search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers General news, discussion and announcement forum about skyscrapers, including the Skyscraper Living forum



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 9th, 2011, 05:29 PM   #1
Andros_Pelekanos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 1

Earthscraper: Inverted Skysscrapers

http://www.blippitt.com/earthscraper...d-of-up-video/

So yeah, I was looking at this and got into a debate with my colleague. He claims that Earthscrapers are a good idea because they are easier and cheaper to build. I don't know what he's smoking but I think that such structures would be more difficult and pricey to create.

Any ideas?
__________________
Andros Pelecanos
Andros_Pelekanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 10th, 2011, 10:39 PM   #2
PadArch
Registered User
 
PadArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 948
Likes (Received): 47

I think this is fairly obvious but:
I doubt they are cheaper, in fact I suspect it would be much more expensive. Also they are less space efficient than a skyscraper because you would need to use a huge area of site at ground floor level whereas skyscrapers can be slender and they can increase in floorplate size as they go up to minimize ground level footprint, like the gherkin does for instance. Finally how do you ventilate it? You'd have to waste a huge quantity of energy sucking air down from above somewhere...unless you had HUGE HUGE vents, which is a further waste of space.
PadArch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 07:50 PM   #3
minneapolis-uptown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 47

very interesting idea, however, walking across a public plaza in Mexico city then looking down at 50 stories of nothingness might take some getting used to.
minneapolis-uptown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 08:03 PM   #4
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Walking around New York in the 1920s and looking up at 50 stories probably took some getting used to, too.

The earth that is removed to create the hole could be used for flood defences, civil engineering projects.

Ventilation could be provided by the void in the centre of the 'earthscraper'. This would need to be mechanically assisted, like in any large building.

The main expense would be that none have been built before, so there would be so many unforeseen problems, for instance - the weight of the earth pushing against the sides of the structure is immense even in buildings a few stories below ground level. The sheer piling and bracing required to keep the structure from collapsing in on itself from the weight of the earth would be extremely expensive and would be prototypical.

Then there's the heat down there!

Last edited by Gherkin; November 13th, 2011 at 12:11 AM.
Gherkin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 06:06 PM   #5
Andros_Pelekanos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 1

So we're still left wondering. Based on the 3 responses is it safe for me to have the last laugh over my friend?

I want to be serious until I'm sure the fat lady has sung.

Also, just to avoid a shallow bump, the article got me thinking about a city that is entierly flat to the ground. Like imagine you're walking on flat desert land and you find out that you're walking over a 50 million strong city.

Inhabitants of such a city would have no reason to go above ground except for expeditions and excursions.
__________________
Andros Pelecanos
Andros_Pelekanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 06:59 PM   #6
Kopacz
Registered User
 
Kopacz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Stalowa Wola
Posts: 1,985
Likes (Received): 1582

I think there is absolutely no reason to build into the ground. Buildings are always made for people to look at, take pictures and most of all to create a unique image of the city. Like PadArch said, ventilation would be a big problem, but for me there's something even more important - light. People don't take lack of sunlight very well. No matter how good lighting you have, it will always feel different than the natural one and you would need to illuminate each and every floor, almost all of the time.
Kopacz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2011, 09:39 AM   #7
minneapolis-uptown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andros_Pelekanos View Post
So we're still left wondering. Based on the 3 responses is it safe for me to have the last laugh over my friend?

I want to be serious until I'm sure the fat lady has sung.

Also, just to avoid a shallow bump, the article got me thinking about a city that is entierly flat to the ground. Like imagine you're walking on flat desert land and you find out that you're walking over a 50 million strong city.

Inhabitants of such a city would have no reason to go above ground except for expeditions and excursions.
there's one thing I love about that idea: a CAR FREE city of 50 million! AWESOME!
minneapolis-uptown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2011, 05:27 PM   #8
kld36
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

Inhabitants of such a city would have no reason to go above ground except for expeditions and excursions.
kld36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2011, 03:46 AM   #9
runfie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

Every city has its own pattern, hard to forget the charm of each different
runfie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2014, 12:26 AM   #10
ramakrishna1984
Registered User
 
ramakrishna1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 788

Here are few images of BNKR Arquitectura's Earthscraper concept aims to address Mexico City's residential problems with a 300m underground pyramid. But with an $800m price tag and a host of unanswered questions,


"If the earth decided to scrape back, would the building's pyramid structure be strong enough?"
Interesting article Discussing this concept...


The Earthscraper would delve 300 metres below Mexico City's main square



Regular 'earth lobbies' would be installed to improve interior air quality
.




BNKR's design calls for a huge glass ceiling to cover the building's massive central void





ramakrishna1984 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2014, 07:52 AM   #11
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,430

Good on paper, but so much could go wrong.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2014, 08:22 AM   #12
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53433

Mexico City? More like an Earthquaker!
__________________
We are floating in space...

Eric Offereins liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2014, 08:30 AM   #13
Hauler
Registered User
 
Hauler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 166

It would be so cool, but Mexico City would be one of the last places, where I'd build something like that.
Being able to walk across the glass ceiling would be amazing.

http://www.evolo.us/wp-content/uploa...r-mexico-2.jpg
Hauler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 05:01 PM   #14
humptydumpty7
Registered User
 
humptydumpty7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,163
Likes (Received): 4628

this is crazy and amazing at the same time!
humptydumpty7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2014, 03:39 PM   #15
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,057
Likes (Received): 3533

Wonder how it would fare in the event of a fire. The only escape route would be up, coincidentally the same way all the smoke would go and the fire would spread.

Water leakages would also be a fun little problem. Or heck, even just regular water and sewage systems. In normal skyscrapers, water is liquid when pumped up, and sewage is sent the other way via gravity. Now reverse the order. Supplying the thing with water wouldn't be a problem - you'd actually have to reduce the pressure several times on the way down - but sewage? All that sludge and bits of things floating in the water, and some waste flushed down toilets because people are morons... try to build a pump accomodating for all that, with the same uptime requirements as a regular pump pumping only clean and entirely liquid water. In regular buildings, getting waste out and away is thankfully no problem in case of power failure. Here, everything would seep to the bottom whenever something goes wrong or breaks down. You'd need a small sewage treatment plant to make the sewage sufficiently slushy to be pumped away. The smell would not be very pleasant.

You could also mention insulation. Above ground in Mexico, keeping a building warm shouldn't be much of a problem. The air tends to be hot (probably colder in winter, especially seeing the elevation of the city), and it doesn't conduct much heat anyway.
Solid ground, however, is a different matter altogether. The immediate surroundings of most of the building would keep a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius at any time, year round. Rock also conducts heat quite a bit better than air, so any heated object (say, a building) would quickly be cooled down. There is also sunlight up above, not so much down there except for a couple of hours around noon. Add to this the tendency of cold air to sink down, and the earthscraper would require a lot of heating to stay comfortably temperate.

All in all, the earthscraper sounds like a terribly impractical idea. I also wonder how it would fare, given Mexico City's problem with sinking ground water levels.
__________________
Poe's law: You can't impersonate stupidity without somebody mistaking it for the real thing.

Eric Offereins liked this post
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2014, 10:26 PM   #16
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,282
Likes (Received): 27552

Ground water would be a problem in any circumstance. It will create huge upward pressure and probaly leaks.
Eric Offereins está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2014, 01:59 AM   #17
Kanzyo Oliveira
1908 - ∞
 
Kanzyo Oliveira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Capelinha
Posts: 1,060
Likes (Received): 619

Wow!
__________________
Vencer...Vencer...Vencer..♫♫

1 9 0 8 - ∞
Kanzyo Oliveira no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu