World’s Tallest Wooden Building Will Be Built In Vienna
Originally published on Green Building Elements.
Vienna will soon be home to the world’s tallest wooden building. Designed by Rüdiger Lainer and Partner, the so-called HoHo project will be built in the Seestadt Aspern area, one of Europe’s largest urban development sites. It will stand 276 feet tall and house a hotel, restaurant, and wellness center together with apartments and offices. It will cost about $65 million to construct.
Project developer Caroline Palfy, of Kerbler, tells The Guardian that her firm chose wood because of its environmental benefits. “I think it is important everyone…thinks in different ways. We have wood, which is a perfect construction material for building,” she said. “It was used 200 years ago and it was perfect then and is perfect now.”
76% of the building expected to be made from wood. Unlike concrete, which adds significantly to carbon emissions, wood from sustainable forests absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequesters it for the entirety of a building’s life. The architects say the HoHo tower will save 2,800 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions compared with a similar concrete structure. That’s the equivalent of driving a conventional car 25 miles every day for 1,300 years.
The idea of such a large wooden building has not met with universal applause. In particular, the Vienna fire service says it was not consulted before plans for the building were announced. “The main factor is that everyone wants to build higher and higher buildings. An 84-meter-high building in Europe is not usual and there are a lot of necessities that have to be realized,” said fire service spokesman Christian Wegner. “A few of us were upset because it was crazy to present an idea like this that has not been discussed with everyone yet.”
“They have to carry out special tests on the correct combination of concrete and wood. We also want to develop a more fail-safe sprinkler system. I expect they will pass the tests but if they develop the building as they say they will, it will be a serious project.”
Worldwide, commercial buildings made of wood are gaining acceptance as architects, developers, and municipal officials seek ways to reduce the carbon footprint of new construction in cities.
Reprinted with permission.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
So, next question: where does the wood come from?
This missing forest.
” wood from sustainable forests”
The building should sequester carbon for many decades. The trees that grow where these were removed will capture more carbon from the atmosphere.
“76% of the building expected to be made from wood. Unlike concrete, which adds significantly to carbon emissions, wood from sustainable forests absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequesters it for the entirety of a building’s life. The architects say the HoHo tower will save 2,800 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions compared with a similar concrete structure. That’s the equivalent of driving a conventional car 25 miles every day for 1,300 years.”
We know that harvesting wood isn’t totally sustainable. Soil is disturbed and often compacted. Nutrients are removed from the forest with the wood. Most carbon is stored underground, and some of that is lost.
Not saying, I don’t like the idea, as long as fire issues are resolved. Its just that nothing we can do is 100% environmentally benign, and we should be honest about that. We also shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
That’s writing “sustainable” with a very sharp pencil.
Trees may grow slower in a harvested than virgin forest. (We see that around here.) But that does not mean that tree harvesting is not sustainable.
“Most carbon is stored underground, and some of that is lost.”
That actually argues for harvesting. Cut a mature tree and the roots stay behind, trapping atmospheric carbon below surface. Grow another tree in that place and sequester another round of atmospheric carbon.
“We also shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.”
Boy, Howdy….
Wood is a great material for building with. I’m shocked at how little the rest of the world, especially Europe (outside of parts of scandenavia) uses it. Although I have to say, Europe is recently leading the way in building some crazy aggressive structures in terms of height and span with it. I hope they are able to avoid the pitfalls of the potential for major structural fire during construction and detail the fireblocking correctly, IMHO, these oddball structures and techniques they are working with are innovative, but erase some of the huge cost benefits of american-style western framing.
It’s pretty easy to build very strong and durable wood structures up to 60 feet high by using wood construction (with a little Simpson Strongtie help). With the advent of Weyerhouser’s cheap PSL beams, at 60 feet and lower, by almost any value-engineered metric (cost, CO2, lateral strength, ability to modify, fire resistance, insulatability) wood framing can easily beat concrete, masonry, and steel as long as the spans are under 70 feet. With the invention of PSL, I think few commericial buildings in the US should be made out of anything but wood anymore. I even think skyscrapers should basically be concrete/steel scaffolds that are basically foundations for 4 storey 50′ wood sections using western platform framing.
Longer term, China and Africa will need a lot more housing and construction in the next few decades. Wood, probably a lot supplied from USA and Canada can meet these needs. The only thing I’m not sure about is how wood can stackup to tropical pests … south florida is the one place in US where concrete has a foothold for houses.
By that measure, no farming is sustainable, and yet we’ve been at it for 13,000 years – admittedly with some fails.
It’s sustainable if it’s repeatable to infinity – which is not the same as ‘leaving in pristine condition’.
North America has been growing much more wood than it has been harvesting for decades. It’s true that tree plantations are a big distortion of a unadulterated natural forrest that lies untouched, but it’s not too bad compared to other forms of agriculture and we’re getting loads better at managing it in a way that minimizes the impact. With OSB and PSL, we are able to use much more of the junk trees than ever before too, so we’re getting a lot more out of each forrest without having to go after the old growth forests for big wood structures anymore.
“So, next question: where does the wood come from?”
have you ever checked the INCREASE of mass of wood in Austria or central Europe? What is your point?
My point of course is that a lot of wood on the market comes from old growth forests, especially in western parts of Russia. Good to hear that Austria has a lot of woods themselves
In general younger, rapidly growing trees sequester more carbon.
We need to maintain some old growth and mature forests for biodiversity but putting mature wood into buildings and growing new trees in the space where the mature trees were growing would seem to be at least some small help in lowering CO2.
There’s some newer thinking on the carbon sequestration of younger versus older trees. Here’s the first random link on it my search pulled up:
http://science.time.com/2014/01/15/study-shows-older-trees-absorb-more-carbon/
It may not be the last word, but it’s a recent word…
I’ve read that. At the end it says –
“Still, on a forest by forest as opposed to tree by tree basis, youth does beat age, with younger stands of trees sequestering more carbon overall than ones near retirement age.”
And, as I said, “In general”. There are exceptions.
This building will sequester carbon for many decades and then? If the building is torn down and the wood reused it is still sequestered but this does not last forever. Sooner, or in this case later, that carbon will be released. Unless you count the wood in a precious violin almost all wood carbon will be released.
Therefore storing carbon via forests or buildings is a false long term solution.
It’s an every little bit helps plus avoided concrete and steel CO2 solution.
OMG, we are talking about rates of CO2 release and consumption. Of course adding biomass is a net gain in the interesting time window of 50-100 years.
And the torn down building can substitute for fuel in power plants.