Skyscrapers topping out early, some just tapping out
Here's a heartwarming story about a construction defect that was discovered halfway through completion. Reinforcing for the concrete columns wasn't installed correctly (don't know exactly what that means, but could be pretty expensive to fix). The novel solution: just stop building...
But, in these times of economic woe, it seems like everyone is scaling back their plans. Not just the unlucky builders who hire incompetent contractors. Even the famous Chicago Spire is now just a smoking hole in the ground. The fun thing is that so many of these "super-tall structures" or "towers of babel" are associated with equally large egos. Schadenfreude to the max.
Labels: economy, random, structural engineering, Urban Environment
posted by Graeme at
1:16 PM
5 Comments:
I tend to believe that the age of the 60+ story skyscraper is nearing an end. And for the most part, I say good riddance. I feel much more at home amongst brownstones in Park Slope in Brooklyn than the skyscrapers in Midtown Manhattan. Not to mention all the resources the massive buildings rely on, and their maintenance costs, and so on.
Sorry, that was posted under my wife's account!
Damn, and there I thought I had another person reading my blog.
I agree that I feel more at home among smaller buildings, but skyscrapers don't necessarily have to be resource hogs. I think there will be a push to build "green" skyscrapers over the next decade, assuming the economy recovers to some extent. CTBUH even has a working group about to release a manuscript on the topic.
Skyscrapers provide a lot of benefits, including densification, which allows for mass transit and economies of scale. And sometimes the square footage is necessary to fit all the economic activity within a small area (like Manhattan).
I'm not a cheerleader for one building type over another, but I imagine that once downtown Indy is in full swing the river and the interstate highways will act to constrict most of the business to that small area and you will see more skyscrapers built.
But for better or worse, skyscrapers are an icon of the urban environment now and they probably aren't going away. We just have to make sure developers will build them to the highest standards.
You'll get more readers eventually. Have you posted over on Skyscraper City? That's a sure way to get more people to check out this site, which I think is certainly worthy.
Ya, unfortunately I let my skyscraper bias get the best of me. I agree with the benefits they can have with regards to mass transit, but of course in Indy we have to build them with a ton of parking spots, which adds to the cost of the project. In Indy, I'm a big advocate of 4-10 story buildings. Quality density can happen at that scale, and their "automobile footprint" is lower.
Actually, I'm not a big fan of open forums. Nothing wrong with it, just not my cup of tea.
But your comment about providing parking for large buildings is accurate. Automobiles are a unwelcome addition to urban areas, and providing 100% peak occupant parking is a horrible burden.
Time to start up a "kill your car" scheme to coincide with "kill your television".
Post a Comment
<< Home