Report a Comment

"If you want to focus on other matters, start your own blog. Demanding that other people focus on your interests, but refusing to write anything on those things yourself, seems inappropriate to me." Holly defensivness, batman!

I thought Jazzy's questions were not only incredibly on point, but the questions themselves begin the discussion as often happens on this lovley blog site. How high apartment buildings should be has everything to do with 'fighting global warming, by increasing usage of transit, walking and biking'.

To Jazzys excellent points, it seems incredibly wise to prepare for a world where power might become inconsistent becasue of the increasing frequency of extreme weather amongst other factors. Just like the New Urbanists who found the 5-10 minute walk an ideal distance based on our habits, a 4-6 story height seemed to be the limit before the elevator became ubiqutous. Not that you couldn't go a bit higher, but that's not where the elderly would reside. The floor plans and how the air flow works ought to be considered also to allow for maximum functionality, should we not have power on demand. This would probably call for good sized air-courts, and open floor plans. Even tall punched windows with deep walls have some benefits during extreme weather. However much techno-fairy dust is sprinkled on new glass curtain walled systems, they will never stack up against a thick masonry wall in terms of cooling and retaining heat to disipate at night. Using concrete on the exterior (in lieu of marble blocks:) would also minimize reliance on hightech caulk joints that inevitably fail over time and once water gets hold of the metal hooks behind a glass skin, you'll end up with another East Wing disaster.

Many concerned people have been looking at these issues for some time know, and while they don't seem to stem directly from transit issues, they factor into the larger picture of sustainability and quality of life for all Washingtonians.

by Thayer-D on Jul 9, 2012 7:35 am • link • report