Wooden skyscrapers are an ambitious and innovative solution to the problems posed by urbanisation. Not only are they faster to build, they have smaller carbon footprints than high-rises made of concrete and steel.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist on YouTube: http://econ.st/2GCblkl

By 2050 the world’s population is expected to soar to almost 10 billion people and two-thirds of us will live in cities.

Space will be at a premium.

High-rise offers a solution. But concrete and steel – the materials we currently use to build high – have a large carbon footprint.

An answer might lie in a natural material we’ve used for millennia.

Throughout history buildings have been made of wood. But it has one major drawback. It acts as kindling. Fire destroyed large swathes of some of the world’s great cities.

But by the early twentieth century, the era of modern steelmaking had arrived. Steel was strong, could be moulded into any shape and used to reinforce concrete. It allowed architects to build higher than ever before.

So why, after more than a century of concrete and steel, are some architects proposing a return to wood?

Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.

For more from Economist Films visit: http://econ.st/2GCbm7T
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: http://econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: http://econ.st/2GCbnIZ
Follow The Economist on Twitter: http://econ.st/2GAXgUa
Follow us on Instagram: http://econ.st/2GAXhrc
Follow us on LINE: http://econ.st/1WXkOo6
Follow us on Medium: http://econ.st/2GAXivg