i'm working on a proposal for a building that will be over 100 stories tall ie a super tall building. Anybody else ever work on something of this scale???
read an interesting bio piece on the engineer responsible for the super-talls at som. good insight: at a certain point in these extreme heights the ONLY reason behind supertall is bragging rights because the costs required trump all potentially practical reasons.
can't remember where this was, maybe 'wired'. yeah, i think that's right. the one with dna one the cover.
it is an ego driven project. but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the environmental impact or not attempt to get the highest level of performance out of the structure/systems.
Supertall buildings are all about the poetry of structural engineering - check outh Fazular Kahn's biography and read up on his unbuilt world trade center concepts. hes largely responsible for the supertall theoretical eveolution from tube in tube, braced tube, tube with belt truss, tube with outriggers ( current concept) and his unrealized open truss frame towers
I also suggest a reading of the British Council for Offices Tall Buildings - A Strategic Design Guide. Nicely produced with good information that generally covers the super-tall as well as the tall...
And for a plain-old good read, Carol Willis's "Form Follows Finance" is excellent.
As I've noted on other threads, I expect to love and loathe the grotesque kitsch that is being extruded through Dubai's rapid, vapid, and cancerous growth. The thing with cancer cells is that they don't die, while I expect Dubai to have rather less longevity.
Abu Dhabi (think Foster Masterplanned Masdar City) seems genuinely and sustainably greener and apparently is visually greener too.
For all that, new technologies are being broken in and honed in the tough financial and climatic conditions that characterise the UAE. Inflation running at >1%/month, 40% of projects put on-hold, massive variations in daytime/night-time temperatures, sand, solar gain... It is the crucible from which many golden threads will be drawn, it might just leave a bit of a mess in the making.
I will try to make some sense of the conference, and its context, and relay it here, or hereabouts...
I lived in Taipei for a long time and got to know the Taipei 101 quite a bit. An amazing building really, considering the location. They had to make a building strong enough to withstand an earthquake (right near a fault line) but flexible enough to withstand the frequent raging winds from typhoons (those I don't miss). Check out the construction of this thing, it's amazing.
I don't care for the style much, but the engineering of it is awesome. They have a huge counterweight "ball" that literally causes the building to sway with the wind.
There are weather simulations that come out of the UN or the met. office or similar, predicting temperature and wind changes over the next 80 years. Obviously these are only predictions.
There are lots of sub-sections of the likes of the IStructE and ICE (UK structural and Civil engineering bodies) that focus on seismic, blast and other catastrophic events. An enquiry through their site will provide some expert or other.
our office is doing a super tall tower right now about 500m, and i personally have worked on a couple around 300m towers. For us, clearly solving the structural problems, as well as understanding quickly what our solution could provide for us by way of how to cut the lobby or offices etc etc, was the primary concern during the competition phase.
Once that was complete though, it is all about tightening up the core as much as possible... our MEP guys were not on the same page as our structural guys, or as us and we paid for it many, many times. Competition phase, focus on the structure, but dont forget about a realistic core... if anything comes back to bite you, my money is on stupid shit like vestibules you weren't aware were required, or shafts that were undersized, air handler units requiring higher ceilings, or ducts punching holes in walls were you structural guys cant spare it... and on and on and on...
we had Andy Davids of Hyder, the man quoted in the news piece for that 1600m tower, come to talk at work three weeks ago. Hyder are now the Architects of Record on the Burj too. Power to the structural engineers it seems is growing.
Who is Hyder? never heard of them until this tower hit the airwaves.
lldownl- very good points and ones we're following. Solving structural efficiency and systems was the first thing we charretted on, the core seems to be solving itself, now we're focusing on the skin and public spaces.
its really dawning on my Arups wisdom that the most efficient density/height is an 8 story walk up as I explore the sustainable design features for this 100+ story tower. Good thing is we have lots of surface area for PVs, but that still will generate around 10% of our projects electricity (and I'm feeling bad for all the neighboring buildings that will loose their sunshine).
If the ideal is a semi-urban residential area, without any disabled or old people, or people with small children, or large pets, yes the 8-storey walk-up is both economically and structurally efficient and reasonably dense. Much like Dongtan island off Shanghai, where they are creating a low-carbon sustainable settlement.
It does strike me as a little odd that in doing this "sustainable settlement" they are building the longest suspension bridge in the world (18 miles including bridge and tunnel), to get people to and from Dongtan island. Although this is an extreme example, consider the cement used in the bridge similar to that of the roads servicing the rural villages (and the steel of the cars that drive along them), or the elevator cores of the super tall towers: It is all infrastructure, it is just that in a supertall the infrastructure is incorporated in the building.
The energy embodied in a tower starts to seem more reasonable if you need to put 2,000 employees in close proximity to the other 50,000 that constitute their industry without inducing millions of gas/petrol-fuelled commuting miles, housing them in a tower within a cluster of mixed-use towers on a mass transit node, with CHP, taking advantage of the day/night mixed-use profiles, using waste heat and water, avoiding building on fertile land, in buildings that, because of the upfront design investment, should last for a hundred years or more in a better than zero-net-energy, better than carbon-neutral way with superb daylighting and passive ventilation creating communities within and across social strata of age, and income, that lead to social cohesion and crime reduction while improving the economic filters that allow us to profit through positive action...
I'm not suggesting that the tallest of the supertall are going to be the most sustainable, but they are the places where the technologies are tested and humanity extended. They might be considered laboratories (citation needed), expensive, without any "practical" goal, like much research, however we do get a building at the end of it, and a whole load of new tools and processes with which to re-address the task of making humans happy.
PsyArch- great points. From a land-use perspective when the super-tall is adjacent to mass transit, there are a great many benefits and this is the best solution. But the complexity of the building to get that tall is a major inefficiency like that 18 mile bridge. The infrastructure is staggering and very inefficient when compared to a midrise block (especially when the roofs become habitat/agricultural. Having to pump water every 30 stories, the massive foundations (why must there be 10 meters of solid concrete???), the volume of the elevator shafts, the shadow blocking the sun from the neighborhood, and all adds up to me being skeptical.
An efficient building supported by inefficient infrastructure (think LEED-platinum in the suburbs) is no more efficient then an inefficient building with high performance infrastructure. Think NYC or London -ok london doesn't have efficient infrastructure ;-).
the biggest flaws with LEED is that it ignores infrastructure (except for some on-site water treatment and energy generation), food production, and regional land use. The ASLA's sustainable sites initiative starts to address some of the regional resource issues, but still ignore infrastructure and transit.
So how can we push for high-performance infrastructure and transit networks in conjunction with high-performance structures?
This ignorance of infrastructure implications (in most calculations of sustainability) is part the subject of the paper we present at CTBUH 2008.
An unfortunate truth is that density of the order granted by supertalls attracts economic benefits and those, whether in rental premiums, security, proximity, attractiveness to retail, arts, education and other service/cultural organisations, those benefits are not accounted for either.
Calculating, or even hypothesising about, the amount of human output enabled per tonne of carbon expended, or tonne of cement used, or hour of daylight stolen becomes so complex we can only (make an informed) guess. I say this after many, many months trying.
I don't like how it revolves around LEED but I like the user interface and potential for automated information gathering based on exact location and context (Climate analysis, proximity to regional materials, infrastructure, & etc). Besides, I just think touchscreens (especially pressure sensitive) are just damn interesting.
However, while i think that such visualization techniques are useful for designers, i still feel that all this emphasis on tech for green building even if it isn't directly applied to the program but just used in the design phase, de-emphasizes the real and sometimes very simple solutions that can help to make a building more "green"
they showed that at Green Build. I think I got a CD with that presentation.... this seems to be the closest to realizing ed mazria's wished for parametric energy display box.
supertall buildings are rediculous. i was in the chicago john hancock bldg this weekend, the first time i've been in such a building in years. it was just way too tall. there's no point in building this "spire." what is the point of making a building you are going to be perpetually frightened to be in due to the insane height and unending subtle movement? the burge dubai will probably fall down before it's finished. but this spire is way out of scale and it looks like a corkscrew dildo.
Well Le Boss,
there is the movement, generally acceleration is kept below 8mg for offices and 5mg for residential. People used to think that if you went faster than 30mph in an automobile you would surely suffer serious injury. Similarly think of the first people trying to use a boat, sea legs anyone? Vertigo is common. I sympathise. Do you use aeroplanes? How do you cope with turbulence, what about the rattle of a train, the wobble of your bicycle, the spongy suspension of your american cars?
The human system attenuates, accomodates, becomes inured to unpleasantries.
I don't envisage the Burj Dubai falling down.
Didn't you enjoy the view from the Hancock, across the flat mid-western plains, across Lake Michigan? Looking out like Zeus from Olympus, attached to the ground, yet further from it than only a few other people somewhere in Taiwan? I thought that was cool.
Super tall
i'm working on a proposal for a building that will be over 100 stories tall ie a super tall building. Anybody else ever work on something of this scale???
got stories or wisdom?
bigger version
more
yes. make it big shiny and put a hole in it...
read an interesting bio piece on the engineer responsible for the super-talls at som. good insight: at a certain point in these extreme heights the ONLY reason behind supertall is bragging rights because the costs required trump all potentially practical reasons.
can't remember where this was, maybe 'wired'. yeah, i think that's right. the one with dna one the cover.
it is an ego driven project. but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the environmental impact or not attempt to get the highest level of performance out of the structure/systems.
don't mean to indicate that was all the article was about. was still interesting.
here: http://www.wired.com/culture/design/magazine/15-12/mf_baker
Supertall buildings are all about the poetry of structural engineering - check outh Fazular Kahn's biography and read up on his unbuilt world trade center concepts. hes largely responsible for the supertall theoretical eveolution from tube in tube, braced tube, tube with belt truss, tube with outriggers ( current concept) and his unrealized open truss frame towers
cool article steve.
I was just agreeing that the project I'm working on is ego driven...
Is this proposal for a building in Asia or the ME somewhere? Is anyone doing supertall in N. America or Europe these days?
yes to the first.
There is a lot of research (some of it written by me!) published on the website of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
The firm I'm with was involved in more than one of the projects in your (skyscraper page) diagrams. email if you like.
We do super tall everywhere.
This looks like it could be interesting
my ego can ignore anything and it ain't that big or shiny.
A monument to your reign Vado.
The Vince's dick is bigger than yours just like his building is bigger than yours. All hail the big dick building!
"If hands determine dick size than I'm palmin' the earth."
-Some rapper whose name I forgot, i think its Xzibt tho.
Nam, I'm hoping that will be a good conference, I'm going. All carbon offset...
I also suggest a reading of the British Council for Offices Tall Buildings - A Strategic Design Guide. Nicely produced with good information that generally covers the super-tall as well as the tall...
And for a plain-old good read, Carol Willis's "Form Follows Finance" is excellent.
PsyArch.
I would be interested in hearing your perceptions/thoughts on the conference after your return.
Especially as it is going to take place in Dubai which in my view seems to be superficially green currently, at best.
As I've noted on other threads, I expect to love and loathe the grotesque kitsch that is being extruded through Dubai's rapid, vapid, and cancerous growth. The thing with cancer cells is that they don't die, while I expect Dubai to have rather less longevity.
Abu Dhabi (think Foster Masterplanned Masdar City) seems genuinely and sustainably greener and apparently is visually greener too.
For all that, new technologies are being broken in and honed in the tough financial and climatic conditions that characterise the UAE. Inflation running at >1%/month, 40% of projects put on-hold, massive variations in daytime/night-time temperatures, sand, solar gain... It is the crucible from which many golden threads will be drawn, it might just leave a bit of a mess in the making.
I will try to make some sense of the conference, and its context, and relay it here, or hereabouts...
I lived in Taipei for a long time and got to know the Taipei 101 quite a bit. An amazing building really, considering the location. They had to make a building strong enough to withstand an earthquake (right near a fault line) but flexible enough to withstand the frequent raging winds from typhoons (those I don't miss). Check out the construction of this thing, it's amazing.
I don't care for the style much, but the engineering of it is awesome. They have a huge counterweight "ball" that literally causes the building to sway with the wind.
our engineers have been talking about dampers filled with water. seems much simpler and cheaper.
Anybody know any 'seismic [tsunami] wave analysts' or consultants? seems like a very specialized field.
Ken Yeang
his work on vertical eco cities is very interesting imho...although he is not a wave analyst...sorry.
There are weather simulations that come out of the UN or the met. office or similar, predicting temperature and wind changes over the next 80 years. Obviously these are only predictions.
There are lots of sub-sections of the likes of the IStructE and ICE (UK structural and Civil engineering bodies) that focus on seismic, blast and other catastrophic events. An enquiry through their site will provide some expert or other.
Then there is Arup.
we got Arup
we got KMA
now we just need to get the project.
How did I miss this news item?
thanks Bldgblog geoff!!!
our office is doing a super tall tower right now about 500m, and i personally have worked on a couple around 300m towers. For us, clearly solving the structural problems, as well as understanding quickly what our solution could provide for us by way of how to cut the lobby or offices etc etc, was the primary concern during the competition phase.
Once that was complete though, it is all about tightening up the core as much as possible... our MEP guys were not on the same page as our structural guys, or as us and we paid for it many, many times. Competition phase, focus on the structure, but dont forget about a realistic core... if anything comes back to bite you, my money is on stupid shit like vestibules you weren't aware were required, or shafts that were undersized, air handler units requiring higher ceilings, or ducts punching holes in walls were you structural guys cant spare it... and on and on and on...
tk
we had Andy Davids of Hyder, the man quoted in the news piece for that 1600m tower, come to talk at work three weeks ago. Hyder are now the Architects of Record on the Burj too. Power to the structural engineers it seems is growing.
lletdownl - can I send you an email?
Who is Hyder? never heard of them until this tower hit the airwaves.
lldownl- very good points and ones we're following. Solving structural efficiency and systems was the first thing we charretted on, the core seems to be solving itself, now we're focusing on the skin and public spaces.
its really dawning on my Arups wisdom that the most efficient density/height is an 8 story walk up as I explore the sustainable design features for this 100+ story tower. Good thing is we have lots of surface area for PVs, but that still will generate around 10% of our projects electricity (and I'm feeling bad for all the neighboring buildings that will loose their sunshine).
look as long as its eco and generates energy for the city its in, and doesn't create too much downward force unto the techtonic plates its all good.
earthquakes are exciting - I second geoff's thesis about techtonic designing with supertall buildings is the latest advance in landscape architecture!
geothermal steam plants also create lots of earthquakes when they start injecting water to produce more steam.
before long, we'll be triggering earthquakes on demand to shape the surface of the earth without bulldozers.
The most efficient in certain circumstances.
If the ideal is a semi-urban residential area, without any disabled or old people, or people with small children, or large pets, yes the 8-storey walk-up is both economically and structurally efficient and reasonably dense. Much like Dongtan island off Shanghai, where they are creating a low-carbon sustainable settlement.
It does strike me as a little odd that in doing this "sustainable settlement" they are building the longest suspension bridge in the world (18 miles including bridge and tunnel), to get people to and from Dongtan island. Although this is an extreme example, consider the cement used in the bridge similar to that of the roads servicing the rural villages (and the steel of the cars that drive along them), or the elevator cores of the super tall towers: It is all infrastructure, it is just that in a supertall the infrastructure is incorporated in the building.
The energy embodied in a tower starts to seem more reasonable if you need to put 2,000 employees in close proximity to the other 50,000 that constitute their industry without inducing millions of gas/petrol-fuelled commuting miles, housing them in a tower within a cluster of mixed-use towers on a mass transit node, with CHP, taking advantage of the day/night mixed-use profiles, using waste heat and water, avoiding building on fertile land, in buildings that, because of the upfront design investment, should last for a hundred years or more in a better than zero-net-energy, better than carbon-neutral way with superb daylighting and passive ventilation creating communities within and across social strata of age, and income, that lead to social cohesion and crime reduction while improving the economic filters that allow us to profit through positive action...
I'm not suggesting that the tallest of the supertall are going to be the most sustainable, but they are the places where the technologies are tested and humanity extended. They might be considered laboratories (citation needed), expensive, without any "practical" goal, like much research, however we do get a building at the end of it, and a whole load of new tools and processes with which to re-address the task of making humans happy.
Go tall.
they should build 2 of those big rectangles then we could go over there and knock theirs down
Or they could do it themselves and blame us.
PsyArch- great points. From a land-use perspective when the super-tall is adjacent to mass transit, there are a great many benefits and this is the best solution. But the complexity of the building to get that tall is a major inefficiency like that 18 mile bridge. The infrastructure is staggering and very inefficient when compared to a midrise block (especially when the roofs become habitat/agricultural. Having to pump water every 30 stories, the massive foundations (why must there be 10 meters of solid concrete???), the volume of the elevator shafts, the shadow blocking the sun from the neighborhood, and all adds up to me being skeptical.
An efficient building supported by inefficient infrastructure (think LEED-platinum in the suburbs) is no more efficient then an inefficient building with high performance infrastructure. Think NYC or London -ok london doesn't have efficient infrastructure ;-).
the biggest flaws with LEED is that it ignores infrastructure (except for some on-site water treatment and energy generation), food production, and regional land use. The ASLA's sustainable sites initiative starts to address some of the regional resource issues, but still ignore infrastructure and transit.
So how can we push for high-performance infrastructure and transit networks in conjunction with high-performance structures?
This ignorance of infrastructure implications (in most calculations of sustainability) is part the subject of the paper we present at CTBUH 2008.
An unfortunate truth is that density of the order granted by supertalls attracts economic benefits and those, whether in rental premiums, security, proximity, attractiveness to retail, arts, education and other service/cultural organisations, those benefits are not accounted for either.
Calculating, or even hypothesising about, the amount of human output enabled per tonne of carbon expended, or tonne of cement used, or hour of daylight stolen becomes so complex we can only (make an informed) guess. I say this after many, many months trying.
PsyArch - I'm passing along your contact info to my boss. hope you meet up with him. I'd love to read your paper.
don't give up on calculating the carbon impacts, we've only just begone trying. Phil Henshaw has an elegant method of approximation.
tk
Nice one. It will be a busy few days. Does your boss drink?
ll_l
more shortly
blue label, soju, and fine wine. He also does karaoke pretty well!
when do you head to the conference?
Anyone else see this?
I don't like how it revolves around LEED but I like the user interface and potential for automated information gathering based on exact location and context (Climate analysis, proximity to regional materials, infrastructure, & etc). Besides, I just think touchscreens (especially pressure sensitive) are just damn interesting.
Looks very cool.
However, while i think that such visualization techniques are useful for designers, i still feel that all this emphasis on tech for green building even if it isn't directly applied to the program but just used in the design phase, de-emphasizes the real and sometimes very simple solutions that can help to make a building more "green"
Autodesk, I am impressed. thanks Philarch.
Damn. I am really impressed.
I land Dubai early on the second, and in a carbon conservation technique called "free holiday" I don't come back 'til the ninth. Mine's a Montrachet.
they showed that at Green Build. I think I got a CD with that presentation.... this seems to be the closest to realizing ed mazria's wished for parametric energy display box.
this is how i feel, quoted from another thread:
supertall buildings are rediculous. i was in the chicago john hancock bldg this weekend, the first time i've been in such a building in years. it was just way too tall. there's no point in building this "spire." what is the point of making a building you are going to be perpetually frightened to be in due to the insane height and unending subtle movement? the burge dubai will probably fall down before it's finished. but this spire is way out of scale and it looks like a corkscrew dildo.
--Le Bossman, 2008
Well Le Boss,
there is the movement, generally acceleration is kept below 8mg for offices and 5mg for residential. People used to think that if you went faster than 30mph in an automobile you would surely suffer serious injury. Similarly think of the first people trying to use a boat, sea legs anyone? Vertigo is common. I sympathise. Do you use aeroplanes? How do you cope with turbulence, what about the rattle of a train, the wobble of your bicycle, the spongy suspension of your american cars?
The human system attenuates, accomodates, becomes inured to unpleasantries.
I don't envisage the Burj Dubai falling down.
Didn't you enjoy the view from the Hancock, across the flat mid-western plains, across Lake Michigan? Looking out like Zeus from Olympus, attached to the ground, yet further from it than only a few other people somewhere in Taiwan? I thought that was cool.
PsyArch you write so beautifullly - I've enjoyed reading all the great info you have contributed to thsi thrad.
...this thread.
gosh. Thankyou. Passion runs high.
Or do I mean tall?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.