Greener Architecture
In a recent post, Green Architecture, I asked why more buildings (specifically skyscrapers) were not incorporating more wind turbines into their designs. It seems to make sense that taller structures that are naturally more “wind-resistant”, should do something to harness at least some of that energy.
Well, I’ve managed to find some more. I particularly like the Pearl River Tower, Guangzhou, China (SOM), due for completion in 2009. (71 storey, 303 meters). The huge vents are designed to accelerate the wind on its way to the turbines, providing power for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. The structure also makes use of radiant slabs, microturbines, geothermal heat sinks, ventilated façades, waterless urinals and integrated photovoltaics.
The designers began by reducing the building’s energy consumption through a combination of the building’s site orientation, a high-performance building envelope, daylighting, and building control systems. By rotating to the east, the tower takes advantage of midday sun while the effects of late-day sun on the larger, southern horizontal exposure are minimized. The south facade’s low-E-glass, double-layer curtain-wall system reduces heat gain, which leads to less demand on the HVAC systems.–
A building that is not dependent on the National Grid, that’s healthier to live and work in, and that, in the long-term, is less expensive to maintain. So why aren’t there more of them?
And now for the irony: this brilliantly green structure was commissioned by none other than the Guangdong Tobacco Company (CNTC).
6 Comments, Comment or Trackback
David Airey :: Creative Design ::
What an excellent piece of architecture.
I think that we will see more, but not fast enough and not on a large enough scale to make a real difference.
Jun 24th, 2007
inspirationbit
It’s very impressive. I didn’t even know that such buildings exist.
Do you know if those kind of buildings cost more to actually build? Does it take longer to be build?
Unfortunately, most people don’t like to invest in future, they want to get it all and they want to get it now.
Jun 24th, 2007
johno
Vivien
Yes, they can cost considerably more, and construction times are generally longer. But you’re right: it’s about investment and thinking of the long term. I guess that we will only see an acceleration of these builds through government-sponsored subsidies. Not that government is wholly to blame; the majority of shareholders want their dividends today.
David
I think that you’re right. There just aren’t enough of these to really make a dent in the problem. I think it’s also noteworthy that many of this tower is being constructed in China. Surely Europe and the US and Japan should, as highly industrialised nations (read, “rich”), be leading the way(?)
Jun 25th, 2007
LaurenMarie - Creative Curio
It’s a beautiful piece of work, too, besides the fact that it’s green. It’s memorable and it’s a nice relief for the eyes from the tall, square, boring, typical skyscrapers. It reminds me of the campaign for web standards; in the long run standards (and green architecture) is more beneficial and less costly to maintain!
Jun 26th, 2007
johno
Thanks, Lauren
Yes. it’s beautiful. I love those vents!
Have just found an interesting Wall Street Journal piece, Eco-Architecture Takes Hold in Asia, that makes for interesting reading.
Jun 26th, 2007
Architectural Illustrators
Wow, what a system. This is really the cutting edge of what we need to see a lot more of going into the next decade.
I read you saying it costs a lot more to design this way. I’m not sure it should. Design is design. Is there loss of income potential? Does this balance out with energy created, therefore saved?
I’m not sure how this can cost more seeing that it is all construction, albeit, perhaps not traditional.
Dec 17th, 2007
Reply to “Greener Architecture”