We all long for supertalls to be built around the world, but there's a reason why you don't see as many as you hope for, money of course being the significant factor.

It's an economic issue here which comes into play with many factors. I read this in a book called "The World Trade Center Remembered," but the text was by Paul Goldberger a famous architecture critic.

I thought I'd share it with you all, so I'll type the excerpt. Keep in mind this has some relation to the original WTC project, but it's also a general issue.

Super-tall towers are astonishingly expensive. They require immense amounts of structure, and when buildings become exceedingly tall they require so many elevators that most of the space on the lower floors is taken up with elevator shafts passing through to reach the upper floors. At somewhere around eighty stories, the economics generally cease to make sense. Although the Empire State Building is technically one hundred and two floors high, its top sixteen floors are tiny spaces in the building's missile like crown, and for practical purposes the building does not really rise higher than it's eighty-sixth-floor observatory.

So, 80 floors is the magical number, is it still around there today?

In the WTC projects case, the Port Authority came up with an innovative solution in creating an elevator system that included "sky lobbies" which helped increase the amount of office space at the top and generate more profits, so it could be more profitable.

I can type the excerpt of that from the book if any of you wish.

I wonder, how many supertalls these days contain sky lobbies?

If not, then aren't they wasting money?

Yes, but in the sort of places where supertalls are likely to be built money (or even the need for office space) is of secondary importance to prestige.

Yes, but in the sort of places where supertalls are likely to be built money (or even the need for office space) is of secondary importance to prestige.

And that is exactly why Skyscrapers will never stop being built.

from ecologicaly sight it s better to built skyscrapers in dense city because of low space usage. Try to imagine for example NY or HK which is sprawled with buildings of only 3-4 floors. In China, i think it will be very important to control free space because of enormous number of people there, no wonder they have a skyscrapers boom everywhere. Skyscraper is nothing other as a "house of future", to have a private house in future it will be a privileg.

The reason why in the Netherlands aren't supertall buildings is that de law prescripts that all workarea must contain at least 10% daylight for a healty workenviroment for workers. So a supertall building is hard to build with criteria like this. Innerbuilding workareas with no daylight are not aloud.

Prestige is a factor, but there's no developer or guy who's going to invest such huge amounts of money and end up having an empty non profitable tower, no matter how big his ego is.

Otherwise, wouldn't we have more of these cases?

supertalls, unfortunatly, are frivolous.

supertalls, unfortunatly, are frivolous.

I disagree 110%

People will be wanting skyscrapers, because of insufficient land, and highly demanded areas. They dont get that much attention because one skyscraper usually does the job for demand, and if that one is full, developers would be happy to make new ones. This will go on and on, until all land is taken, and you have to go up, this is where supertalls are valuable and taken seriously.

from the look of your avatar, you must be in singapore; entirely different situation. we have used car lots with bigger area than all of that country and we have less of an economic incentive to spend money on supertall buildings when campus style buildings are far more feasable given their much cheaper construction costs and aprt from nyc or chicago, land is plentiful.

now, as a skyscraper geek, i'm not supporting this but is just a fact of reality in our current econmic climate.

I read somewhere that most of the office space in the Petronas Towers is vacant, in some cases, you could play football (soccer) between cubicles (there would only be a few per floor) that's mainly because of how expensive it is to rent space there.

Mancuso: Actually, Rapid lives in Toronto, and wants to use Nunchucks for self-defense. Read it all here. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=129498)

The thing is, supertall are only those towers that are 100 floors+, and no matter how dense your city is it still isn't worth the money building that tall.

savethewtc--I was thinking more along the lines of China and other emerging countries (Taiwan) that build enormous skyscrapers without anything to put in them. In Dalian something like the 5 tallest buildings are unfinished because they have no use for them. In a sense it's a bit pathetic, but hey, it's their money.

The thing is, supertall are only those towers that are 100 floors+, and no matter how dense your city is it still isn't worth the money building that tall.

Actually, I read that a supertall is any building taller than 1000 feet.

Buildings over 1000 feet and with over 80 stories currently under construction:

Burj Dubai, Dubai (~160 stories!!!)
Taipei 101, Taipei
Shanghai World Financial Center, Shanghai
Union Square Phase 7, Hong Kong
Complex Federation, Moscow

A super tall does frees space on the surface but what about traffic jams inside the building like elevators and parking on the underground?

A super tall does frees space on the surface but what about traffic jams inside the building like elevators and parking on the underground?

the supertall developement should be connected together with the developement of the efficient public transport system, in principe it is wrong every family to have own car, if that s gonna to be true, walking would be faster than driving, so public transport!

from the look of your avatar, you must be in singapore; entirely different situation. we have used car lots with bigger area than all of that country and we have less of an economic incentive to spend money on supertall buildings when campus style buildings are far more feasable given their much cheaper construction costs and aprt from nyc or chicago, land is plentiful.

now, as a skyscraper geek, i'm not supporting this but is just a fact of reality in our current econmic climate.

Your right, Houston is a different story. There is tons of space there, making larger lowrise buildings alot more feasable, but other parts in the world, such as Singapore, with it's small area, supertalls are not needed for years, because Singapore is still not that small. Anyways, you cant build supertalls in Singapore because of the hieght restrictions by the FAA.

BTW, I live in Toronto, not Singapore.

Prestige is a factor, but there's no developer or guy who's going to invest such huge amounts of money and end up having an empty non profitable tower, no matter how big his ego is.

Otherwise, wouldn't we have more of these cases?

Actually those cases pop up all the time. Look at 7WTC which will probably be mostly empty for several years. Look at that Goldman Sachs building across the river in Jersey City, which is almost empty except for some offices on the top floors. Look at the American Stores Building (now Wells Fargo) in Salt Lake City, which stood at 20% occupancy for the first 4 years after it was built. Even the Empire State Building has this problem for years after construction finished.

Eventually they do get filled up, but it takes time and economic growth in the city. Obviously these buildings weren't built because of a desperate need for floor space, or else they would have filled up in the first 6 months after construction ended.

Having said that though, the Empire State was a slightly different case--a worldwide economic crash put the scuppers on that filling up.

Buildings over 1000 feet and with over 80 stories currently under construction:

Burj Dubai, Dubai (~160 stories!!!)
Taipei 101, Taipei
Shanghai World Financial Center, Shanghai
Union Square Phase 7, Hong Kong
Complex Federation, Moscow

You can add Eureka in Melbourne at 91 floors 297 meters

but still they are rare but what you have said about the sky lobbies is quite common now as are double Decker elevators as well !
the cost is more about construction that return of floor space as that has been over come. Better off to have 2 at 60 floors.
Supertalls seem to be built for other reasons and return beyond the return from floor space in the building.

i don't think anyone mentioned this... but how about clients and egocentrics... wanting the biggest/tallest skyscraper. Just from a diff POV ^^)