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.
Highlights
The U.S population has continued to urbanize and suburbanize in recent decades
This work provides a quantitative comparison of life-cycle energy consumption associated with typical residential life in downtown high-rises and suburban low-rises in and around Chicago
The comparisons were made using a variety of data sources and estimation methods, but the findings of this study provide a reasonably complete understanding of overall life-cycle energy consumption by different residential types in terms of residents’ life in Chicago and surrounding suburbs
Summary
The U.S population has continued to urbanize and suburbanize in recent decades. As a share of total population, the metropolitan population increased from 69% in 1970 to 80% in 2000 [1]. U.S Bureau of the Census does not identify a location as “suburban” Metropolitan areas are divided into two classifications: (a) inside central city and (b) outside central city. Few studies have combined quantitative analyses of the life-cycle energy use and/or greenhouse gas emissions of both buildings and transportation in both urban and suburban areas. We consider the following components of residential living: (1) the embodied and operational energy use of a prototypical code-compliant residential building of recent construction in each location (e.g., a high-rise in downtown Chicago, IL, and a low-rise residence in suburban Aurora, IL),. (2) the embodied and operational energy for vehicle transport for multiple modes of transport including automobile, bus, train, and others based on average travel patterns in each location, and (3) the embodied and operational energy for transportation infrastructure for multiple modes of transport including automobile, bus, and train
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
