Hi I am working on a school competition where we have to design a skyscraper that has to serve a purpose for its city and solve urban issues. In ancient times, tall buildings have been used for tactical military purposes, such as watchtowers and such. I was wondering if that idea could be translated to today, for skyscrapers to have military or defensive capabilities.I was thinking maybe the tower having anti-air missiles or maybe even the ability to cloak the entire city with clouds so it would be hard for bombers to attack, I know it sounds stupid but I just needed to get this idea out there, let me know what you think
zonker
Apr 8, 20 1:54 pm
It could have lasers coming out of the windows at the top floors
Akira
Apr 8, 20 1:55 pm
yea that is a pretty cool idea, I always wondered if a war ever breaks out, how will the US protect cities like New York?
tduds
Apr 8, 20 1:54 pm
Non Sequitur
Apr 8, 20 2:12 pm
Surveillance.
monosierra
Apr 8, 20 2:50 pm
Tokyo-3
Akira
Apr 8, 20 2:55 pm
great anime
citizen
Apr 8, 20 4:18 pm
Great news, Giuseppe! Planning says once we get above 200 feet, the property lines don't matter!
Donna Sink
Apr 8, 20 6:12 pm
You know how you "solve urban issues"? By helping people in urban areas to have opportunity, life, freedom, choices, love, companionship, community. It's not by deploying tactical surveillance and threat. FFS.
monosierra
Apr 8, 20 6:15 pm
Hahahaha word! That would be a proper agenda. But who knows what this team is going for - certainly seems like they're suspending disbelief and turning to sci-fi for imaginary threats.
On a more serious note, the OP can look up South Korean and Israeli skyscrapers for military fortifations.
Akira
Apr 8, 20 6:36 pm
That is quite the logical approach, in my opinion I feel that is a bit boring and cliche. Sure architecture can help people with community,companionship,"freedom", but it has it's limits currently. I think citizens would feel more safe if they had a watchtower in their city constantly protecting them from any dangers. I think the 9/11 incident has created long standing urban issues, and had devastated generations of families and the world. Lets say supposed there was an threat from an opposing country , if a skyscraper would to be hit, there would no doubt be a lot of damage. I do not think its that crazy of an idea of a building able to protect itself or even its city. Many people never imagined an even like 9/11 would ever happened till it happened.
silva_sufa
Apr 8, 20 6:41 pm
kind of agree OP, im tired of the bs that people write in their competition projects, somehow people think that architecture can solve humanity's problems, I like the idea of having a modern day watchtower, that seems cool.
monosierra
Apr 8, 20 7:03 pm
You’ve won me over. I’d take a sincerely fantastical project over one of those balcony-ridden towers that claim to foster community.
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 8, 20 6:37 pm
what kind of competition is this? The Hunger Games? Are you really Snake Pliskin?
Akira
Apr 8, 20 6:43 pm
no its not the hunger games, its a competition where we have to design a futuristic skyscraper and it has to try to solve an urban issue.
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 8, 20 6:49 pm
Do you know how we solve urban issues with war? Nukes. Game over. How about a nice game of chess?
Akira
Apr 8, 20 6:52 pm
yea I am familiar with nukes, I am japanese.
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 8, 20 7:23 pm
You are, then why would you propose something so dystopic? What problems do you propose that war would solve an urban related problem? Over population?
Akira
Apr 8, 20 7:34 pm
it seems you are unfamiliar with japanese culture, it is quite littered with dystopian themes.
Godzilla,Gundam,Evangelion,Akira, I could go on. I said this in an another comment. I just think that the logical approach is boring and cliche. Sure architecture can help people with community,companionship,"freedom", but it has it's limits currently. I think citizens would feel more safe if they had a watchtower in their city constantly protecting them from any dangers. I think the 9/11 incident has created long standing urban issues, and had devastated generations of families and the world. Lets say supposed there was an threat from an opposing country , if a skyscraper would to be hit, there would no doubt be a lot of damage. I do not think its that crazy of an idea of a building able to protect itself or even its city. Many people never imagined an even like 9/11 would ever happened till it happened.
I also never proposed that war would solve an urban related problem, I was proposing a skyscraper that could defend itself or even offer protection to its city if there was ever a threat to the city or country. I assume you have seen the damage that was inflicted on the twin towers, it caused alot of damage. Now in a heavily dense city like New York which is even more dense than ever, towers are easy targets, and can tumble and cause a lot of damage.
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 8, 20 7:44 pm
Well, then you lied in your brief. What's boring and clichéd is psychotic gamer/science fiction fantasies, that are typically relegated to undeveloped adolescents. Be an adult, figure out a way to reframe the question. Yours, is boring.
Akira
Apr 8, 20 7:52 pm
when did i lie, I never said that war would solve urban related problem
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 8, 20 7:55 pm
Ugh. Towers are easy targets? By what? Planes, or Godzilla?
Akira
Apr 8, 20 8:01 pm
i mean yea quite literally planes and missiles
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 8, 20 8:08 pm
Um. Who is gonna tell them about Syria?
Akira
Apr 8, 20 8:17 pm
i dont have an answer for that
Non Sequitur
Apr 8, 20 8:30 pm
I came here for the Kurt Russell references. Am not disappointed.
drums please, Fab?
Apr 8, 20 8:49 pm
relax, beta. it's just a studio project.
x-jla
Apr 8, 20 8:14 pm
it’s a fun idea for sci fi porn, but not really practical in a world of drones, satellites, etc.
Adapt a Death Ray (design a city of skyscrapers that take out any unwanted intruder by zapping them with concentrated sunlight after the facial recognition software locates them)
Nevermind, already done.
midlander
Apr 9, 20 9:58 am
this is an exciting and edgy way to address what's usually a boring generic question posed to architecture students. castles and fortifications have such a rich history in medieval cities, and the imagery of defensive buildings is prevalent in sci-fi and fantasy environments. the notion of safety (sometimes offensive safety) is fundamental to our expectations of buildings.
in modern times there aren't many architecturally interesting examples i can think of, mostly radio towers. chicago once had a system of nuclear missiles installed in the public parks which is kind of an ironic usurpment of public space.
in terms of pop culture, look at the way video games invent weaponized buildings. command and conquer's tesla coils are a classic for old millennials like me!
in the modern era we use castles as museums and kind of force a cultural reading onto them when obviously they were built for often vile people to do terrible things. now we celebrate that with a name and some decorative artworks, while keeping our functional military installations well-hidden from the public imagination. but thats a reflection of contemporary values which certainly could change in the future.
Witty Banter
Apr 9, 20 10:58 am
I'm not going to address whether an urban-watchtower/defensive military installation is actually a good idea for the competition. That's subjective and you know your professor/studio better than we do. I'm not personally a big fan but I also acknowledge that sometimes the "unrealistic" directions can pose some interesting questions. School and design competitions are the time to use your imagination and push boundaries you couldn't in practice. You'll have plenty of opportunities to claim a "green space" is "fostering community" etc.
If you are going to go this route be careful with your solutions. It can be easy to fall into the trap of solving certain problems with technology rather than design. E.G. code (I believe sarcastically) suggested lasers to shoot down projectiles. That isn't a design solution, it's technology applied to a building. A tower that creates some sort of force field or shield to protect the city is a technological solution, not a design solution. Unless you can present a compelling reason otherwise, these sorts of technology could be applied to virtually any building. This applies even more so when we're projecting future technological advances.
I'd also suggest doing some research into the military/defensive application of a watchtower. My understanding is their primary use was to create a strategic vantage point for improved visual clarity. They allowed their user to see a greater area, further away, and identify threats earlier. Is this something that applies to modern times? In my opinion this has no impact on 9/11. There may not have been a visual connection to the planes but they were tracked through radar, etc. Would having an extra tall skyscraper watching the planes fly into NYC have made a difference or would they just have had a better view of the tragedy? Is a modern "watchtower" more about an early warning through information than it is about vision? Does this get too much into technological solutions? Before deciding on this direction I very strongly advise you to ask yourself some tough questions. Put yourself in your professor/juror's position and really be critical.
Good luck with your competition. I think you're choosing a risky direction as there are many obvious pitfalls. I hope you're able to navigate your way into something thought provoking.
Hi I am working on a school competition where we have to design a skyscraper that has to serve a purpose for its city and solve urban issues. In ancient times, tall buildings have been used for tactical military purposes, such as watchtowers and such. I was wondering if that idea could be translated to today, for skyscrapers to have military or defensive capabilities.I was thinking maybe the tower having anti-air missiles or maybe even the ability to cloak the entire city with clouds so it would be hard for bombers to attack, I know it sounds stupid but I just needed to get this idea out there, let me know what you think
It could have lasers coming out of the windows at the top floors
yea that is a pretty cool idea, I always wondered if a war ever breaks out, how will the US protect cities like New York?
Surveillance.
Tokyo-3
great anime
Great news, Giuseppe! Planning says once we get above 200 feet, the property lines don't matter!
You know how you "solve urban issues"? By helping people in urban areas to have opportunity, life, freedom, choices, love, companionship, community. It's not by deploying tactical surveillance and threat. FFS.
Hahahaha word! That would be a proper agenda. But who knows what this team is going for - certainly seems like they're suspending disbelief and turning to sci-fi for imaginary threats.
On a more serious note, the OP can look up South Korean and Israeli skyscrapers for military fortifations.
That is quite the logical approach, in my opinion I feel that is a bit boring and cliche. Sure architecture can help people with community,companionship,"freedom", but it has it's limits currently. I think citizens would feel more safe if they had a watchtower in their city constantly protecting them from any dangers. I think the 9/11 incident has created long standing urban issues, and had devastated generations of families and the world. Lets say supposed there was an threat from an opposing country , if a skyscraper would to be hit, there would no doubt be a lot of damage. I do not think its that crazy of an idea of a building able to protect itself or even its city. Many people never imagined an even like 9/11 would ever happened till it happened.
kind of agree OP, im tired of the bs that people write in their competition projects, somehow people think that architecture can solve humanity's problems, I like the idea of having a modern day watchtower, that seems cool.
You’ve won me over. I’d take a sincerely fantastical project over one of those balcony-ridden towers that claim to foster community.
what kind of competition is this? The Hunger Games? Are you really Snake Pliskin?
no its not the hunger games, its a competition where we have to design a futuristic skyscraper and it has to try to solve an urban issue.
Do you know how we solve urban issues with war? Nukes. Game over. How about a nice game of chess?
yea I am familiar with nukes, I am japanese.
You are, then why would you propose something so dystopic? What problems do you propose that war would solve an urban related problem? Over population?
it seems you are unfamiliar with japanese culture, it is quite littered with dystopian themes. Godzilla,Gundam,Evangelion,Akira, I could go on. I said this in an another comment. I just think that the logical approach is boring and cliche. Sure architecture can help people with community,companionship,"freedom", but it has it's limits currently. I think citizens would feel more safe if they had a watchtower in their city constantly protecting them from any dangers. I think the 9/11 incident has created long standing urban issues, and had devastated generations of families and the world. Lets say supposed there was an threat from an opposing country , if a skyscraper would to be hit, there would no doubt be a lot of damage. I do not think its that crazy of an idea of a building able to protect itself or even its city. Many people never imagined an even like 9/11 would ever happened till it happened.
I also never proposed that war would solve an urban related problem, I was proposing a skyscraper that could defend itself or even offer protection to its city if there was ever a threat to the city or country. I assume you have seen the damage that was inflicted on the twin towers, it caused alot of damage. Now in a heavily dense city like New York which is even more dense than ever, towers are easy targets, and can tumble and cause a lot of damage.
Well, then you lied in your brief. What's boring and clichéd is psychotic gamer/science fiction fantasies, that are typically relegated to undeveloped adolescents. Be an adult, figure out a way to reframe the question. Yours, is boring.
when did i lie, I never said that war would solve urban related problem
Ugh. Towers are easy targets? By what? Planes, or Godzilla?
i mean yea quite literally planes and missiles
Um. Who is gonna tell them about Syria?
i dont have an answer for that
I came here for the Kurt Russell references. Am not disappointed.
relax, beta. it's just a studio project.
it’s a fun idea for sci fi porn, but not really practical in a world of drones, satellites, etc.
yea true, just an idea
For example an underground, relatively shallow lake 2,000 meters (1.2 miles) below the skyscraper part of a city and dimensioned such that the whole high rise district is within its lee may achieve extraordinary reductions in the shocks with which the surface defenses have to contend. The chamber need not be a clear span; very thick natural or artificial columns with or without shock control features would allow a fully supported but effectively vast cavern. Shock transmitted through the verticals must be accounted for, but whatever does escape should diffract upon reaching the top of the support, thus reducing its energy density. Between the changes imparted by the fluid component, the counter shock component, the diffraction of the residual transmitted up the vertical supports, and the non-transmissive cap the power of the shock wave should be attenuated enough to provide critical additional margin to specific structures and sites.
Shaftless gyrostabilizer for aerial platforms
Adapt a Death Ray (design a city of skyscrapers that take out any unwanted intruder by zapping them with concentrated sunlight after the facial recognition software locates them)
Nevermind, already done.
this is an exciting and edgy way to address what's usually a boring generic question posed to architecture students. castles and fortifications have such a rich history in medieval cities, and the imagery of defensive buildings is prevalent in sci-fi and fantasy environments. the notion of safety (sometimes offensive safety) is fundamental to our expectations of buildings.
in modern times there aren't many architecturally interesting examples i can think of, mostly radio towers. chicago once had a system of nuclear missiles installed in the public parks which is kind of an ironic usurpment of public space.
https://www.wbez.org/stories/_/b09ed69c-cdf0-4382-a7ac-75480a3d4cb7
in terms of pop culture, look at the way video games invent weaponized buildings. command and conquer's tesla coils are a classic for old millennials like me!
https://cnc.gamepedia.com/Tesla_coil_(Red_Alert_2)#/media/File%3ARA2_Tesla_Coil.gif
in the modern era we use castles as museums and kind of force a cultural reading onto them when obviously they were built for often vile people to do terrible things. now we celebrate that with a name and some decorative artworks, while keeping our functional military installations well-hidden from the public imagination. but thats a reflection of contemporary values which certainly could change in the future.
I'm not going to address whether an urban-watchtower/defensive military installation is actually a good idea for the competition. That's subjective and you know your professor/studio better than we do. I'm not personally a big fan but I also acknowledge that sometimes the "unrealistic" directions can pose some interesting questions. School and design competitions are the time to use your imagination and push boundaries you couldn't in practice. You'll have plenty of opportunities to claim a "green space" is "fostering community" etc.
If you are going to go this route be careful with your solutions. It can be easy to fall into the trap of solving certain problems with technology rather than design. E.G. code (I believe sarcastically) suggested lasers to shoot down projectiles. That isn't a design solution, it's technology applied to a building. A tower that creates some sort of force field or shield to protect the city is a technological solution, not a design solution. Unless you can present a compelling reason otherwise, these sorts of technology could be applied to virtually any building. This applies even more so when we're projecting future technological advances.
I'd also suggest doing some research into the military/defensive application of a watchtower. My understanding is their primary use was to create a strategic vantage point for improved visual clarity. They allowed their user to see a greater area, further away, and identify threats earlier. Is this something that applies to modern times? In my opinion this has no impact on 9/11. There may not have been a visual connection to the planes but they were tracked through radar, etc. Would having an extra tall skyscraper watching the planes fly into NYC have made a difference or would they just have had a better view of the tragedy? Is a modern "watchtower" more about an early warning through information than it is about vision? Does this get too much into technological solutions? Before deciding on this direction I very strongly advise you to ask yourself some tough questions. Put yourself in your professor/juror's position and really be critical.
Good luck with your competition. I think you're choosing a risky direction as there are many obvious pitfalls. I hope you're able to navigate your way into something thought provoking.