>>> Super Safe Skyscrapers >>>
.
I've a suggestion to build safer skyscrapers as explained in my latest article: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/032supersafe.html what do you think about? http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5...persafewq9.jpg . |
This doesn't really belong in 'Highrise Proposals'. That section of the forum is for posting highrise proposals of real buildings that are in the process of moving towards construction. If you'd like to discuss this, it would be better to post it in the 'Buildings & Architecture' section instead. I've gone ahead and moved it there for you already.
|
I don't think having an escape tower like that solves any problems.
Having the escapes in the center of the building makes them as close and accessible to everyone as possible. If you put it on the outside, then people inside the building will have to travel all the way to the other end of the building, navigating through the office maze. Also, if you're trying to protect the escape shafts, then it would logically make the most sense to put them inside the building, where they'll be the most protected. Also, the extra engineering costs would probably be more worth while spent on more fireproofing, or just more stair shafts inside the building, or making the building itself structurally tougher. And I can't say for sure, but the shock from airplanes hitting the buildings would probably damage the external escape anyway. Also, the sensational writing of your article is not very respectable. It would be better to be more formal. Back things up with logical explanation, facts etc., instead of bold, colored, underlined, highlighted, italic, all caps, etc. If you saw a page like that, would you take it very seriously? Would you even read it? It probably took more time to format the text than it did to write it. And you seriously want to sell "veryeasyeuro.com" for 30,000 Euro? I could go buy a domain name (that makes sense) for 5 Euro. :no: |
I had to do a double take when I saw the picture, I thought it was a comic gesture, it looks like a big band aid on the side of the building. Sorry just thought this was meant as a gag.
|
A mixture of useless, waste and paranoia.
Sorry. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
. |
Quote:
. |
Not to put too fine a point on it, catastrophes such as the WTC attacks were more than just rare - they are even statistical anomolies. Skyscrapers are inherently safe given the miniscule per capita deaths they generate per year. Yes, the terrorist attacks at the WTC cost several thousand lives - but compare that the deaths on US roads over even one month or one year (approx 45,000 per year in US alone).
Building extraneous superficial structures or devices does not improve safety in a cost-effective manner. Improving the systems and means we use now will improve safety to a much higher degree for less cost. One always has to balance the real risk with rational design - that's how realworld engineering works, not coming up with sensational and overworked plans that add needless expense. |
Quote:
in China the "standard buildings" are skyscrapers and that will happen around the world in the next decades build safer buildings (not only skyscrapers) with escape towers is like add more airbags to a car... a car may never have an accident, but, if it happens, more airbags may save the passengers esternal escape towers are not the big problem you say if built as standard in all building like abs, airbags, etc. are in all cars to-day . |
So the question is, why is it safer to have the escape stairs on the outside vs. the inside.
First, emergency escapes are not flammable, and they're very strong (unless you have it suspended outside the building like yours). Inside the building, there's not a problem with the shaft getting damaged, the problem is getting people to the shaft. The center of the building puts the shaft as close to everyone in the office as possible. It also allows for multiple entrances to the shaft. If you put it on the outside of the building, then the shaft is farther away from more of the office, and there is only one path to get there. If the fire started near the entrance to the external shaft, it would be useless. If a fire started near the entrance to the internal shaft, you just walk around the building and go to the other side, or use one of the multiple other shafts inside the building. So having the shaft in the center of the building is safer than having it on the outside of the building. Then there's the engineering side of it. I'm not an engineer, but I know that it would be expensive to have a 60 story stair well, connected to the other buildings (who are swaying in the wind), while things are expanding and contracting from the heat, and all of that kind of stuff. I'm sure it could be done. But why not do it the cheaper and safer way instead? That's assuming the disaster your planning for is just a fire. As far as that goes, skyscrapers are very safe as they are now. If you want to think about Earthquakes, your external shaft is more prone to them than the building itself is. If you want to think about airplanes, then the shock would damage the external shafts. Even if the airplanes don't hit the shafts, the shock would damage the shafts. I'm sure it felt like an earthquake in the building when they hit. The people at NASA are probably visiting your site and making fun of it. You want to make the Orion less massive by cutting the top off it, because you think that they don't need it. If it wasn't needed, then the geniuses at NASA wouldn't have put it there. NASA spends massive amounts of time and money optimizing every aspect of everything they do. You don't even know how anything inside of the capsule works, or how much mass any of it has, or anything. How can you optimize it? And you want to make the Space Shuttle safer by basically giving it an ejector seat. If there was an explosion, do you think that the ejector pod would be able to blast off fast enough to escape the explosion? Plus, making the cabin ejectable adds more weight and complexity which just makes the entire thing more dangerous in the first place. It's like adding an ejector seat to a car. Having ideas is a great thing, keep on doing it, but after you have an idea, work with it, and try to see if it's actually practical. Go to university and learn physics. |
Quote:
second, more security always is better than less that's why to-day's cars have a dozen of airbags everywhere and other life saving devices a $30,000 car could cost 3000+ dollars less without these devices, so, they may seem a waste of money also, not all cars will action these devices in real accidents, but just a very little fraction of them (maybe 0.1% or less) however,to-day, these (costly) rarely used (then "paranoic") devices are STANDARD on every good car about costs, just think the (useless but very high) additional price of the structures to give to some buildings (like the Dubai's "sail") the original shape the architects have designed for them... spend lots of million$ for the "shape" and save a few million$ for a further security structure, is like spend $5000 to pay an artist that paints your car, then drive it without the airbags, etc. the number of mid-big buildings grows every day, so, it's not a bad idea to design them SAFER of course, it's clearly better if they already have a good standard emergency structure Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
. |
If a fighter flew into a building,It would explode:rolleyes:
Yeah,it seems pointless,and,if it wereeffevtive, the why arent they everywhere? About the twins, why not just build a skybridge like the patronas?and are escape towers your only idea?nothing else? I have to agree with everyone else. |
Quote:
Quote:
. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.