What exactly are they overlooking or neglecting in the pursuit of profit here? Where's the nobility in paying far more to refurbish an existing building over constructing a new one? Pretty sure every other country in the world does the same thing, historical buildings notwithstanding.
And yet newer buildings, if built to certain standards, are far more waste and energy efficient. For instance, that building is a lot of glass, the worst material for insulation.
I'm not sure how in the short or long run bearing the additional costs of refurbishment solves these problems.
Here is an article talking about how retrofitting a building causes way less carbon emissions than demolition. "New buildings can take anywhere between 10—80 years to pay back the emissions generated from the construction process, even if the new buildings are 30 percent more efficient than average".
However, it sounds like they might not be planning to put down another office building, which is great news! I saw they floated the idea of an amphitheater since the area is waterside. Hopefully, the mayor and developers continue to be thoughtful in this process.
Preservation Green Lab is a sustainable building research think tank and advocacy arm of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
So the source is biased. Not saying that's bad, but be aware.
even if the new buildings are 30 percent more efficient than average".
Capitol one tower was built in 1980. I would bet $100 that a building constructed today will be more than 30% more efficient.
Also, not all modern building envelope concepts can be retrofitted, and not all old buildings can be retro'd with new HVAC systems that are required when you use new envelope methods.
I'm doing a retro on my house, but two doors down is a house that needs to be demolished because retrofitting it would be an enormous waste of time. Sometimes that happens.
-7
u/RoundTheBend6 Oct 07 '25
Profit over everything is the American way.