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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old November 11th, 2013, 12:20 PM   #2221
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
Well I'm sure you can tell the difference between these two. Footprint width to height ratio is completely different






And there are countless examples of wide 400m towers that tapers a little or not at all. And still Broad building of that height is plus shaped pyramid.

Btw what's also interesting is that broad tower footprint to height ratio is not only larger from no pyramidal towers, it's even 30% larger from multi wing pyramidal structures like burj or kt. That just shows how pyramidal distribution of mass is important in this technique.

Of course it's true the pyramidal concrete structures are cheaper to build because you don't have to use super strong concrete and multi wing design deals better with stabilty and wind loads but that's not the only way. Towers I mentioned above are great examples (especially the 432 park ave) and the point I'm trying to make is that while pyramidal structures might work on a dessert or empty grassland in china they will not work in dense environments where towers can't taper because they rise from little plots. This was the case with 432 park ave and 225W57th will be even taller with no or very little tapering. Even china builds towers that go straight up like the goldin finance tower. This is 600m and broad buildings tapers already at 400.




Anyway the argument that pyramidal shape is absolute necessity (especially for 400m towers) is complete nonsense since there are too many examples to disprove it.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by patrykus; November 11th, 2013 at 12:31 PM.
patrykus no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 11th, 2013, 12:30 PM   #2222
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,346
Likes (Received): 8242

the plus shaped buildings look great and the bigger the foot print of the tower, the more imposing the tower is aswell. it doesn't taper that much that it looks like the proportions are out of place afterall and i rather have a few of these giants in a city than a lot of very tiny foot print skyscrapers that are just looking thin and not that impressive the way parts of new york and dubai marina seem to involve. most chinese cities do have big plots available anyways.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 12:46 PM   #2223
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

I personally find no tapering towers much more impressive because they are harder to design/build than a pyramidal ones. They somehow looks like braking the laws of physics going straight up without tapering. Mountains are pyramidal and are not that impressive as 400m buildings because their shape is not unusual, just the simplest natural arrangement of rocks.

But regardless of our taste the bottom line is tha broad buildings can't revolutionize the manhattan skyline because mostly only small plots are available. As I said before in china it might be a game changer because like you said they have lots of free space but it's not true everywhere in the world.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
patrykus no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 03:19 PM   #2224
kunming tiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: kunming
Posts: 7,029
Likes (Received): 1659

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
I personally find no tapering towers much more impressive because they are harder to design/build than a pyramidal ones. They somehow looks like braking the laws of physics going straight up without tapering. Mountains are pyramidal and are not that impressive as 400m buildings because their shape is not unusual, just the simplest natural arrangement of rocks.

But regardless of our taste the bottom line is tha broad buildings can't revolutionize the manhattan skyline because mostly only small plots are available. As I said before in china it might be a game changer because like you said they have lots of free space but it's not true everywhere in the world.

The Chinese tend to make space by demolishing old things to make way for new things. Entire blocks just disappear , neigbourhoods cease to exist until they are replaced with shiny new things. But your point is a valid one.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
kunming tiger no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 03:30 PM   #2225
kunming tiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: kunming
Posts: 7,029
Likes (Received): 1659

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
I personally find no tapering towers much more impressive because they are harder to design/build than a pyramidal ones. They somehow looks like braking the laws of physics going straight up without tapering. Mountains are pyramidal and are not that impressive as 400m buildings because their shape is not unusual, just the simplest natural arrangement of rocks.

But regardless of our taste the bottom line is tha broad buildings can't revolutionize the manhattan skyline because mostly only small plots are available. As I said before in china it might be a game changer because like you said they have lots of free space but it's not true everywhere in the world.

The Chinese tend to make space by demolishing old things to make way for new things. Entire blocks just disappear , neigbourhoods cease to exist until they are replaced with shiny new things. But your point is a valid one.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
kunming tiger no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 03:33 PM   #2226
AltinD
The Modecator
 
AltinD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TIRANA / Dubai / Vienna
Posts: 31,827
Likes (Received): 6071

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
History proves you wrong again. Those towers are not pyramidal at all. And the second one is seriously close to the burj.
Do you even know what are you talking about? A structure is slopped to reduce the wind effect and increase the stability (in case of .... yes, you guessed right: winds) not because of the weight the columns would have to support. The weight acts vertically, and the center columns (or better say, the central core) it has to support the same structural weight, regardless of the shape of the tower.

It's the wind effect dude, THE WIND LOAD, that makes slopping a necessity, unless you're willing to over compensate with stronger concrete and longer/heavier foundations.

At the end of the day it comes down to economics: Is the extra usable space on top worth the extra engineering expense?


.... but once again: Slopping happens to reduce the wind load on the structure, not the weight .... or in case of NYC, because of planning regulations.
__________________
I am the eye in the sky, Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules, Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind.


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
AltinD no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 03:35 PM   #2227
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by kunming tiger View Post
The Chinese tend to make space by demolishing old things to make way for new things. Entire blocks just disappear , neigbourhoods cease to exist until they are replaced with shiny new things. But your point is a valid one.
You're right of course. They so easily demolish huge sectors of land that you almost think it's just empty land available for development. There are also some huge projects planned for undeveloped lands as well as broad is planning to building their towers in green areas but the principle is the same for all - practically you don't have much trouble in finding (making) huge empty plot of land in China.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
patrykus no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 05:06 PM   #2228
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltinD View Post
Do you even know what are you talking about? A structure is slopped to reduce the wind effect and increase the stability (in case of .... yes, you guessed right: winds) not because of the weight the columns would have to support. The weight acts vertically, and the center columns (or better say, the central core) it has to support the same structural weight, regardless of the shape of the tower.

It's the wind effect dude, THE WIND LOAD, that makes slopping a necessity, unless you're willing to over compensate with stronger concrete and longer/heavier foundations.
That's just plain wrong. You can distribute weight in other directions. Otherwise structures like Eiffel Tower or almost all steel bridges wouldn't be possible. Windload is one of the factors for sloppiness but it's not the only one. And once again we are not talking about burj khalifa here but broad technology which rely on building from identical parts. Weight distribution is way more critical problem here because you can't use thicker steel or stronger concrete at the bottom (like they did with burj khalifa) - all is the same so you have to find another way. It can't be that hard to understand it. Obviously windload is a problem for this tower as it is for any and plus shaped pyramidal design solves this too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AltinD View Post
At the end of the day it comes down to economics: Is the extra usable space on top worth the extra engineering expense?
And for dense areas and towers that are not solely focused on height the answer is YES as you can see on many towers in new york or chicago. Even in china most of the megatalls are no wing structures that tapers close to nothing compared to burj. In many places you have to compensate with concrete strength and the slopping shape is not only not a necessity but is impossible due to the small size of the plots. If New York will ever get a 1km you can be sure it will not be anything close to the Skycity shape because there would simple be no place to put it.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by patrykus; November 11th, 2013 at 05:16 PM.
patrykus no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 06:18 PM   #2229
zilze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 123
Likes (Received): 72

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
when the first supertalls in broad technology are up they will have learnd a lot more in the process and other shapes may be possible after that. but first they need to deliver that first step
Yep, i totally agree, i think its like 3D printing of highrise buildings right now.
__________________
Check out my profile

https://plus.google.com/b/1130693590...57740899/posts

No amount of virus used to remotely attack my computer can silence my voice! >>>>>> Just an African proverb
;) : The blue sky always has a trax in it ......
zilze no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 07:25 PM   #2230
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,346
Likes (Received): 8242

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
But regardless of our taste the bottom line is tha broad buildings can't revolutionize the manhattan skyline because mostly only small plots are available. As I said before in china it might be a game changer because like you said they have lots of free space but it's not true everywhere in the world.
of course not, i think of broad more of a wonder for the asian world. mumbai would benefit a lot from fast building, since it is in need for residential towers. manila, jakarta and probably any tier B city in china. broad technology will probably also make 200m buildings widely available that are just pure boxes without setbacks that could rise in just a matter of weeks. that would really help booms like in tianjin. instead of years of planning some buildings can be pushed up just when they are needed. the really tall projects like this are to put their name in the headlines, but if it is established and they can put out 250m buildings regullary that is when most cities in china will get the most out of it i think. it is a dream, but not a utopia.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, hightower1 liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 07:36 PM   #2231
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Trust me folks, if broad's method would succeed it would be a game changer for New York just as much as it would be for any city in China or India. New York has a lot of old buildings, some of them being quite large that are set for being demolished. Also, the Hudson Yards have huge ammounts of space left on which currently nothing is proposed. Last but not least, land reclamation is an option. For example the WTC and WFC were built on reclaimed land. There are good pictures detailing the history of Manhattan land reclamation in the thread of the Hudson Yards North Tower
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 07:40 PM   #2232
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
of course not, i think of broad more of a wonder for the asian world. mumbai would benefit a lot from fast building, since it is in need for residential towers. manila, jakarta and probably any tier B city in china. broad technology will probably also make 200m buildings widely available that are just pure boxes without setbacks that could rise in just a matter of weeks. that would really help booms like in tianjin. instead of years of planning some buildings can be pushed up just when they are needed. the really tall projects like this are to put their name in the headlines, but if it is established and they can put out 250m buildings regullary that is when most cities in china will get the most out of it i think. it is a dream, but not a utopia.
Yes, I also believe the broad revolution will be mainly Asian/Chinese thing.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
patrykus no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 07:55 PM   #2233
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,346
Likes (Received): 8242

Kanto it won't happen. the construction might be considered unsafe or cheap or similar things and to improve it to suit the laws of the usa for example would be far far too expensive for the low amount of benefit it brings. new york has a boom, yes, but the boom is of a smaller scale than cities like mumbai, not in size of buildings, but in number of them. the method is great for building 10 150-250m towers in one go in a mega plot new district complex and stuff like that. so it will suit tianjin, shenyang, mumbai, cities like that much more. new york will never see that technology, maybe parts of it, but not more, i am quite positive about that.
__________________

patrykus, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea  
Old November 11th, 2013, 09:22 PM   #2234
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I have to disagree with you on that. Every city on the planet will see this technology if it turns out to work. Sure, the more booming the city is, the more buildings it will build, but every city will build some buildings and any developer would be foolish to not use this method if it works. Technology isn't dependant on the scale of construction. Mumbai might build 40 Skycities while New York only 4, or so (this is just an example to explain what I mean), but every city will use this technology, if it'll work. Trust me, if this technology will work, then all other construction technologies will die out in an instant. Nobody will build a skyscraper, no matter the height for let's say 1,5 billion if he can build it for 500 million with identical quality, and fact is, we don't know what quality these buildings might be. They might be of poor quality or they might be of good quality, we just have to wait and see cause too few has been revealed about this method to make an approximate assessment about the quality of it

I'd give another example. In Slovakia, the tallest skyscraper is 112 meters tall. This height is achievable by both ancient Egyptian technology and middleage cathedral technology. But were these methods used for its construction? Nope, it has a modern structure similar to what we see all arround the world. What I wanted to demonstrate with this example is that even cities building on a very small scale use modern technology. A city won't use outdated technology just because a building it plans could be done by an outdated technology. And if the Broad technology will work, all other construction technologies will be outdated
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

ChuckScraperMiami#1, hightower1 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2013, 12:35 AM   #2235
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,088
Likes (Received): 3645

Nah, there are a few more things required for a building to work than what the ancient Egyptians or Medieval engineers knew. Reinforcing bars in concrete, for instance, or structural steel elements of sufficient size and strength (especially so in the connections between elements).

As far as I can tell, the Broad method is based on large, pre-fabricated steel elements hoist in place and welded together on site. Handy if you have a steel plant and workshop close to the construction site. Not that good if you build far from the nearest plants, or the monstrous trailers required to transport the elements can't access the site. You also need a giant crane for hoisting the elements in place, which certainly is more expensive than handling smaller, more manageable beams (as is done traditionally).
There's also the issue of bracing, which is easier (or cheaper) done with concrete.

The Broad method sure has its applications, but it's not the be-all, end-all method to replace every other method in every situation. It requires lots of logistics to work well, and specialized equipment which is more expensive and possibly less manoeuverable than the traditional method does. There's also a question if building time really is decreased, if you take manufacturing of elements into account. After all, it's one more step in the chain between the steel mill and the construction site.
__________________
Poe's law: You can't impersonate stupidity without somebody mistaking it for the real thing.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2013, 01:13 AM   #2236
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

I think the building time is decreased because on a traditional construction site you are limited with space. Also you can only build a level at a time. With broad case you can spread construction of every element of the tower trough the huge factory so it's basically like building all levels of the tower at once. From what I've seen those factories are really big so that could be it. As for the cranes the test buildings were build by regular favco cranes so there's nothing unusual here too.

But everything else you said about the logistics is of course true. Even if we forget nyc plots are way too small for broads towers there still needs to be a huge factory nearby to supply the construction site. Say NYC demand for 400m big towers is 10 towers per decade. Now who will invest in huge land to build a factory that will be unused for most of the time? Of course if you build cities from scratch like they do it in china it's completely different story.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2013, 02:50 PM   #2237
AltinD
The Modecator
 
AltinD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TIRANA / Dubai / Vienna
Posts: 31,827
Likes (Received): 6071

... plus, how would you be able to transport the prefab blocks through NYC? Those things are huge, and it would meant closing down the entire city to the car traffic so they can move all the pieces around
__________________
I am the eye in the sky, Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules, Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind.

AltinD no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2013, 03:20 PM   #2238
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Not exactly. Prefab pieces have been used in the construction of the old WTC and transportation wasn't an issue. Also, if the building would be built near the shore of the Hudson River ships could be used to transport them. The trasnportation might be more difficult, as KyllIng said, but it isn't an unsolvable problem. What we see them (attempting to) build right now is the mere prototype. Ipm pretty sure that their method, if it'll work, will be adapted to better and less complicated transport. After all, it is in their financial interest to do so
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2013, 03:55 PM   #2239
AltinD
The Modecator
 
AltinD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TIRANA / Dubai / Vienna
Posts: 31,827
Likes (Received): 6071

Not the same thing. We don't have pre-fab pieces here, we have pre-fab modules, "slightly" bigger
__________________
I am the eye in the sky, Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules, Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind.

AltinD no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2013, 07:52 PM   #2240
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

No matter how you call them, their size can be altered in the future. Changsha Skycity is a mere prototype, we don't know to what extent is this new method (if it works) flexible
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
changsha, china, sky city

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 06:49 AM.


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