The End of Tall Buildings

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Camerama
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 04:25 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;144173 wrote:
You are dodgeing the human factor. The twin towers which perised in 9/11 was heavily critisized for cutting coners when build. It method of building wasn't resistant for flight impact, I remember that critisism back in the 80'ies. The reason why the cut coners, was for lowering the price, such greed is the ever haunting human factor, which we can't deliver ourselves from.

With greater project the danger becomes greater.

Here in Denmark where I live, our roofs collapses on modern buildings with no more than a few years old, because of sloppy architechts who didn't account for heavy snow fall, which is idiotic since they should take account for such simple common occurant factor.


Trial and error. We learn from our mistakes. We build on our mistakes. Building codes and regulations for commercial buildings are our safeguards against danger. Objective structural standards, ideally, should increase safety. Greed is a human condition, and essentially a flaw. We cannot condemn an art form on account of a mistake. Isn't that rationalizing an argument, based on an unnecessary condition?

There must be legal accountability in any commercial building. The responsibility must lie with the individual. We cannot allow avoidable mistakes to limit advancement, and diminish our capability.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 05:00 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;144850 wrote:
Trial and error. We learn from our mistakes. We build on our mistakes. Building codes and regulations for commercial buildings are our safeguards against danger. Objective structural standards, ideally, should increase safety. Greed is a human condition, and essentially a flaw. We cannot condemn an art form on account of a mistake. Isn't that rationalizing an argument, based on an unnecessary condition?

There must be legal accountability in any commercial building. The responsibility must lie with the individual. We cannot allow avoidable mistakes to limit advancement, and diminish our capability.
You still don't understsand, you speak of trial and error, gaining experience from that, when they alredy had the experience and knowledge of arial collisions, some years prior a WW2 bomber had collided with a building and the building had actually survived the impact.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:05 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;144866 wrote:
You still don't understsand, you speak of trial and error, gaining experience from that, when they alredy had the experience and knowledge of arial collisions, some years prior a WW2 bomber had collided with a building and the building had actually survived the impact.


The building hit was the Empire State Building.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:10 am
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;145375 wrote:
The building hit was the Empire State Building.
Yep, exatly! :Glasses:
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:47 am
@Deckard,
So what would you propose then? That hazard, terrorism, or greed limit the architectural profession. Perhaps subsidized projects, but private ones? What limits individuals? Man is fallible; That is evident, but he is coincidentally capable. Integrity is corruptible, that is unfortunately apparent. But is a splinter group of shoddy firms enough to limit a growing industry? It is certainly enough to raise standards, inspection, and cuplability, but I would favor innovation not limitation. Especially not governmentally enforced.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 12:33 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;145592 wrote:
What limits individuals?


The possible limits individuals. Of what does the possible consist? Maybe it is best to define internal and external limits - what one's own abilities and boldness allow on the one hand, and what society (or whatever group of others you choose) deems possible on the other. How best to reconcile these limits?
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:51 pm
@Deckard,
Possible is objective. Possibility cannot be limited by what one "deems," but by what one demonstrates. Amplifying opinion does not make it fact.

There is no reconciling individual ability and society, since society is a collection of individuals with abilities. What must be reconciled is ability with disability, and that is a tall order.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:00 pm
@Jebediah,
I hardly see skyskrapers. I loved tops Empire State & Rockefeller C. (awfull coffee, orange Jus $ 3,50 5euro)

We use same buildings 400 y ago, durability

Did not think sky-line impressive
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:23 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;145832 wrote:
Possible is objective. Possibility cannot be limited by what one "deems," but by what one demonstrates. Amplifying opinion does not make it fact.

There is no reconciling individual ability and society, since society is a collection of individuals with abilities. What must be reconciled is ability with disability, and that is a tall order.


You might know as an architect that a certain building is possible. But if you can't get the needed backing you can't build it. So the building is not possible.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:01 pm
@Deckard,
Like if it isn't environmentally friendly...
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 03:48 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;145894 wrote:
Like if it isn't environmentally friendly...


Yes, for instance. I think that's a good example.
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 08:17 pm
@Deckard,
I agree with Cameraman that one example of shoddy workmanship should not restrict others from making a skyscraper with good integrity. A terrorist threat should not inhibit us, otherwise we allow a terrorist victory.
If the technological capacity is there to ensure safety, I don't see a problem.
Whether or not individual contractors use that technology responsibly is a separate issue.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 07:19 PM ----------

Manipulations of gravitational fields and magnetism will eventually allow us to warp space, effectively creating large environments within small frames, solving any storage issues we may face in the future.
However...that won't be for a very long time. Too bad.
 
MeetVirginia
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 10:43 pm
@Deckard,
Architecture movements come and go. The forefront of the skyscraper movement began in Manhattan right before World War 1. Right now, the movement encompassing architectural thought is the green movement, evidenced by the push for LEED recognized buildings. I don't believe it is because 9/11 that skyscrapers are not being put up, that is oversimplification; rather, tall buildings are out of style.

Skyscrapers were initially seen as 'total architecture'. These buildings were so tall, and, as a result, far from the natural environment, that architects attempted to created their own environments inside these buildings, to make their own realities. They attempted to get away from nature, which is exactly what tall buildings do.

Now, in a time that environmentally friendly and naturalistic buildings are advocated, a building whose mere purpose is to detach itself from nature is not sought after.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 11:50 pm
@MeetVirginia,
MeetVirginia;161113 wrote:
Architecture movements come and go. The forefront of the skyscraper movement began in Manhattan right before World War 1. Right now, the movement encompassing architectural thought is the green movement, evidenced by the push for LEED recognized buildings. I don't believe it is because 9/11 that skyscrapers are not being put up, that is oversimplification; rather, tall buildings are out of style.

Skyscrapers were initially seen as 'total architecture'. These buildings were so tall, and, as a result, far from the natural environment, that architects attempted to created their own environments inside these buildings, to make their own realities. They attempted to get away from nature, which is exactly what tall buildings do.

Now, in a time that environmentally friendly and naturalistic buildings are advocated, a building whose mere purpose is to detach itself from nature is not sought after.


I like your comments. Krier argued for the end of tall buildings long before 9/11 on both aesthetic and utilitarian grounds. But do you think that this is all a matter of fashion or is it the case that we are learning something over the passage of time about what makes a good building? For example, have we learned that the detachment from nature is not as desirable as we once thought?

Personally, I don't think that aesthetics, much less utility, is purely relativistic. There is a progress to aesthetics. There is a progress to architecture even at the level aesthetics... just as there is a progress to science... and perhaps ethics. An ethics, aesthetics and science of sustainability may be the end of that progress.
 
DAC
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 05:38 am
@Deckard,
After around 14 storeys the rentable value dose not add up it is only in places like Hong Kong that it becomes generally worth building tall buildings. Most tall buildings are built to show power and prestige and to create employment.

Architecture reflects society and how it views & shows it self.
The Twin Towers where bombed for there symbolism of capitalism and impact.

Architecture is a great way of looking at society and what it values and is prepared to pay for, super efficient buildings or hand crafted?

Health & Safety is interesting as it used to be done by fire officers now it is done by the public in the UK is this safe or healthy?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 03:16 pm
@Deckard,
Perhaps there was a humanism to tall buildings, and before that something directly religious. As far as humanism goes, tall buildings are a poke in the eye demonstrating human know-how, and perhaps human aspiration. Still, maybe we've proved that point well enough these days, having long since been to the moon. Perhaps we are already seeing our selves more in terms of the mastery information than in the mastery of steel, glass, and concrete. There's even, in my mind, an association of "spirit" (or "geist") with information. Information technology has undeniable powers to decentralize. Maybe our unnatural cities are becoming obsolete in some ways. I like the idea of a better integration with nature. There's something absurd about traffic jams. I mention this because tall buildings seem strongly related to real estate value.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 08:29:36