i think i know why construction costs in seattle are more than double what they are in munich or berlin...

that our land use codes and design review boards effectively require and enforce more expensive designs like this is *asinine*

it is also climate arson

all of those planar shifts significantly increase the surface area of the project.

compactness is directly proportional to envelope performance. the less compact a project is, the more insulation is required to meet or exceed the energy code.

https://www.nhbcfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NF-72-NHBC-Foundation_Shape-and-Form.pdf

that increased insulation? it comes at both an economic cost, as well as a carbon cost.

especially since here in the US we do not have many viable options for zero or low carbon insulation for multistory buildings.

but that's not the only problem related to carbon

all of those massing shifts? they require more and beefier structural components than a compact project requires.

these structural components are also thermal bridges in the envelope - increasing energy flows v. a normal wall.

again, this isn't the only carbon increase due to bad massing.

all of those planar shifts? they increase the fassade area as well.

this results in an increase in embodied carbon due to wall framing, WRB, insulation, and finish.

but increased embodied and operational carbon aren't the only problems w/ the planar shifts.

every time a building has to turn a corner, costs are added. new details are required, more flashing, more materials, more complicated roofing.

this results in increased planning costs, increased construction costs, and increased maintenance costs.

all of those jogs also increase the risk for water issues down the road.

we need a land use code that legalizes and encourages *more* compact buildings.

this results in less expensive projects that require less embodied carbon to construct, and much less energy to operate.

this is the opposite of what we have. does the council care? builders?

we need a zoning code that encourages dumb boxes.

tall, energy efficient, mass timber, passivhaus ones.

a lot of them.

and at scale. https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/08/22/in-praise-of-dumb-boxes/