Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
SSpage vs SScity?
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was just curious about the condition of the tallest-oldest buildings such as the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the GE Building, all built in 1930 ish making them all 80 years old. It's hard to imagine the ESB being demolished :eek2: omg but it certainly will happen sometime.

It looks like all the buildings I mentioned are in NYC but I'm sure Chicago has some very old skyscrapers as well. I have seen old concrete and it's hard to believe 80 year old buildings over 1000 feet tall could handle 80 years of wind and weather and still be in great shape, especially like the ESB and Chrysler which are so skinny. The American International Building is like that, too.

At some point a huge newspaper headline will read EMPIRE STATE BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED. Think about that. Does anybody here know anyting about the state of these buildings?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,252 Posts
I think ESB is a landmark building or something and can't be demolished. Of course, at some point in the future it will cease to be, but keep in mind that the pyramids have been around for 5000 years!
 

·
Amor Vincit Omnia
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
I think ESB is a landmark building or something and can't be demolished. Of course, at some point in the future it will cease to be, but keep in mind that the pyramids have been around for 5000 years!
Or probably even more than 5000 years, 10.000 I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
The opening post reflects the way a large group of people in NA think about buildings. If something gets old, you could also just renovate it instead of building something new? It may be more expensive, but the historical value is just priceless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Unless a building is structurally flawed I would think that it can survive for as long as it is looked after. A lot of European cathedrals are almost 1,000 years old and are constantly being renovated (bit by bit).

Then again concrete is less durable than stone and perhaps harder to replace (in stone buildings they simply remove the damaged/weathered block and stick a new one in).
 

·
SSpage vs SScity?
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Yeah, that's true. Good point with the old cathedrals and things. But with skyscrapers it's a whole different story. That's why I mentioned the oldest 1000 foot buildings. They have a whole 'nother degree of safety concern involved. Not to mention they are office buildings with which efficiency and the ability to serve modern needs are huge factors. I couldn't imagine a modern company like Samsung being headquartered in a building like the the ESB.
 

·
on the road
leptokurtic
Joined
·
35,458 Posts
^^ I think that with population stabilization (happened/happening all over the World), we need to become less fussy about demolishing old stuff to make room for new buildings. Otherwise, we will not see new buildings popping up around the developed world.

We are way too stringent in defining what is historical and what is not. The Coliseum is historical, Notre-Dame is historical... ESB? C'mon, it's not even 100-year old. It could be demolished on a blink if something more interesting could be built there!

Imagine if all cities had been always this careful about historic building preservation, Rome would have 4x its footprint, and some cities wouldn't even have space anymore plagued with wood-and-brick buildings.

We need to loose concerns and regulations to allow the old giving way to the new! High buildings might come on fashion and go away. "Deep" renovation or retrofitting costs a hell of money, usually more than tore down the whole building and putting something new, avant-grade, 21st Century-worth in place!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,479 Posts
The ESB may be an old skyscraper but its infrastructure is up to date and continues to improve.

I'm sure this is the same with The Chrysler and other Art-Deco buildings as well.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,479 Posts
Empire State Building's Green Project

http://esbsustainability.com


Lessons Learned
In the process of developing specific project recommendations, the team uncovered several key lessons for the retrofit of large multi-tenant commercial office buildings.


Five of the most important are described below – both to help others take on their own retrofit projects and to encourage further research.




Developing Robust Solutions Requires the Coordination of a Multitude of Key Stakeholders
Maximizing Energy Savings Profitably Requires Planning and Coordination
Tension Exists Between Maximizing Profitability and Maximizing CO2 Reductions
Creating a Replicable Process for a Whole Building Retrofit is Needed
Increasing Energy Prices Due to Carbon Regulation Do Not Significantly Affect the ESB Retrofit Recommendation


1. Developing robust solutions requires the coordination of several key stakeholders

Developing robust solutions requires the coordination of several key stakeholders.
Planning energy efficiency retrofits in large commercial office buildings must address a dynamic environment, which includes changing tenant profiles, varying vacancy rates, and planned building renovations. In the Empire State Building, the project team included engineers, property managers, energy modelers, energy efficiency experts, architects, and building management.

Each of these stakeholders was needed to help build a robust energy model that addressed the building’s changing tenant profile and helped the team model the impacts of its energy efficiency strategies. Coordination also included the tenants. Involving tenants and considering their perspective early on is critical because more than half of the energy efficiency measures that will be implemented at the Empire State Building involve working both with tenants and within their spaces.


2. Maximizing Energy Savings Profitably Requires Planning and Coordination
For an energy efficiency retrofit to be cost effective, the retrofit needs to align with the planned replacement or upgrades of multiple building systems and components. For instance, the Empire State Building had plans underway to replace its chillers, fix and reseal some of its windows, change corridor lighting, and install new tenant lighting with each new tenant.

Since these upgrades were already going to be carried out, the team redesigned, eliminated and created projects that cost more than the initial budget but had significantly higher energy savings over a 15-year period. When these energy savings were accounted for along with the added upfront project costs, the net present value of the energy efficient retrofit projects was better than that of the initial retrofit projects. However, the energy savings are not substantial enough to offset the full capital cost. This means that doing energy efficiency projects well before major systems and components are ready for replacement will likely be cost prohibitive, with a poor net present value. The large volume of existing commercial buildings suggests that there is a tremendous opportunity to reduce carbon emissions from existing buildings through energy efficiency; however, capturing these reductions in a profitable manner demands careful planning and coordination to ensure that energy efficiency retrofits align with building replacement cycles.



For many buildings that are not in or approaching major replacements, there may still be a major opportunity to retro-commission the building. Retro-commissioning improves the operation of existing buildings, many of which are typically run to minimize complaints, rather than optimize energy performance and create comfortable working environments. Retro-commissioning can typically reduce energy use between 5 – 15 percent in most existing buildings. Developing a tool or set of tools that can quickly triage a building to determine if the building is a candidate for a whole building retrofit, retro-commissioning or no action until a few years more; will dramatically improve the effectiveness of funds and efforts directed towards energy efficiency retrofits of existing buildings.

3. Tension Between Business Value and Reducing CO2 Emissions
In the Empire State Building, maximizing profitability from the energy efficiency retrofit leaves almost 50 percent of the CO2 reduction opportunity on the table. The building owner, while still selecting an optimal package of measures with a high net present value, sacrificed 30 percent of profit to deliver more CO2 reductions and improve the lighting and tenant comfort within the building. Changes in energy prices and/or the cost of energy efficiency technologies may help to better align profit maximization and CO2 reduction. However, as things stand currently, there is a gap between the socially desirable amount of CO2 reduction and the financially beneficial amount of CO2 reduction from a building owner’s perspective.



4. Creating a Replicable Process for a Whole Building Retrofit

Developing the energy efficiency strategies that will be implemented in the Empire State Building took over nine months of intensive building audits, brainstorming charrettes, energy modeling, documentation, and financial analysis. Although the Empire State Building is a very unique building with unusual challenges, the process used to drive deep energy and carbon savings in the Empire State Building can be made much more efficient. Having completed the recommendations for the Empire State Building, the project team recognizes a number of opportunities for condensing the study period exist, these opportunities include: developing experienced teams, creating tools for rapidly diagnosing and categorizing a building (or a portfolio of buildings), quickly developing a “first-cut answer,” and developing and using tools to quickly iterate between financial and energy modeling to arrive at the optimal package of measures.



5. Carbon Regulation Does Not Significantly Affect the Empire State Building Recommendation
The financial decision-making tool helped the team to undestand that the recommended package of energy efficiency measures would not significantly change even if there were carbon regulation that leads to higher energy prices over time. Carbon regulation that changed energy prices by less than two percent per year had little effect on the financial performance of the modeled packages. However, if energy prices rise by over 8 percent (associated with a carbon price of approximately $30/metric ton of CO2), a package with all of the energy efficiency measures that were analyzed (as opposed to those that were recommended), rises to NPV neutral instead of NPV negative.
 

·
The Punk With the Camera
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
^^ I think that with population stabilization (happened/happening all over the World), we need to become less fussy about demolishing old stuff to make room for new buildings. Otherwise, we will not see new buildings popping up around the developed world.

We are way too stringent in defining what is historical and what is not. The Coliseum is historical, Notre-Dame is historical... ESB? C'mon, it's not even 100-year old. It could be demolished on a blink if something more interesting could be built there!

Imagine if all cities had been always this careful about historic building preservation, Rome would have 4x its footprint, and some cities wouldn't even have space anymore plagued with wood-and-brick buildings.

We need to loose concerns and regulations to allow the old giving way to the new! High buildings might come on fashion and go away. "Deep" renovation or retrofitting costs a hell of money, usually more than tore down the whole building and putting something new, avant-grade, 21st Century-worth in place!
Are you shitting me? The Empire State Building was the world's tallest building for 42 years! That remains a world record. If that isn't enough, it's also one of the world's most visited observation decks, and easily one Art Deco's gems. I'm very confident in saying that if anyone, anywhere in the world proposed tearing down the Empire State Building, not only would you have the entire city and state of New York screaming at them, but the rest of the United States and architects around the world would also be screaming at you. On a minor historical note, show me how many supertalls (or any skyscraper, for that matter) that have had planes crash into them and survive with minor damage. I mean, since you seem oh so knowledgeable on the subject, you are surely aware that the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 Mitchell bomber in heavy fog in 1945.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,086 Posts
Are you shitting me? The Empire State Building was the world's tallest building for 42 years! That remains a world record. If that isn't enough, it's also one of the world's most visited observation decks, and easily one Art Deco's gems. I'm very confident in saying that if anyone, anywhere in the world proposed tearing down the Empire State Building, not only would you have the entire city and state of New York screaming at them, but the rest of the United States and architects around the world would also be screaming at you. On a minor historical note, show me how many supertalls (or any skyscraper, for that matter) that have had planes crash into them and survive with minor damage. I mean, since you seem oh so knowledgeable on the subject, you are surely aware that the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 Mitchell bomber in heavy fog in 1945.
Are the Pyramid's a building?

If not, then Potala Palace?
 

·
SSpage vs SScity?
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
Are you shitting me? The Empire State Building was the world's tallest building for 42 years! That remains a world record. If that isn't enough, it's also one of the world's most visited observation decks, and easily one Art Deco's gems. I'm very confident in saying that if anyone, anywhere in the world proposed tearing down the Empire State Building, not only would you have the entire city and state of New York screaming at them, but the rest of the United States and architects around the world would also be screaming at you. On a minor historical note, show me how many supertalls (or any skyscraper, for that matter) that have had planes crash into them and survive with minor damage. I mean, since you seem oh so knowledgeable on the subject, you are surely aware that the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 Mitchell bomber in heavy fog in 1945.
Speaking of that, I remember back when I had this ESB interest thing going on and I was reading books about how great it was built I was arguing with someone that if both 747's hit it it probably wouldn't have fallen because it's so much heavier than the glass and steel WTC and wouldn't melt. I of course have no proof to back this at all but I'll bet it's a heck of a lot heavier and stronger. I remember reading about how much lateral force they calculated it would take to knock it over and how it was built perfectly vertically within an inch or two. These were generic ESB enthusiast books that I'm sure I could find again.

Oh look what I just found:

WTC were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

because of the ESB incident.

"The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds."

By FEMA and heavily critisized here: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

The whole 707 but not quite a 747 reminds me of "Four compartments, she can stay afloat with the first four compartments breeched, but not five. Not five."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,252 Posts
Are you shitting me? The Empire State Building was the world's tallest building for 42 years! That remains a world record. If that isn't enough, it's also one of the world's most visited observation decks, and easily one Art Deco's gems. I'm very confident in saying that if anyone, anywhere in the world proposed tearing down the Empire State Building, not only would you have the entire city and state of New York screaming at them, but the rest of the United States and architects around the world would also be screaming at you. On a minor historical note, show me how many supertalls (or any skyscraper, for that matter) that have had planes crash into them and survive with minor damage. I mean, since you seem oh so knowledgeable on the subject, you are surely aware that the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 Mitchell bomber in heavy fog in 1945.
I'm not American, but if someone tries to demolish it, I'll satand in the way!

Having said that, I do agree wtih suburbanist. A few buildings being labeled historic is OK, but when people do that will whole areas/cities, that's pushing it.
 

·
The Punk With the Camera
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
I'm not American, but if someone tries to demolish it, I'll satand in the way!

Having said that, I do agree wtih suburbanist. A few buildings being labeled historic is OK, but when people do that will whole areas/cities, that's pushing it.
Fair enough, but since when has the entire island been labelled as historic? We're talking about a few old skyscrapers scattered over the island.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
^^ I think that with population stabilization (happened/happening all over the World), we need to become less fussy about demolishing old stuff to make room for new buildings. Otherwise, we will not see new buildings popping up around the developed world.

We are way too stringent in defining what is historical and what is not. The Coliseum is historical, Notre-Dame is historical... ESB? C'mon, it's not even 100-year old. It could be demolished on a blink if something more interesting could be built there!

Imagine if all cities had been always this careful about historic building preservation, Rome would have 4x its footprint, and some cities wouldn't even have space anymore plagued with wood-and-brick buildings.

We need to loose concerns and regulations to allow the old giving way to the new! High buildings might come on fashion and go away. "Deep" renovation or retrofitting costs a hell of money, usually more than tore down the whole building and putting something new, avant-grade, 21st Century-worth in place!
The coliseum was only 100 years old at one stage as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,633 Posts
As long as regular maintenance is done, I think buildings like ESB, Chrysler, Woolworths, will be around for a long long time. The ESB was overbuilt with steel. It is a very strong building. I think it'll be standing well into the next century.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
I'm not American, but if someone tries to demolish it, I'll satand in the way!

Having said that, I do agree wtih suburbanist. A few buildings being labeled historic is OK, but when people do that will whole areas/cities, that's pushing it.
Yes , but how many of the current buildings were around 100 years ago. I agree with preservation. Extreme museumification of cities is mostly not happening in real life.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top