-assisted technology.

3. And finally, there are measures that are Comprehensive: Fully gutting old buildings, removing outdated systems, and replacing them with more modern, efficient ones.

Of course many cities are utilizing more than one of these methods, but generally speaking most urban efforts fall into at least one of these categories. Knowing this, let’s take a closer look at each one.

Preventative

Within the preventative bucket, cities are taking a proactive approach and tightening/increasing environmental standards for buildings before they’re even built. Things like New York City banning gas stoves, or Eugene, OR going a step farther and requiring all new building heating systems to be fully electric are examples of preventative measures.

• Pros: Ensures all future buildings will be more sustainable.

• Cons: Increases costs to developers (potentially) and doesn’t address issues in existing buildings. Also can be politically unpopular.

While useful when it comes to building codes, this tactic ^ is actually frowned upon when playing with real dominoes just FYI.

Adaptive

Adaptive measures mean that the building is already built, but oopsie daisy they did it 50 years ago and now their appliances, their management systems, or both are outdated and not cutting it anymore. A full gutting/retrofitting is expensive, so using adaptive measures means employing smart monitoring technology to improve building management and energy efficiency. For example, using motion sensor-controlled lighting or having intelligent heating/cooling systems that automatically shut off when it reaches a certain temperature outside. Startups like Verdigris or Mesa, or larger established players like IBM, Cisco, etc.⁴ either work directly with building owners, or sometimes even entire cities, like in Ithaca, NY.

• Pros: Much cheaper than fully renovating a building, also much faster to implement.

• Cons: Sort of a stopgap measure, doesn’t realize as much efficiency as a full renovation. Sometimes requires reliance on 3rd party operators to maintain/monitor systems.

Adaptive measures aren’t a total fix but they are still pretty good! Nobody checks under the rug anyway.

Comprehensive

The last option, comprehensive, involves completely renovating a building’s systems, gutting outdated utilities and replacing them with more efficient (typically) electric ones. This is probably the most effective in the long term, but is also the most costly and time-consuming. It’s almost always easier to build from scratch rather than repair/retrofit an existing system, and that’s especially true when it comes to large buildings, especially if they have active tenants. For example, cities can’t (or shouldn’t) just barge into an apartment complex and rip out tenants’ heating systems as they please.

• Pros: Generally delivers the most positive environmental effects and cost savings in the long term.

• Cons: Huge upfront cost, potentially very disruptive to residents/tenants.

The hardest choices require the strongest wills

Turning theory to practice

So now that we understand these three measures, how do we actually go about implementing them? Preventative measures are pretty straightforward; once they become law developers just have to adhere to those standards.

However, the choice between adaptive (smarter management) vs. comprehensive (full retrofit) measures is oftentimes more open-ended. If a city sets an emissions cap target for the year 2050, it’s sometimes just left up to the private owners to choose how they get there.

And while this might seem like an example of freedom of choice, personally I think it’s reflective of the insufficient support/guidance that often characterizes city governments in this respect. If government wants private actors to do something, they should make it as easy as possible to do so.⁵ This brings me to my final point, what government’s role in all of this should be.

A case for strong government

While it’s admirable that these cities are modernizing their buildings, it’s basically not happening fast enough, or at a large enough scale to truly move the needle on combating climate change. And that isn’t necessarily the fault of private building owners. The reality is these kind of measures take a lot of time, money, and effort, and it’s unrealistic (and arguably unfair) to assume that private owners will, or even can, make the necessary investments to do so on their own. Call me a pessimist but I don’t believe people will really act towards the common good, at their own expense, without significant incentives or direction (source: all of human history).

Therefore it should be on the government to provide a variety of carrots and sticks, specifically in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, or other financial/legal incentives for building owners and property managers to bring their buildings to a more sustainable standard.

Remember earlier when I said that 27% of buildings could recoup electrification costs within 10 years? Well if you add in (relatively modest!) government subsidies and tax breaks, that percentage more than doubles, going up to 60% within 10 years. And again, 10 years is a pretty small amount of time in the entire lifecycle of a building.

If you own a small business and really care about sustainability, you shouldn’t lose money just in order to electrify. That's where government can step in and help. A great example is Denver, CO, where the city has set aggressive emissions targets but is also providing extensive support for building owners such as…

…including incentives for electrification, extra support for buildings in under-resourced communities and a virtual Energize Denver Resource Hub to serve as a one-stop shop to easily understand compliance measures. (source)

Suck an egg Adam Smith

Now, upon hearing this, maybe some of my more conservative or libertarian readers might protest. And I get it, I don’t particularly want an authoritarian government either. But, I also feel that I’ve just outlined pretty clearly why I believe:

1. There is a problem

2. There is a clear way to solve it

3. People are not doing it because it costs them financially or otherwise

In situations like these, government can and should intervene to incentivize more sustainable actions. To quote Michael Malice, “Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit”. I think it’s a great quote, but I would add that:

1. Pretty much no one actually drives the speed limit.

2. Even the most cautious drivers might see a reason to speed every now and then, especially if there’s an emergency. And according to basically. every. credible. scientist. in the world. climate change is an emergency.

We know what the problem is, we know a few different ways to address it, now the onus is on cities (or higher levels of government) to motivate people to start acting on it.

Conclusion

So what did we learn today?

1. A lot of skyscrapers are OAS (old as shit). This leads to inefficient and unsustainable energy usage.

2. There are environmental, economic, and public health benefits to modernizing our buildings and intensifying construction requirements/regulations.

3. Preventative, adaptive, and comprehensive methods of updating buildings are becoming more and more common.

4. These efforts are all good, but more government action is probably necessary to really achieve tangible, large-scale results.

Skyscrapers often shape our very conception of a city, so it makes sense that these vaunted vertical visions would also have important effects on a city’s sustainability, public health, and how residents live and work there. By adopting a combination of preventative, adaptive and comprehensive measures we truly can build better buildings, and it’d be a whole lot easier with some government help along the way.

That’s it for this week! Thanks for reading and as always, please don’t forget to hit the “like” button so I look a lot cooler on LinkedIn.

Love and cities,

-Max

1. That first skyscraper, the Home Insurance Building, was actually demolished in 1931 in order to make way for a larger office space (The Field Building) which still stands today. As a kind of nostalgic/smug measure, The Field Building does contain a plaque that notes the historic significance of that first skyscraper, even though it bulldozed it to build its lobby.

2. Examples of “old” things that are also good include classic rock, aged kimchi, Dame Helen Mirren, Zima, etc.

3. I know 64K to 104K jobs is a huge range but that’s what was presented in the study. Definitely would have made my argument look stronger if I just said “up to 104K jobs ” but that would be dishonest, and I would never lie to you, my CityBuds.

4. Disclaimer: I am unaffiliated with these companies but if they want to send me a t-shirt I wouldn’t say no.

5. The other option is to just not make it a choice at all, which is kind of what preventative measures already are.