daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat

Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat Hosted forums of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat for all students and professionals.
» tall & green | tall building design



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 2nd, 2010, 01:56 PM   #1
venky08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 0

advantages of tall skyscrapers

Dan Thomson, CABE design review advisor, debates the positive effects and pitfalls of tall buildings.

An unprecedented wave of tall building proposals has come forward in recent years. This has caused fevered debate about both individual schemes and the role of tall buildings. Their very size and prominence means that, for good or ill, they have a significant impact on a place and its character. But there does seem to be growing acceptance that as long as tall buildings are well designed and suitably located, they can be a positive way to develop in urban areas.
The context

There has been widespread public distrust of tall buildings. The post-WWII wave of designs may have included some excellent buildings - Centre Point and the Barbican Towers are now listed - but it was the mistakes of this era that really stood out. Tall buildings became synonymous for many people with cheaply built, badly maintained blocks of flats or offices which failed to meet the needs of their users and did little for their local environment.

The Gherkin - or 30 St Mary Axe as it is properly called - has perhaps the best claim to being the breakthrough development which changed public attitudes. Opened in 2004, it has redefined what a tall building can look like and has shown that a tower of first rate design quality can be extremely popular with the public as well as working well for its users. Along with other high quality designs that have been approved after public inquiries - the Heron Tower and London Bridge Tower - the success of 30 St Mary Axe has helped create a far more favourable climate for tall buildings proposals.
The potential advantages of tall buildings

Many people now agree that high density accommodation, whether for office, residential or mixed use, is advantageous. Building tall is certainly not the only way to achieve high density but it can make sense in situations such as confined areas of a city where land is scarce. Tall buildings are also particularly suited to locations close to public transport nodes, reducing the need for car use.

Arguments have been put forward for tall buildings as catalysts for regeneration. One Canada Square, the central building at Canary Wharf and still the tallest in the UK, was an early example. Despite having to contend with a recession shortly after construction, it sparked the transformation of the Isle of Dogs. Fifteen years later, new towers cluster around it and the area has become a major financial, and increasingly residential, area. While the office space contained in One Canada Square could have been provided in a lower building occupying a greater floor area, as a tall building it worked as a beacon, boldly signalling that the area was enjoying major investment.



http://www.cabe.org.uk/articles/the-...ing-phenomenon
venky08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old June 2nd, 2010, 04:44 PM   #2
homunwai
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

When will tall buildings be too tall?

20? 50? 100 storeys?
homunwai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2010, 06:09 PM   #3
helghast
829.84m / 2,722ft
 
helghast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,410
Likes (Received): 73

No, no and no. 100 stories obviously isn't too tall considering that's becoming "some what" common in a lot of cities (Asia,etc). The only limit's of a building being too tall, is it's economics. From listening to an interview with Adrian Smith, It's feasible to build a mile high tower with the technology(engineering,building material,etc) that is available today.
__________________
"If you put the empire state building on top of the Sears Tower then it's reasonable to say you'll be in the neighbourhood," Mr Baker says.
helghast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2010, 10:09 PM   #4
perchrc
Registered User
 
perchrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 0

The only problem I can see with increasing the number of floors further is that the need for elevators in the building will rise to an impractical level. Won't you eventually fill up the building with more elevators than usable area? Also, since all the people enter and exit through the first couple of floors, won't these floors be extremely crowded?
perchrc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2010, 08:14 PM   #5
helghast
829.84m / 2,722ft
 
helghast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,410
Likes (Received): 73

Quote:
Originally Posted by perchrc View Post
The only problem I can see with increasing the number of floors further is that the need for elevators in the building will rise to an impractical level. Won't you eventually fill up the building with more elevators than usable area? Also, since all the people enter and exit through the first couple of floors, won't these floors be extremely crowded?
Well that's what Sky Lobbies are for. Also the development of double decker elevators' which help dramatically with small floor space
(Burj Khalifa for example). And from what i understand, triple decker elevators' are in the works. It's not just elevator space that can limit how high we can go. It's also Core system's. If it wasn't for Bill Baker's (SOM) Buttressed Core. The Burj Khalifa would not be standing.
__________________
"If you put the empire state building on top of the Sears Tower then it's reasonable to say you'll be in the neighbourhood," Mr Baker says.
helghast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2010, 06:04 AM   #6
sehnazjoshep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

This is very nice and informative posting. I have read your article. I liked information about tall building advantages and disadvantages which is described in that article. I have list of this type of top 3 tallest skyscrapers which are :
Taipei 101
Petronas Twin Towers
Sears Tower
__________________
Debt Advice
sehnazjoshep no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2010, 12:48 PM   #7
USAAAA
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 28
Likes (Received): 0

Ten richest billionaires in the world http://theworldsbillionaires2.tk/ Learn the secret of weight loss easiest and quickest way to get rid of the secret as a result of excess weight http://losssweight.tk/
USAAAA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 10:38 AM   #8
sauron0101
Registered User
 
sauron0101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by helghast View Post
Well that's what Sky Lobbies are for. Also the development of double decker elevators' which help dramatically with small floor space
(Burj Khalifa for example). And from what i understand, triple decker elevators' are in the works. It's not just elevator space that can limit how high we can go. It's also Core system's. If it wasn't for Bill Baker's (SOM) Buttressed Core. The Burj Khalifa would not be standing.
Even with sky lobbies and triple deck elevators, there are bound to be limits. A few years ago, I saw this concept for a quintuple elevator. Beyond quintuple the engineer told me, adding more elevators probably was not practical.

There's only a certain amount of elevators that people are willing to take. Remember that this is something that people are going to have to use many times a day to get up and down. The other issue at stake is how to get everyone out quickly in the event of an emergency like a fire or an earthquake. There are lots of barriers right now to building to say, multi-kilometre towers.
sauron0101 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2010, 03:53 PM   #9
Concrete Stereo
Registered User
 
Concrete Stereo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 1,185
Likes (Received): 59


you're missing the most obvious one: 3. it's the most expensive and inefficient way to build.
Concrete Stereo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2010, 02:14 AM   #10
boschb
boschb
 
boschb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Langley(Vancouver) BC
Posts: 716
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete Stereo View Post

you're missing the most obvious one: 3. it's the most expensive and inefficient way to build.
not really how many people can you fit in a skyscraper? compared to housing? think about what you say
boschb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2010, 10:51 AM   #11
ISLMALA
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 0

http://secretrich.tk/ SECRET RICH
ISLMALA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2010, 07:32 PM   #12
jackyusa
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

新加的空白文章1

这是新加的空白文章1,可以在UBB可视化编辑器中,添加和修改文章内容。
jackyusa 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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 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