Interesting article on the background to the rejection by the UK government of the Tulip scheme (305m tall tower to be built next to the Gherkin).
Whilst the focus of the article is very much on how environmental arguments can scupper new high rise schemes, my key takeaway is how the embodied carbon debate surrounding demolition/construction will inevitably become increasingly relevant for any future large scale development.
There is a clear dilemma here, in that no matter how good the operating carbon and sustainability stats of a new building may be, from a planning perspective its approval may still fall down if the stats are not good enough to offset against the carbon cost of constructing the building and demolishing any existing structures on site.
This is another example of how in a comparatively short period of time, ESG in real estate has moved from an aspirational "nice to have/observe", to a regime that demands actions as opposed to words.
At the heart of the controversy over the Tulip decision is how much embodied carbon (the carbon that is used during the construction phase of a building) is acceptable for a new tower. If high-rise buildings come with a higher embodied carbon cost, then their operating carbon (the amount needed to run day-to-day operations such as lighting or heating) needs to be low to compensate. Data from the International Energy Agency has said that no matter how energy efficient the operation of a new building is, it can never compensate for the amount of carbon emitted during construction.
unknownx500
