advantages of tall skyscrapers

[venky08]

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

[homunwai]

When will tall buildings be too tall?

20? 50? 100 storeys?

[helghast]

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.

[perchrc]

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?

[helghast]

Originally Posted by perchrc

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.

[sehnazjoshep]

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

[USAAAA]

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/

[sauron0101]

Originally Posted by helghast

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.

[Concrete Stereo]

you're missing the most obvious one: 3. it's the most expensive and inefficient way to build.

[boschb]

Originally Posted by Concrete Stereo

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

[ISLMALA]

http://secretrich.tk/ SECRET RICH

[jackyusa]

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。