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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 16th, 2007, 07:45 PM   #1101
malec
Rrrraaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!
 
malec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cork
Posts: 9,598
Likes (Received): 125

yl75, you definitely make good points but I still don't buy your argument. I really don't think the whole natural light thing is THAT important. Sure the amount of light at the ground is 0 when you have infinitely high towers but you're never going to have inifinitely high towers. Why? Because there still exists a limit. When an area is so dense that it becomes difficult to walk around in (because of the amount of people on the streets) then that's your limit. Transportation is probably the biggest thing limiting density.

Sure a lot of people may not like the idea of of being so crammed in like that but people's attitudes do change and it could well become a reality in the future. For example if you were to tell someone 200 years ago that you could travel at 100mph in a horseless carriage then they'd tell you "yeah right!" but for us that's slow compared to say, planes. I'd say that you wouldn't even need very tall towers to reach this critical density. Image a lowrise but dense city like Paris or Barcelona. Now tripple the height of all the buildings in the city and you'd be pretty close.
malec no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 16th, 2007, 07:48 PM   #1102
Wikidboo
Registered User
 
Wikidboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 36
Likes (Received): 0

Hey guys,

That documentary is a repeat of the one shown earlier in the year. If you missed it the first time its a really good show and goes in depth on what it takes to build this. I think when the show ended they were up to 80 floors.
Wikidboo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 08:01 PM   #1103
BlackSmith!
Peace sells...
 
BlackSmith!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ajdovščina
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 6

If first floor above the 4th mechanical levels is 112, that its now at level 126.
And levels 123-4 are slightly higher than the rest
BlackSmith! no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 08:03 PM   #1104
Bikes
sababa
 
Bikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Warsaw, Stockholm, Budapest, Berlin
Posts: 3,424
Likes (Received): 2672

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky Tower View Post
That's because you can't count!
So what is the floor count then?
__________________
Dubai Marina Yachts
Bikes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 08:09 PM   #1105
yl75
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by malec View Post
yl75, you definitely make good points but I still don't buy your argument. I really don't think the whole natural light thing is THAT important. Sure the amount of light at the ground is 0 when you have infinitely high towers but you're never going to have inifinitely high towers. Why? Because there still exists a limit. When an area is so dense that it becomes difficult to walk around in (because of the amount of people on the streets) then that's your limit. Transportation is probably the biggest thing limiting density.

Sure a lot of people may not like the idea of of being so crammed in like that but people's attitudes do change and it could well become a reality in the future. For example if you were to tell someone 200 years ago that you could travel at 100mph in a horseless carriage then they'd tell you "yeah right!" but for us that's slow compared to say, planes. I'd say that you wouldn't even need very tall towers to reach this critical density. Image a lowrise but dense city like Paris or Barcelona. Now tripple the height of all the buildings in the city and you'd be pretty close.
Malec I'm not sure I got your point, or that you got mine .

First of all, for housing I indeed do think natural light is important. Who would want to live in a flat with permanent artificial light ?

And the only thing I am saying, (and I want to post the calculations or get that article I quoted), is that if you give yourself some given constraints on the lower level of natural light that the flats should get, and then, given these constraints, you compare several "urbanism" (that is generic shapes) then the towers urbanism is NOT the most efficient, and in fact it gets worse when you increase the number of floors. That is you will get a higher density with a slabs or courtyard buildings urbanism. Of course in a tower urbanism the density is high within a given tower, but a "city of towers" will be less dense than a "slabs city" under the same constraints.

When you give the example of Paris or Barcelona, increasing the number of floors in Paris by 3 without changing the buildings floor plans and land use would simply make it totally unlivable. And by the way it is a good example as I think Paris has a higher density than Manhattan even where there is high rise housing (by density here I'm talking ratio of built (appartements or offices) surface over total land surface, not people density)

I am not against towers in principle and there are some sites where they do indeed makes sense (at the South of some open space basically), or isolated like the Burj, and I would not mind having a great flat in a tower with good view and light, and wouldn't mind the "tower desity" in these conditions. It is just that the popular "belief" that they are more efficient in terms of increasing the overall city density is simply FALSE !

Last edited by yl75; May 16th, 2007 at 08:18 PM.
yl75 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 08:31 PM   #1106
yl75
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKing View Post
I believe i understand fully what you mean about the light and the problem with having many high-rise buildings as they need more space in between (becouse of lightconditions). Also your link seems very interesting and i will make sure to read it.

A solution for being able to build higher with an larger amount of total floor space may be semitransparent buildings, what i mean is that the building are not only planned individually, but by planning them from the point of the surrounding you could have diagonal transparent ways through buildings which would allow sunlight to reach all levels of the urban complex of the city. Good infrastrucutre as ive earlier mentioned, both for transport and communication and recreation areas could make it a comfortable environment alongside the possibility to also utopiawise have multistorey villacommunities. An prerequisite for it to function is of course the pollutionfree transport, fuel cells, hydrogen combustion engines and other alternatives.

It might be unviable today but also as ive mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, the marketconditions of the future will change with higher population, the need to show consideration to nature and higher pollution and land devastation costs becouse of growing federal environmental care costs, so as to that the market forces might favour this kinds of brave new initiatives from developers.
I fully agree with the transportation, pollution aspects, and recreational areas aspects. For recreational areas increasing the number of floors for a given density does liberate some land in between buildings, but it doesn't increase the overall city density.

As for the transparent buildings I'm much more dubitative. That would primarily means transparent floors, and although being able to look up below the skirt of my above neighbour by looking at the ceiling could be kind of cool , I don't really see how this could be made effective :/
yl75 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 08:33 PM   #1107
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 2,337
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by yl75 View Post
Malec I'm not sure I got your point, or that you got mine .

First of all, for housing I indeed do think natural light is important. Who would want to live in a flat with permanent artificial light ?

And the only thing I am saying, (and I want to post the calculations or get that article I quoted), is that if you give yourself some given constraints on the lower level of natural light that the flats should get, and then, given these constraints, you compare several "urbanism" (that is generic shapes) then the towers urbanism is NOT the most efficient, and in fact it gets worse when you increase the number of floors. That is you will get a higher density with a slabs or courtyard buildings urbanism. Of course in a tower urbanism the density is high within a given tower, but a "city of towers" will be less dense than a "slabs city" under the same constraints.

When you give the example of Paris or Barcelona, increasing the number of floors in Paris by 3 without changing the buildings floor plans and land use would simply make it totally unlivable. And by the way it is a good example as I think Paris has a higher density than Manhattan even where there is high rise housing (by density here I'm talking ratio of built (appartements or offices) surface over total land surface, not people density)

I am not against towers in principle and there are some sites where they do indeed makes sense (at the South of some open space basically), or isolated like the Burj, and I would not mind having a great flat in a tower with good view and light, and wouldn't mind the "tower desity" in these conditions. It is just that the popular "belief" that they are more efficient in terms of increasing the overall city density is simply FALSE !
Maybe the Parisexample would be unlivable with todays infrastructure, but not if you add another floor of it, for example, or make it more effective in other ways.

However i do agree that i dont believe many would like to or even be able to live without constant natural lighting, its crucial for humans as living beings. Anyhow i still believe its obvious (without yet reading the link you posted on the previous page) that high-rise building can increase density, given that the infrastructure is adapted to that kind of living. In other words not only built on ground level. And the same about recreation and so on. Let e develope my idea on the diagonal light"ways" through the urbanity. Even if it ay not be able to reach every unit (apartment that is), altough it probably could even that will good planning, it could reach important nodes like parks and open/public spaces.

But i dont think that would be that much of a problem with building at the current hight of 300 - a maximum of up to 1km, which is a lot. Still you have opened my eyes a bit about the natural lighting thing, which i have been maybe neglecting a bit earlier. Its an interesting issue to solve indeed.

________________________

About the transparent building i did not mean that the whole building or even floors would be that of course, but rather having open parts through the buildings
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]

Last edited by Alle; May 16th, 2007 at 08:41 PM.
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 08:49 PM   #1108
malec
Rrrraaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!
 
malec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cork
Posts: 9,598
Likes (Received): 125

No you I'm pretty sure you got my point and I got yours

Explain how Paris would be unlivable if you increased the number of stories by 2 (OK 3 was a bit much maybe). Of course when I say this I also mean increasing everything else needed to make things work such as beefing up all public transport, etc.

[QUOTE=yl75;13205650]First of all, for housing I indeed do think natural light is important. Who would want to live in a flat with permanent artificial light ?[QUOTE=yl75;13205650]

Of course natural light is important but there are 2 things I want to say. First of all, you say who'd want to live like that? Well you may not like it, I may not like it but how will a 10m population city function in the future (without cars) without seriously increasing density? It may not be something we like but might be something a lot of people will have to live with. Most people for example would never live or work on the 100th floor of a building but if lots of 100 storey buildings get built then things might be different. 2ndly I'm not talking about a super-skyscraper city with towers of burj dubai height as I agree this is not the way to go as one, it would be rediculously expensive to build and maintain and two, how would people have room to walk the streets? I'm talking about a really dense city where the average height is around 15 to 20 stories. Sure cramming these together might seem overbearing but surely wouldn't be extreme enough for people to need permanent artificial light.

IMO the effect of losing light wouldn't start until you reach a certain height for starters. Example, increasing a 1-storey city to a 2-storey city wouldn't have much effect on the natural light issue yet would be twice as dense.

Anyway my general belief is the density of cities would be limited by how much the transportation system and streets can handle since this limit would be reached before visibility becomes a serious problem.

Sorry if I'm not clear but I'm a terrible essay writer so if anything doesn't make sense just tell me to say it again.
malec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:22 PM   #1109
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 2,337
Likes (Received): 9

If you put high restrictions for example at 200m for most part of a city you could build an extra highway and streets and so on, even parking and lobbys above the buildings which would have to have an height in a specific intervall of course. Naturally they would need to stand on groundlevel pillars. They could be enclosed and soundlevels decreased with isolation. To complement the ground level network, or maybe replace it so it ould be used for greenery and open spaces.

Transportation above the buildings arent limited to one level either but could have a long-distance highway on a level above the first one.
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:24 PM   #1110
Momo1435
-----アンジュルム-----
 
Momo1435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: アルフェナンデンライン
Posts: 34,597
Likes (Received): 61085

I can't believe that in a whole discussion about high-rise buildings/density/light lasting the last three pages nobody, and I mean nobody mentioned Hong Kong. The wolrd capital of high rise living. Hong Kong only shows that extreme urban densities can lead to very livable cities. And they have an active light planning for high rises, they try to get as much light into every appartment as possible. It can be done.

But a city with lot's of 1000m high towers is a bit too much, we need to build cities within reason. As any higher is almost impossible, it's just not safe anymore to live in and it would also be boring, a complete skyline of 1,000m without any higher buildings.


Second point, new thread anyone???
__________________
Support your Idols
キタ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ฅ(๑⊙д⊙๑)ฅ!! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━!!!
Japan Projects & Construction
Momo1435 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:31 PM   #1111
Devil May Care
Professional Idiot
 
Devil May Care's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 0

...and I can't believe this is relevant to the Burj Dubai thread.
__________________
If there's the Devil to pay he can keep the change
Devil May Care no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:33 PM   #1112
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 2,337
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
I can't believe that in a whole discussion about high-rise buildings/density/light lasting the last three pages nobody, and I mean nobody mentioned Hong Kong. The wolrd capital of high rise living. Hong Kong only shows that extreme urban densities can lead to very livable cities. And they have an active light planning for high rises, they try to get as much light into every appartment as possible. It can be done.

But a city with lot's of 1000m high towers is a bit too much, we need to build cities within reason. As any higher is almost impossible, it's just not safe anymore to live in and it would also be boring, a complete skyline of 1,000m without any higher buildings.


Second point, new thread anyone???
Actually i was about to bring up HK early in the discussion as an example. But than i saw that many cities with lower buildings in general have about the same or higher density, according to unreliable Wikipedia LINK

I agree that with todays technology and infrastruture we are reaching the top of what is practical. We might se a couple of towers higher than that of ~500 m which stand out but not more. However who knows what solutions the future holds.


Devil May Care:

It is becouse of the question if we might see ii get more ordinary to see buildings at that height.
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:42 PM   #1113
FastFerrari
I double dog dare you!!!
 
FastFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas - USA
Posts: 707
Likes (Received): 32

nice to see they're FINALLY going to clothe this beast....cant wait to see more.....Do these panels make me look fat?--Burj Dubai
FastFerrari no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:43 PM   #1114
Momo1435
-----アンジュルム-----
 
Momo1435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: アルフェナンデンライン
Posts: 34,597
Likes (Received): 61085

@AKing
That's because they always use the total area of Hong Kong and not the build up area. HK got lot's of green space, with lot's of hills that's also counted in the density numbers. Unlike those other cities that are completely build up. The fact that HK has lot's of green space is also part of it's strenght as a very livable city.


And every Burj Dubai thread needs it's dose of off-topicness.
__________________
Support your Idols
キタ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ฅ(๑⊙д⊙๑)ฅ!! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━!!!
Japan Projects & Construction
Momo1435 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:50 PM   #1115
Devil May Care
Professional Idiot
 
Devil May Care's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 0

You ain't wrong there Momo
__________________
If there's the Devil to pay he can keep the change
Devil May Care no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 09:58 PM   #1116
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 2,337
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
@AKing
That's because they always use the total area of Hong Kong and not the build up area. HK got lot's of green space, with lot's of hills that's also counted in the density numbers. Unlike those other cities that are completely build up. The fact that HK has lot's of green space is also part of it's strenght as a very livable city.


And every Burj Dubai thread needs it's dose of off-topicness.
Maybe thats also the reason for why HK has developed its high-rise culture. Would it have been if HK was more flat and had more space? What i mean is that even its hills its a part of the city and so the total area used by its inhabitants. Without the hills maybe the buildings would be lower and with that said the hills should maybe be accredited for part of the high-rise culture. And therefore also the area of the hills be used in the densitycalculations becouse they are indeed part of the city and part of reason as to why high-rise living is viable in HK. Without them the density might have been lower with high-rise instead for other reasons like more artificial parks.
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 10:28 PM   #1117
downtownVital.org
You can call me Dan
 
downtownVital.org's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Green Bay
Posts: 421
Likes (Received): 4

Wouldn't some sort of combination work best, slab bases with thin towers? This is a trend in cities to build more slender towers to allow in light.

It's an ugly drawing, but I'm thinking of something like this:

__________________
- Dan

http://www.downtownvital.org
downtownVital.org no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 11:00 PM   #1118
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 2,337
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownVital.org View Post
Wouldn't some sort of combination work best, slab bases with thin towers? This is a trend in cities to build more slender towers to allow in light.

It's an ugly drawing, but I'm thinking of something like this:

I believe thats an possible way to add space and keeping light at the same time. I doubt that alone can prevent much of the increasing landusage though, as the population grows.
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 11:14 PM   #1119
mikering
Edificio más bajo anexo
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
Likes (Received): 5

So slooow! façade is being so slow by now i hope it speeds up next weep..

btw why dont tehy start claddig from lvl 6-7 like on the other bldngs and start from the 1st set of mechs .. the 18 lvls beneath 19 will have different claddinG?
__________________
My Burj Dubai made out of cardboard & cards/// Mi Burj Dubai hecho de cartón!! = http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=509468
Xempton 4 ever!

Ganador de un rascaolé 2007! (ou yea)
mikering no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2007, 11:17 PM   #1120
yl75
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
I can't believe that in a whole discussion about high-rise buildings/density/light lasting the last three pages nobody, and I mean nobody mentioned Hong Kong. The wolrd capital of high rise living. Hong Kong only shows that extreme urban densities can lead to very livable cities. And they have an active light planning for high rises, they try to get as much light into every appartment as possible. It can be done.

But a city with lot's of 1000m high towers is a bit too much, we need to build cities within reason. As any higher is almost impossible, it's just not safe anymore to live in and it would also be boring, a complete skyline of 1,000m without any higher buildings.


Second point, new thread anyone???

I think Aking mentioned the hills !... but anyway, opening a dedicated thread obviuously makes sense

So, malec is asking :

Explain how Paris would be unlivable if you increased the number of stories by 2 (OK 3 was a bit much maybe).

This might not be the case everywhere but, if you consider belows, it is clearly problematic :



Current Paris was built under precise rules, like the number of degrees for a given street size.


About the the overal rules we get :





yl75 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 12:32 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