Next Article in Journal
Investigation on Hourly and Monthly Thermal Comfort in the Humid Tropics of Malaysia
Next Article in Special Issue
Tall Buildings and Elevators: A Review of Recent Technological Advances
Previous Article in Journal
Quantifying Change in Buildings in a Future Climate and Their Effect on Energy Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Emerging Towers in Bayraklı: Sustainability as a Branding Strategy or a Tool for Local Development?
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Buildings 2015, 5(3), 1003-1024; doi:10.3390/buildings5031003

Life-Cycle Energy Implications of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: An Overview and Quantitative Case Study for Chicago

1
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat/College of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3360 South State Street, Chicago, IL 60616, USA
2
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3201 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60616, USA
3
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Kheir Al-Kodmany
Received: 30 June 2015 / Accepted: 25 August 2015 / Published: 7 September 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Eco-Towers: Technology, Sustainability, and Resilience)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1678 KB, uploaded 7 September 2015]   |  

Abstract

It is commonly accepted that the concentration of people in high-density urban city centers, which are typically dominated by medium- and high-rise buildings located close to public transit systems, offers greater overall energy efficiency and lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than lower-density expanded suburbs, which are dominated by low-rise single-family buildings and larger per-person automobile travel requirements. However, few studies have combined quantitative analyses of the life-cycle energy use of both buildings and transportation in both urban and suburban areas, especially in American cities. This work uses a variety of data sources to provide a quantitative comparison of the life-cycle energy consumption associated with residential life (including buildings, transportation, and supporting infrastructure) in prototypical downtown high-rises and suburban low-rises in and around Chicago, IL. We estimate that downtown high-rise living in Chicago, IL accounts for approximately 25% more life-cycle energy per person per year than suburban low-rise living, on average, contrary to some common beliefs (best estimates were ~141 and ~113 GJ/person/year, respectively). Building operational energy use was found to be the largest contributor of the total life-cycle energy in both the downtown high-rise and suburban low-rise cases, followed by vehicle operational energy. View Full-Text
Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); high-rise; energy; embodied energy; infrastructure; Chicago life cycle assessment (LCA); high-rise; energy; embodied energy; infrastructure; Chicago
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Du, P.; Wood, A.; Stephens, B.; Song, X. Life-Cycle Energy Implications of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: An Overview and Quantitative Case Study for Chicago. Buildings 2015, 5, 1003-1024.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Buildings EISSN 2075-5309 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top