Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 20 subscribers
  • Views 110 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

What If Urban Growth Was Balanced by Mandatory Green Infrastructure?

Yaseen Khan Mohammed CEng

Carbon–Green Equilibrium: Rethinking Sustainable Development

Urban growth continues to increase energy demand, carbon emissions, and heat island effects — even in “efficient” buildings.

What if every new construction was required to create proportional green infrastructure to balance its environmental impact?

Not building into green zones — but ensuring each development generates new functional green space that actively reduces temperature, cooling load, and energy use.

Green areas aren’t decoration.
When strategically integrated, they deliver real performance:

• Lower ambient temperatures
• Reduced HVAC cooling demand
• Lower operational energy cost

And this can be expressed simply:

(Energy Savings × Energy Cost) − Green Maintenance Cost ≥ 0

If positive → environmentally AND financially viable.

If negative → design needs optimization.

This is sustainability shifting from compliance to measurable performance and commercial value.

In hot-climate cities especially, balancing built footprint with green print could be the missing link to resilient urban development.

What are your thoughts — should green infrastructure be a mandatory performance offset for new developments?

Parents

  • We tend to forget that almost all the problems are the result of better engineering of solutions to the general Malthusian problem (global population growth).

    We keep claiming that each Malthusian limit has been 'solved' only to hit another within a generation or two. Worst of all, we have great difficulty talking about it ('Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses' required, for those of a certain age). 

Reply

  • We tend to forget that almost all the problems are the result of better engineering of solutions to the general Malthusian problem (global population growth).

    We keep claiming that each Malthusian limit has been 'solved' only to hit another within a generation or two. Worst of all, we have great difficulty talking about it ('Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses' required, for those of a certain age). 

Children
  • in reply to Philip Oakley

    Quite - sadly as I get older I tend to feel that we are all at risk of emulating the great Thomas Midgley Jr - probably the engineer who most embodied being very well meaning and (at least partly) unintentionally destructive (including sadly to himself in the end).

    Also, "This planet has, or had, a problem - which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most if these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy." 15th March 1978! (And I do remember listening to it at the time, used to rush home after computing evening classes.) Of course in the UK the equivalent of those small green pieces of paper, to allow for inflation and the introduction of the one pound coin, is now small brown pieces of plastic...

    Yaseen Khan Mohammed CEng said:
    What are your thoughts — should green infrastructure be a mandatory performance offset for new developments?

    So the challenge is that word "should" - always a difficult word to use, unless it's paired with "to achieve xxx consequences should we do yyy?" To make cities more comfortable and pleasant to live in, to support recovery of biodiversity, and to reduce the rate of increase of global warming, yes we should. To increase short term wealth generation and employment in the construction industry (the movement of those small green pieces of paper again) no we shouldn't. It's up to what we want to achieve. As engineers we're typically employed to achieve the latter - personally I salve my conscience by working in the rail industry which I think on average tends to support the former. But not always.

Community Rules & Guidelines