this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
302 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
84534 readers
3632 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wood is cheaper than steel. Which apparently is the most important way to be better in. But I wouldn't build a skyscraper out of it.
Saying that energy density is not important in energy storage technology is as stupid as saying that material strength is not important in building materials.
You know there are skyscrapers built out of wood, right? And they're kind of awesome.
I searched for "tallest wooden building" there actually is a list in wikipedia of the tallest buildings.
The tallest of the list is not even a building, it's a radio tower. At ~110m.
The closest city to me that has a skyscraper has a single skyscraper, and it is >150m tall.
I would not build a skyscraper out of wood.
Wait wait wait WAIT. I said skyscrapers can and ARE built out of wood. And your response was to IMMEDIATELY move the goal posts to bUt ThEy'Re nOT tHe TaLLeSt.
To that I say, not yet.
Taller "plyscapers" are being built. Oakwood Timber Tower is currently under development in London and will be 300m tall when it's completed. A proposed 350m tall project is being designed for Tokyo. Just because something isn't what we are used to doesn't mean we shouldn't try new and innovative things. Trees literally grow wood solely for the purpose of growing UP. They aren't limited in size because the wood isn't great at getting big, but because pushing water to the top gets harder and harder. Skyscrapers don't have that issue. Why would a material that literally evolved to grow tall be a bad for building tall buildings. Concrete is fragile, heavy, and slow to dry, but we still make it work. Saying we can't make skyscrapers out of wood is both factually untrue and unimaginative. Saying: "we've never done it this way and I refuse to consider any alternatives" is how we end up with stagnant outdated dull as dirt infrastructure.
I guess the Mjøstårnet isn't a skyscraper.
Nor is Ascent MKE.
I'd rather live in a world where we try new things and architecture evolves and FACTS ARE FACTS.
I apologize for pointing out wooden skyscrapers exist, are being built, AND ARE REALLY FUCKING COOL.