Event Partners

GOLD SPONSOR

Nomination Deadline:

PRESENTED BY are influenced by one criteria only – the informed decision that they are truly the best-in-class.

We look forward to honouring your business.

Judged By Professionals

Built around the concept of transparency and clarity, the awards are decided upon by an independent panel of judges from across the spectrum of the industry.

Given that the awards are targeted at the digital construction technology industry, the editorial team take considerable efforts to ensure that nominees are assessed by the appropriate experts who have a chance to assess nominations both individually, and in a group discussion. This ensures that winners are chosen on the basis of the work they do over the course of the year, and on the reputations, they develop with the industry.

At CPI Trade Media, we are proud to state that our awards are unbiased, transparent and fair, with no external influences on the decisionmaking process.

Get

Contact

Award Nomination Enquiries

Gavin Davids | +971 4 375 5480 gavin.davids@cpitrademedia.com

Table Booking & Sponsorship

Raed Kaedbey | +971 4 375 5715 raed.kaedbey@cpitrademedia.com

SUPPORTING PARTNER BRONZE SPONSOR

SUPPORTING PARTNER

SUPPORTING PARTNER

PRESENTED BY

PRESENTED BY

SUPER-TALL & SUSTAINABLE: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?

As more and more buildings inspire and amaze as they cross the 600m threshold, Middle East Consultant asks “can they also be sustainable?” hen it comes to building super-tall, the rest of the world is hot on the heels of the UAE: a glimpse at lists of the world’s 10 tallest buildings shows that the Burj Khalifa (still the tallest of all, of course) is now the UAE’s sole representative amongst the highest of the high, with huge advances now being made in cities such as Seoul and Kuala Lumpur. Yet the question remains: is all this building super-tall a good thing? Can super-tall structures ever meet new-generation requirements such as meeting sustainability standards? After all, the old argument in their favourthat building skyscrapers relieves the pressure on urban settings with high population density - is completely unfounded: the world’s super-tall structures aren’t offering shelter to the urban masses, but rather, providing elite, upscale dwellings for the wealthy, or uber-HQs for Fortune 500 businesses. Is the game up for the super-talls? Middle East Consultant spoke to ‘Tomorrow. City’ to find out.

First things first. There’s no doubt that we like building tall, and we like it more and more. According to a report by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, between 1930 and 2010 (80 years) the first 50 skyscrapers in the world were built, while during the fiveyear period from 2010 to 2015, 50 more were built. It seems to be an unstoppable boom, but how is the useful life of a building measured? And specifically that of a skyscraper?

The architecture and construction sectors are guided by ISO standard 15686, which takes into account factors such as materials, the energy used, and the construction systems, among many others.

As the years have gone by, the structure of skyscrapers has gone from being exclusively reinforced concrete to the use of materials such as steel and glass. Other, more sustainable, materials such as wood are already being used; and now, there are even projects being designed that seem to take their life from a science fiction movie, proposing completely self-sufficient structural skeletons that use materials such as organically-grown and extruded nano-fibres. The reality is, though, that these are still more than a decade away from becoming a reality.

So the question remains: given the current state of play, are skyscrapers beneficial for the environment?

The answer, according to the study ‘Decoupling density from tallness in analyzing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of cities' (F. Pomponi, R. Saint, J. Arehart, N. Gharavi, Urban Sustainability, 2021), is no. The conclusion reached by researchers is that a chain of skyscrapers generates 140% more total emissions during their service life compared with an area with lower buildings with the same number of inhabitants.

The reason behind this is that skyscrapers require heavier structures, thicker foundations and greater use of materials with a higher carbon footprint than lower buildings heights of 400, 600 or 800 meters. This substantially increases the carbon footprint, not just in terms of sheer quantity of components, but in the way that the inclusion of elements providing better tensile and compactible qualities means the use of more energy-absorbing processes. There is also more and more evidence that super-talls interfere with climate. Grouping together skyscrapers in the same urban area causes heat islands since, when temperatures are high, the heat becomes trapped between the street level and the buildings, preventing the temperature from cooling naturally when then Sun goes down.

What is the solution then? For existing skyscrapers, the solution is to refurbish them and adapt them to current standards. There are already some examples. The Empire State Building, one of the architectural icons of New York, completed in 1931 and standing 443m tall, was refurbished a few years ago. It now enjoys annual energy cost savings of up to 38%, which earned it a LEED certification.

There’s another factor, too. The more wind there is, the better the air quality, as it blows away particles that cause pollution. However, cities with little natural ventilation and with a high number of skyscrapers and narrow streets, lead to what is known as the ‘valley effect’. In this situation, toxic agents become trapped in the upper layers. This occurs in Hong Kong, for example, where the presence of skyscrapers along the coast blocks the sea breeze, increasing pollution, and in the financial district of Shanghai, which boasts the third and fourth highest buildings in the world.

BUT SURELY THERE ARE ADVANTAGES?

ENVIRONMENTAL DISADVANTAGES:

THE

THE TALLER THEY ARE, THE GREATER THE POLLUTION Building high means using more materials that must be robust enough to withstand

Yes of course. There is the ‘all in one’ factor - whereby having different uses and activities in one building concentrates more people and therefore, skyscraper advocates argue, this helps to compact various activities in one place, which would normally be spread across various buildings.

Also, in Europe, for example, buildings account for around 40% of all energy consumed, and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions. So, does it not make sense to build less but build tall?

The answer is ‘possibly’. But if we’re going to build super-tall, these structures should undoubtedly be designed and built in accordance with more solid sustainability criteria. In terms of materials, there are radical solutions on the horizon, with the possible use of organically-grown and extruded nano-fibres of the kind that aerospace manufacturers such as Airbus will be using by the 2040s. There are even schools of thought which propose that skyscrapers should have an intrinsically environmental (or at least social) function.

Then again, there is good old-fashioned wood. While no-one is proposing that we can use wood as a structural material to build super-tall, it can certainly be used satisfactorily for relatively high structures. Let’s not forget that trees themselves can grow to heights exceeding 150m. The Mjostarnet building in Norway, at 85.4m, is one of the tallest timber buildings in the world. This material has a neutral or even negative carbon footprint, if we take into account the CO2 absorbed by the trees.

The reality is, alternative structural materials are emerging, but perhaps not quickly enough to give a very positive answer to whether super-talls can be sustainable. There are also economic constraints: super-talls as a form of social housing, de-pressuring intensely-packed urban communities - and truly pulling their weight int terms of social purpose - are currently the stuff of pipe dreams. Who’s going to pay for social enterprise in such a pricey format?

We can look at the likes of Merdeka 118 and Lotte World Tower with a sense of wonder: but for the time being, that won’t be accompanied by a reassurance that we’re doing the planet any good along the way.