Mass Timber Group Show: Sustainable Building Experts

Rethinking Tall Buildings + Mass Timber's Role w/Antony Wood of the CTBUH

• Brady & Nic

Share episode

What's the role of #MassTimber in tall building? Dr. Antony Wood, president of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, shares his expertise on the future of urban #architecture. We start by dissecting the current trends in tall building design, from the uninspired rectilinear boxes to the competing sculptural icons that clutter our city skylines. Dr. Wood argues for a new architectural paradigm that champions sustainability and cultural integration, moving beyond mere technical feats to structures that genuinely enhance our urban environments.

We spotlight the role of regulations and incentives, showcasing successful examples from Europe and Singapore. Plus, get acquainted with the transformative potential of mass timber, a revolutionary material that promises a significant reduction in carbon footprints while offering robust structural integrity. This conversation underscores the urgent need for a carbon-focused economy and long-term urban planning supported by solid political frameworks.

Visit CTBUH's Website

Connect with Antony on LinkedIn

CTBUH Conference

Looking for your mass timber community? Attend the 2025 Mass Timber Group Summit in Denver Co - Aug 20-22nd!

Speaker 1:

But if you look at most tall buildings around the world now, it's the same model because it's a highly efficient. It's an efficient floor plan which is just extruded through 40, 60, 80 stories. I'm not even sure that's architecture, you know. It's just a rectilinear box for maximum financial return on a plot of land. So most tall buildings are designed that way. The second type of approach for tall buildings is tall building is a piece of sculpture. Hey, I want to stand out, I want to be an icon. How many times do we bloody hear that I want to be an icon, you know? And so you get cities. I won't name them, but you get cities where it's just is it a city or is it a zoo? It's like a zoo of competing icons, of these stupid forms, ridiculous forms, and the more they stand out the better.

Speaker 2:

This is the Mass Tumor Group Show. I'm Brady and today I caught up with Dr Anthony Wood, the president of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and a professor in practice at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Anthony unpacked the world of tall buildings for us and shared his vision for the future of sustainable vertical urbanism. And, of course, we also jumped into how Mass Timber can, does and will play a major role in that, including the challenges and opportunities in front of the industry. If you like these podcasts, subscribing to the channel is the biggest compliment you can give us. So with that, let's get into it.

Speaker 1:

Okay, hi, so I'm Anthony Wood. Dr Anthony Wood, I am an architect by background. I'm also a professor of architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology here in Chicago, but my real position, I guess I'm president of the Council on Toll Buildings and Urban Habitat, and that is a organization that's headquartered in Chicago it was founded in 1969. And it's made up of all the people who are designing, constructing and operating toll buildings, and through that, it's not just about toll buildings, it's about future cities and dense cities. So it's not all about height, but it's a nonprofit organization that's made up of all those that are involved in the design, construction and operation of toll buildings and cities around the whole world.

Speaker 2:

What is the impact that you hope to have on the world through this organization?

Speaker 1:

Well, the ultimate impact is to create more sustainable and resilient cities, or more sustainable and resilient patterns of life, not just cities. So when the council was founded in 1969, I described that period as being like the architectural equivalent of walking on the moon. Man was walking on the moon at that time and the council was founded on the back of projects like Sears Tower, chicago, which was the architectural equivalent of walking on the moon. And then the tall building was largely a technical challenge. It was really a structural engineering challenge how high can we go? And the council was founded to spread that learning largely technical learning out around the whole world. 55 years later, I would argue that the tall building is far more of a social and cultural challenge now than it is a technical challenge. There are technical challenges don't get me wrong still in every project, but it's more about their integration and their benefits to society through cities and urban density and how they interact with the ground plan and all those things than really just tall building as object and tall building as an engineering challenge.

Speaker 2:

What do you think we're doing wrong with tall building right now? That needs to be changed.

Speaker 1:

Oh, brady, where do we begin? Where do we begin? Okay, so I lead the council on tall buildings and urban habitat. So, yes, I am rah, rah, rah. Tall buildings on one level, but on another level, I think that 95% of tall buildings are pretty poor pieces of design and perhaps should never have been built. And the reason for that you know.

Speaker 1:

Most tall buildings follow one of two design approaches. They're either big commercial containers, the rectilinear, air-conditioned box. Yeah, I mean, if you look at the work of, let's say, mies van der Rohe in the 1950s these, you know, the first time we saw these glass and steel modernist boxes 1950s, you know, 70 years ago. It was a different time and place. But if you look at most tall buildings around the world now, it's the same model because it's a highly efficient, it's an. It's a an efficient floor plan which is just extruded through 40, 60, 80 stories. I'm not even sure that's architecture, you know it's. You know it's just a rectilinear box for maximum financial return on a plot of land. So most tall buildings are designed that way.

Speaker 1:

The second type of approach for tall buildings is tall building is a piece of sculpture. Hey, I want to stand out, I want to be an icon. How many times do we bloody hear that I want to be an icon, you know? And so you get cities. I won't name them, but you get cities where it's just is it a city or is it a zoo? It's like a zoo of competing icons, of these stupid form, ridiculous forms, and the more they stand out the better.

Speaker 1:

And so what is happening is cities are becoming homogenized. Yeah, they're becoming homogenized, like Starbucks and, you know, mcdonald's is homogenizing the dining experience, and all these cities and the skylines are looking the same. And yet in many of these cities there are hundreds and sometimes thousands of years of vernacular tradition. That's why we travel around the world, you know, because we're interested in the difference between places. So if you look at, you know, the Chinese pagoda, western Cathedral, an Islamic mosque, you know there's local tradition in architecture.

Speaker 1:

All of it was because architecture used to respond to place physically, culturally, climatically, materially, you know. And with the modern movement, that went out the window, the modern movement believed in a universal architecture. And so back to this. 95% of tall buildings, I think, are not great pieces of design because they're either commercial or this ridiculous sculptural icon that are homogenizing cities. And the way forward, in my view, is to get back to the original influences on architecture and create tall buildings that are directly related to place, again, physically, materially, culturally, environmentally. That's one of the key ones. I believe there's a way forward for a Middle Eastern tall building, an Australian tall building, a Chinese tall building, an American tall building, and they're all different as historic architecture was.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I completely agree. Can you point to like an example of a tall building that you think checks all the right boxes?

Speaker 1:

Oh my God, brady, you're asking some today. I can point you to many, many, but they're all different, you know, for different reasons, because although I said 95% are not great, that means that 5% are great, and fortunately it's 5% of thousands of buildings, because we've had so many tall buildings built in the last 20, 30 years. So I guess, following on from what I said, one stream of approach is what I call literal cultural symbolism, where, instead of building an American box in the middle of Asia, they look to inspirational local forms like, for example, Taipei 101 or the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai. You know, when you look at that they're evocative of a Chinese pagoda. You know through 88 stories or 101 stories, but it's a very literal way. It's like our architecture is a pagoda. You know, through 88 stories or 101 stories, but it's a very literal way, it's like our architecture is a pagoda. So we'll take the pagoda and we'll inflate it through 101 stories. I don't necessarily think that is the way forward. The way forward is buildings that don't. They're not evocative of indigenous form, but they go back to those influences.

Speaker 1:

So the kind of buildings that influence me are buildings that have and so if you want examples, let's say Sky Gardens, okay, commerce Bank 1997, frankfurt office building. Every single worker in that building has access to a Sky Garden. Within the building, shanghai Tower, 632 meters tall, is a double-skinned facade, but the double-skinned facade is inhabited with gardens that spiral all the way up the building. So if we look at so really, the answer to your question is there's not one building that does it all, but it depends what you value. So we talked.

Speaker 1:

So there are buildings with sky gardens, there are buildings that have vertical greenery you know Singapore is a key place for that. You know where. A hundred stories maybe not quite a hundred, but many, many multiple stories with green walls, natural ventilation One of my passions, because it was my PhD for 10 years skybridge, connections between buildings. You know, expressive facades, moving dynamic facades, moving away from you know, just the all glass skin. So I have these kind of 10 design principles and within each there's many, many great examples of tall buildings that are doing something different. They're not just the box, the glass box or the gratuitous form of sculpture.

Speaker 2:

I think another thing that's kind of resurging in the conversation, that's much different than the style that you just talked about, that we've been building for 30 years, is like what are the impacts that our buildings are having on occupant health? One of my favorite books so far that I've read this year was Ty Farrow's book Constructing Health and talking about how buildings affect your mind, health and the occupants. Moving forward, like how do you see whether it's the biophilic natural elements in a building or vegetation? How do you see that playing into tall buildings?

Speaker 1:

Well, I see it playing into it in a big way and that's where we've got to go. You know, the first phase of sustainability was all focused on energy operating energy. The first phase was all about operating energy and we've made great strides in reducing operating energy. We're not there yet, but we've made great strides. And at the same time that we've made great strides into making buildings more energy efficient and reducing operating energy. Perhaps even more importantly, more of our energy is being generated by renewable means, you know, and actually that in itself can change things massively, the minute that you know, there are days in the UK now I mean, I live in Chicago, I'm based in Chicago, but I'm from the UK originally there are days in the UK now where 100% of energy need comes from, well, I won't say renewable, but non-carbon. It does include the nuclear, but offshore wind, in other words, not burning fossil fuels.

Speaker 1:

And it's interesting, I was in a debate a few months ago where the debate was make your tower out of all glass anymore the old glass doesn't matter because the air conditioning is free now, because the energy is coming from renewable means. So actually putting aluminium on the outside of the facade, the carbon implication, the embodied materials is now far greater than the operating energy. So it's starting to see this shift where we're getting largely on top of the operating energy through more efficient buildings and renewable energy. Yeah, so the argument is shifting towards carbon. You know the embodied energy and that's where mass timber comes in. Of course, well, many ways that mass timber comes in.

Speaker 1:

But to answer your question about the healthier environments inside the building, so the first phase of sustainability was all about reducing operating energy and at times that equation is difficult, because if you go to a typical business owner and you say I'm going to cut your operating energy of your building by 50% 50% he or she might say well, that's brilliant, but the operating energy of the building is actually 1% of my overhead. Yeah, and so cutting it by 50% is not going to have a big impact on our business. If you could cut my staff bill by 50%, which is 90% of my overhead, my operation, then that would have a big impact energy, possibly reducing carbon implications, but you're creating healthier environments where people want to be. That has a direct financial return. You know, has a direct financial return. People that are healthier and happier in buildings, have a greater productivity, are willing to pay more for rent or sale of the space.

Speaker 1:

Absenteeism is down, blah, blah blah. So that is now recognized, and and it's not just you know so sustainability is no longer just about cutting operating energy. Largely it's not, and, by the way, that was before COVID came along, you know so if you then wanted an accelerant to healthier environments internally, covid was exacerbated the need for that even more. Yeah, and we now see the wellness rating and all these things. So again, massive, massive.

Speaker 2:

I think you said it. After COVID, I think a lot of people started looking at oh, people don't want to be in these sterile environments that they aren't productive in, they aren't healthy in, and so we're hearing a lot of conversations about the occupancy in better designed buildings being much higher and vacancy being much lower because people don't mind or they enjoy being in these buildings, rather than the inverse side of the equation. What do you think the challenges are right now? To shift that conversation into the kind of topics and design that we're talking about right now?

Speaker 1:

Well, I think the biggest barriers? That's a good question. I mean, on a simple level, the biggest barrier is that there's not enough regulation. There's only two ways to ensure. Well, I guess there's three ways to ensure that you get better, more sustainable, more resilient, healthier buildings right. Two is through incentive, or three is through altruistic meaning that the owner, developer and the parties want to genuinely create that. Yeah, and, by the way, there are clearly a lot of buildings where that third element was the predominant element in resulting in a fantastic building. But most buildings are going to be a result of either one or two. It's regulation or it's incentive or some combination of the both.

Speaker 1:

And in America, for example, america has been very reticent towards regulation. You know, I think Europe and other parts of the world have been more inclined to say, well, look, it needs to be this way. You can't just do whatever you want to do. I mean, when I look at a place like Singapore, I think Singapore which, by the way, I think leaves most of the cities in the dust in terms of creating a sustainable city real sustainability, real, which we can get into if you're interested, but real impact in terms of things that are physically built there, infrastructure-wise, not just building-wise, singapore has done a great job, I think, of striking that balance between regulation and incentive. It's like, yeah, if you put a sky garden in your building, then that doesn't have to count as the GFA and you can put another three stories on the top or whatever.

Speaker 1:

So I think the biggest barriers, really I don't feel we've got that right balance between regulation, incentive. We are baby steps along the path to a carbon economy and things will not change until we are a carbon economy, until the true impact of producing something, um is the determinant of the cost of that element. At the minute, you know everything, whatever it is, the cost of this or the price of this is down to how much did it cost to make and how much can I possibly sell it for. The carbon implications are not factored in. But once we factor in the carbon and the cost of it is a direct result of how much carbon it produced, then that will change everything from items, household items, through to buildings, through to cities.

Speaker 2:

How do you think that more carbon-friendly building materials will kind of change that equation? And obviously specifically I'm referencing mass timber. What do you see mass timber's involvement in the future of tall buildings look like?

Speaker 1:

Okay, there were two parts to that question about materials generally. So the materials generally when we have made the shift to a carbon economy, then the building, the materials that are produced, creating the smallest carbon footprint, will be the cheapest and those will be the ones that be adopted, because those that have a big carbon footprint will be more expensive. So that's why the carbon economy, the shift to a carbon economy, is very important generally, across all materials. Then when we bring in the mass timber mass timber is a total game changer. I mean there's no other way to describe it. It is the first building material that's being used on a large scale. Effort, you know, completely changes the equation of building materials.

Speaker 1:

Building materials require manufactured energy to produce Steel, concrete, glass, manufactured energy, there's no question of it.

Speaker 1:

Mass timber is quite, or timber is happily producing itself without any much of our help, you know, as long as it's got the water, sun, soil, oxygen, those kinds of things.

Speaker 1:

So, first of all, it reduces that energy footprint to produce itself, not completely because it still needs to be manufactured, but as a raw material it produce itself. Not completely because it still needs to be manufactured, but as a raw material it produces itself. But it's even better than that, of course, because whilst it's producing itself happily as a building material, it's sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, so it's helping with that scenario. So suddenly this is a game changer because we're now farming building product. You know, mass timber is potentially a crop like wheat or corn, and the more of it we produce by the way, I'm an advocate for, for using timber so much more than it is currently we should be building whole cities out of timber, where we can, not just parts of buildings. If we shifted to produce to build as much of our cities out of timber as possible, then that would really really start to help with the carbon that's already in the atmosphere.

Speaker 1:

You know, 50% of a typical tree is carbon that's been sequestered out of the atmosphere, but it requires a much bigger scale than we're on now. But mass timber is a massive game changer for four or five big reasons. One is it doesn't require the same amount of energy to produce itself as a base building material. Number two it sequesters carbon in the act of doing that and so helps to improve the environment. Number three it then is this natural material, this biophilic material inside the building, with that tactile touch that improves interior environments. Number four there's a potential speed and cost on site saving. We could keep going, and that's why I talk about this and have done for several years as a game changer.

Speaker 2:

Some people have pushed back against using timber, specifically in taller buildings like, let's call it, above 15, 18 stories. What would be your response to those people pushing back against it?

Speaker 1:

Well, I think you've got to look at why they're pushing back against it, because it'll fall into two camps, why they're pushing back. One's valid and one's not. One camp will be they're pushing back against mass timber in tall buildings, whereas really they're pushing back against tall buildings, and we should be aware that there is a strong sentiment, always has been and probably always will be, against tall buildings. So if you look at the arguments, it's things like fire, the fire argument, the danger element, the towering inferno You're probably too young to know that, but the towering inferno you're probably too young to know that. But the towering inferno did for tall building and fires what what jaws did for sharks, you know, in the 1980s. People don't get beyond that. The reality is that, yes, fires in tall buildings can be absolutely devastating and unfortunately we've seen more of those in the past, uh, few years. But generally speaking, a well-designed, modern tall building actually a well-designed, modern tall building actually a well-designed, modern tall building is the best place to be in the event of any urban disaster. If you're in a city and there's an earthquake, my advice to you would be run into the modern, design tall building because that's the safest place to be. Don't stay on the streets with all these crumbling 10-story concrete buildings that have not been designed to deal with those earthquakes and other natural disasters. So the kickback against mass timber has been on two levels. One has been, actually, if you break it down, it's a kickback against tall buildings and height and people believe they're alienating and all those things and maybe there's grains of truth in that, but it's really not got anything to do with mass timber. The second kickback and I think this is valid is that the taller we go, mass timber will start to show its limitations and there are limitations on mass timber, there are limitations on mass timber. The future is a hybrid future. Definitely in tall buildings it is a hybrid future and it's not even debatable.

Speaker 1:

Really, the taller you go, the more the load transfers through columns, vertical structure through beams. That gets greater and therefore the cross-sectional area of timber over steel, perhaps concrete, cross-sectional area of timber over steel, perhaps concrete would have to be greater. So the taller you go, that means a bigger footprint of cross-sectional area for the columns and also the spanning elements. Mass timber doesn't necessarily lend itself to spanning elements, so those sections need to be much bigger than they would be in steel or concrete. That's before you add in the sacrificial char layer's, before you add in the sacrificial char layer. Once you add in a three inch sacrificial char layer all around or whatever that is, then it gets even bigger right. So the taller we go we're going to have to.

Speaker 1:

Now it's different between office and residential, because residential office and residential are very different animals. You know, an office, an ideal office floor plate wants to be as open plan, wider span as possible, smaller columns, and so those buildings are going to have to carry on to be in steel. In my view, in terms of keeping that efficiency of open plan office space, steel in the vertical structure and steel in the spanning elements With residential which is more a cellular nature, ie walls, walls, walls. I still think we can do a lot of that in CLT. We don't have to necessarily do it in steel.

Speaker 1:

But here is the big benefit of mass timber. It's about the floors, 80% of the weight of a tall building. It's not the core, it's not the vertical structure, it's not even the beams, it's the floor. So if we, it's the floors. So if we only if we kept buildings as they were and just replaced the reinforced concrete floor slabs with mass timber. That would be a massive saving, you know, in 80% of the weight of the building, 80% of the carbon. I'm not saying we reduce it by 80%, but I'm saying that it would have a massive impact. So two things. One, I think mass timber can play a major role in floors, in some of the beams, in some of the walls, in the cores, possibly even in the facades. Tallest mass timber building in the world right now is completely timber, including timber facades. We've got to get over our mindset on this material. Yeah, but the future is really hybrid, and it's always been hybrid.

Speaker 2:

Use the materials where they best make sense, and on that point, I don't think that mass timber makes sense for everything everywhere. Before we started recording, you were talking about reflecting the built environment with the natural environment that surrounds it. So I mean, what's your opinion on mass timber in places where timber does not grow? Should it be imported and built there?

Speaker 1:

Well, that's a tough one. My first reaction would be yes, it could be, in that it would not make it any worse than we are now. I mean, we're mining materials in Australia, fabricating them in Germany and shipping them to China. So we're doing that for big projects all around the world. So if we were doing that with mass timber, if we were growing mass timber in Scandinavia or Austria and shipping it to Saudi, that's still a much better carbon scenario than doing it with aluminium or somewhere else. It's still a much better carbon scenario. So I don't think, you know, it should be ruled out on those carbon grounds, because it'd still be better.

Speaker 1:

Where it may rule it out is what we were talking about before, about what I think is important to get all architecture related to place. Related to place, you know, and like vernacular architecture, and I said physically, environmentally, culturally, but also materially. You know, if you're in a desert environment where there are no trees, then maybe it doesn't make sense to be building your architecture out of trees imported from somewhere else. Not necessarily on the carbon grounds, but on the visual expression, on the quality of the architecture. Maybe you should be making it out of sand or mud or as we would see in those places the vernacular materials. But the other thing that's interesting here is you mentioned vegetation, you know, because mass timber is a game changer. But I see also going hand in hand with living timber, with vegetation.

Speaker 1:

And one of the most exciting things for me when I mentioned before about, you know this, 95% of tall buildings are crap. Did I say crap? I probably wasn't didn't say crap, but anyway I'll say it now 95% of tall buildings are just, they're not really contributing to cities in a way that they should. They're homogenizing cities. You know. Part of that is because you know I talk about those Mies van der Rohe towers in the 1950s. Well, look at cities now, look at those buildings now. They look exactly the same.

Speaker 1:

And the thing that excites me about mass timber and vegetation is when you see buildings that are made of vegetation. To me it speaks of an architecture that is suitable to our differentiators between place. One of the biggest differentiators between place is vegetation. The vegetation in Texas is completely different to where I am in Chicago now, as it is completely different in China or Australia or the Middle East. So I think that vegetation is a way to harmonize buildings, to humanize buildings, make buildings more natural, but also to give an expression that gets back to this idea of a localized architecture, because vegetation becomes an essential part of the material palette, and that excites me. That excites me a lot.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, same. Before I asked you about a building that you think is doing things right, do you think that there's a place or a community that's doing tall buildings in urban habitat right that we can look to as an example?

Speaker 1:

Absolutely. And people, there's probably several, but the one that's head and shoulders above all the others for me is Singapore. You know Singapore has been doing for 30, 40, 50 years now things that other cities are talking about but still not doing. And I'm not just talking about green walls and roof gardens and sky bridges and all those things, although they're evident in Singapore more than the rest of the world put together. And, of course, singapore is blessed with climate. I'm talking about huge infrastructure projects like Marina Bay, where the land was reclaimed 30 years ago ready for the future expansion of the central business district, knowing that one day, in 30 years time, they'll need to do that. But even that wasn't great enough, because they reclaimed the land in such a way to grab a whole bit of the sea, which then put the sea in the middle of the city, but then they grabbed it in such a way to close off the sea and have the Singapore River spout its stuff every day into this saltwater grab of the sea and slowly dilute it into a freshwater reservoir over the next 20, 30 years. So these big scale things are happening. I mean, you go walk around Marina Bay, marina Bay and it's beautiful. The buildings are fantastic. You've got this resource in the center of the city, people are windsurfing and all the rest of it on it, but it has a sustainability viewpoint and that's just not happening anywhere around the world and it's not happening because there's not the political system to allow it.

Speaker 1:

You know, the reason it happened in Singapore is because Singapore was governed by. You know, some people call him a dictator, but let's just say it was governed by a leader whose number one aim was not to line his own pockets but to improve Singapore as a city, and had that vision and was in power for 20, 30 years. Most people in that position basically benefit themselves rather than the city, but that's why Singapore flourished under Lee Kuan Yew. Here in the West, in most Western cities, we can't even think within a four-year political cycle because it's just so broken. Politics is so broken, so there's no chance to be thinking long-term beyond that and putting in place the measures that need to happen. So the biggest problem actually for cities to adopt this it's nothing to do with architecture, it's nothing to do with urban infrastructure. It's to do with politics and the political ability to make it happen, which goes back to the regulation and incentive things that I mentioned before.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and if you peel back politics a layer, you get to people, and so my follow-up question for you is how do you get the message, tools and information that we're talking about into the minds of the people that then ultimately influence these decisions, like what's the best way to go about that?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that again, that is difficult, you know one of the things. So I've been at C2H for almost 20 years now and you know I've evolved the organization a lot. But I'm starting to get a little bit fed up because when I you know, I give presentations all around the world, there might be 2000 people in the room and I give this message that we've talked about today Most tall buildings are just not doing enough, and blah, blah, blah, and when I finish, all 2000 people nod their head and agree with me. But the people that really make the difference, the politicians that are not in the room, they're not in the room. So difference the politicians are not in the room, they're not in the room. So this is where I want to involve CTBOH, to be giving this message to the people who are actually in power, because I think if they heard it they would agree, because a lot of things I'm talking about kind of make sense. But again, for the people, the people on the street, who I think also understand a lot of this but are maybe powerless to do much about it, again, the biggest shift for me is when we move, to notice.

Speaker 1:

I say when we move, not if we move to a carbon economy and the whole economy then is focused around the carbon implications of choices. And, by the way, in my most pessimistic times I don't think we'll do that until life on this planet becomes a matter of survival rather than choice. Sustainability is still a choice. We still have a choice about what we buy. Do we turn on the lights or not, do we get on the plane or not? But I think at some point and I think it's happening faster than most people realize it'll become a matter of survival rather than choice. It'll become a matter of we all have to do this or we're totally screwed. We're totally screwed. I don't just mean our grandchildren are screwed, our children are screwed. Our survival on this planet is now so threatened that if we don't do this immediately, we'll become extinct as a race and unfortunately, I think we're getting faster and faster to that point.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it's something that a lot more people in the right positions need to start paying attention to Because, like you said, you can preach to the masses, but if the decision makers aren't in the room, then it's really tough to move that needle. Moving forward, what are you focused on to help improve the mission? What's the future look like for you?

Speaker 1:

We're trying to influence government. We've set up what we call a city advocacy forum, which is a part of all our conferences. Now we're trying to bring in more politicians and government policymakers. So we're doing that on one level. I would actually like to develop a whole element of CTBOH which is aimed at the public. The only time we really interface with the public is when we make a decision about the world's tallest building or Chicago's tallest residential with an offset core, or whatever it is. When we make these announcements, there's usually a big public interest in it, but the reality is that skyscrapers, tall buildings and density really do capture the public imagination more so than most building types actually and so I think there's an avenue for us to start to introduce public membership and get public more involved in this whole, in our activities, but also this discourse that we're talking about. So I guess what I'm saying is from the top down, try and influence city and government, but also from the bottom up.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, there's a lot of work to be done in both of those sectors. So if people wanted to learn more about what you do, get involved with your mission, how can they connect with you and your organization?

Speaker 1:

Well, the easiest thing is to first of all go on our website very easy wwwctbuhorg Council tallings Urban Habitats C-T-B-U-H dot. And you're going to find a wealth of information there. You know, for example, our database which is called the Skyscraper Center the tall buildings database, has information on every tall building in every city around the world and you can access that. You can find out not just what's the tallest building, but the tallest city. That can be used in many ways. By the way, we also have for your mass timber listeners. We have the tall timber website as well, which has information on every tall building, I think over eight stories around the world, of which there are about 100 now built, over eight stories around the world. So so people can go on our website and knock themselves out, you know, with all that stuff, and that's probably the entryway then into into getting more involved in terms of, you know, publications and research and our events and all these other things that we do.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and then, speaking of events, you guys have a pretty big in-person conference that you guys put on to when, when and where are those?

Speaker 1:

We have. We have several events a year, but our big annual conference takes place somewhere around the world. So last year was Singapore working back from that with Singapore, chicago, dubai, sydney, mumbai, shenzhen, hong Kong, new York, but this year it's taking place in London. We've got a follow-on program to Paris, but it's taking place in London from the 23rd to the 27th of September. And, interestingly, the theme. So every year the conference has a theme and this year the theme of the conference, the London conference, is New or Renew, addressing the Density Dilemma and really what that's about.

Speaker 1:

You could replace that whole title with one word carbon. It's you know. Because now in London, going back to the regulation thing, it is now regulated that you cannot own a site, knock down a building and build a new building on top of it. You cannot do that anymore. You at the very least have to do a full carbon study to show that that crappy, nondescript four-story concrete building from 1960 that was hastily built on the site cannot be used. The carbon cannot be used in it in the future building. So at the very least you need to do a carbon study.

Speaker 1:

But the point of that conference is really about when would we work with existing buildings. How would we work with existing buildings? What are the exemplar buildings? There's a building in Sydney that won our Best Tall Building in the World Award last year Key Quarter Tower. You look at it 60 stories looks fantastic, but it was an extension, horizontally and vertically, of an existing 45-story building. So these exemplars around the world and, by the way, new or renew is not just about building, it's also about cities. There are a lot of new cities underway at the moment in places in the Middle East, and it's like should we be building new cities or should we be making existing cities more sustainable and resilient? And it's not. Or it's like what are the factors that might dictate one approach and what are the implications of one approach over another? So yeah, so London and Paris September 2024, be there.

Speaker 2:

All right, We'll link all that down below so people can check it out. So last question for you if you could change anything about the world, what would it be and why? Oh?

Speaker 1:

my God, you're really throwing these at me In all honesty, wow. Well, how deep do you want me to go? I mean, okay, don't answer that, I'll just go deep straight away. I think the biggest problem in the world today is gross income disparity. Actually, gross income disparity. I think it's gone out all out of gargantuan proportion and it's driving and exacerbating all the problems. This hatred that we see between divisions of people, whether that's religious or political or geographic or whatever it is. A lot of it is exacerbated by gross income disparity. So we've got major problems climate change, political problems and all the rest of it but I think underpinning that and not and it's not really being addressed is is that massive, massive widening gulf between the haves and the have nots on a local, national and especially on a global level. Hey, brady, you better ask me a nicer question that we can't finish on such a negative level now. But but you asked me, so I told you. I think that's one of the biggest problems we face. That's what I'd like to change if I could.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, that's a great answer, and I think people just need to speak very bluntly about the things that they see in the world that need to be changed right, and so that's why we asked that kind of question. On a lighter note, what are you most excited about in the world of tall building and urban habitat moving forward in the next call it three years?

Speaker 1:

Three quick things mass timber, vegetation and sky bridges. Yeah, we've talked about mass timber, we've talked about vegetation, but when I say sky bridges, I don't just mean bridges that link between buildings. I'm talking about a three-dimensional urbanism Cities at the minute, all cities at the minute. The infrastructure to support the city is at the ground plane. And when I say infrastructure, I don't just mean power, water, sewage, road, rail, I also mean social infrastructure. I mean garden, sidewalk, shop, school, nursery.

Speaker 1:

And if we're going ever more vertical which we are and cities are becoming denser, then we need to bring aspects of that horizontal ground plane up into the sky by linking between buildings, not just with bridges but with urban planes. I'm not talking level five, that blocks out all the sun at the ground plane. I'm talking level 40, 80, 120. Started it 20 years ago, people thought I was crazy. You know, the only example was Petronas Towers in 1997, the two Petronas Towers linked with a skybridge. But now there are at least 100 buildings built, vertical buildings with significant skybridge skyplane. You know, think about Marina Bay Sands in Singapore three 50-story hotel towers with the roofs linked with this one urban park up in the sky, you know. So that excites me seeing that happen. Three-dimensional urbanism, you combine that with vegetation, you combine that with mass timber and I think we're making huge strides towards more sustainable cities.

Speaker 2:

I love that. That's a great answer, anthony, thanks for coming on. Thanks for sharing all these wonderful messages with me. I learned a lot. I appreciated it, thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Brady Potts

Host
Head Shot

Nic Wilson

Host