Slim Pickings: The Rise of Skinny Skyscrapers
Slim Pickings: The Rise of Skinny Skyscrapers
November 16, 2012 By ELIOT BROWN Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...te_Mansion_3up Quote:
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...1115220043.jpg |
Very interesting! Thanks for posting that!
|
This is the only concern I have with thin buildings, and I don't want people to take this to the heart (it's engineering).
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-c...3bA/s720/1.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g...jsg/s720/2.jpg https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_...Tu8/s720/3.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M...4UM/s800/4.jpg If one plane hitting each tower dropped the Twins, then surely 432 Park Ave is easy pickings especially since its exponentially thinner and approx the same height. Again don't take it personally, I'm just bringing up something worth bringing up and just add your two cents. (Same plane in the photos BTW) |
It is harder to hit a smaller target. Plus, there is the possibility that not all the plane's kinetic energy will go into the tower since parts of the plane won't actually hit the tower. I suppose it's possible to fly the plane rolled 90 degrees vertically into the tower to ensure maximum damage, but I find that pretty improbable for a hijacking scenario.
In the case of 432 Park though, I would expect that the solid high strength reinforced columns hold hold up better under that type of impact than the hollow tubes used in the WTC. Tubes crush pretty easily relative to their axial strength, especially under a lateral point load concurrent with a compressive axial load. Not to mention the concrete will be far more fire resistant. 432 Park also has many more transfer levels than the single hat truss the WTC towers had. |
Apart from 9/11 and a bomber hitting the Empire State Building, aren't planes hitting buildings rather rare events? Heck in the near future I think New York has moderate earthquake risks so that's a bigger concern, and you're way more likely to get killed driving to work either way.
|
Quote:
|
How come "truther" websites are the only ones that claim that WTC 1 and 2 had a "reinforced cast concrete tubular core"? Everywhere else, I read that the towers had a steel core with drywall fireproofing.
Also, let's get this misconception out of the way. Concrete is NOT stronger than steel, technically speaking for equal volumes of each material. Concrete, however, can be made as strong or stronger than steel with enough volume. It is stronger still when it is reinforced with steel rebar or other steel reinforcing methods. And yes, concrete strength is indeed affected by heat exposure. But this will typically only affect the outside layer of the concrete. The rest of the concrete as well as the steel reinforcement should be below 500°F at 2 hour fire exposure, which is below the the yield temperature for steel. http://www.cement.org/tech/basics_fire.asp In any case, the point of using a reinforced concrete core is not so much to allow the building to remain unscathed in a terrorist attack, but to allow the occupants of the building to exit the building safely through the stairs within the core. |
Many floor trusses failed from the fire, which caused enough of the perimeter to fail that the core was over burdened.
I don't think it reasonable to design against highly improbable events. That is what insurance is for. |
I lived at 120 Greenwich Street (apt 8f) on 9.11 so I wouldn't normally entertain a post about planes into buildings but just keep this in mind; there have been far many more instances of planes crashing into 'Single Family Houses" than into buidlings and as one poster stated earlier these are rare events. You have more chances of getting struck by lightening than a plane flying into your condo....:koko:
|
Depending on the design, 111w57 may be one of the narrowest supertalls built to date, with a height of 1200 feet (366M) with only 330,000 square feet, and may be as narrow as 43 feet wide.
|
Personally, I hate these incredibly skinny towers. Not just because they LOOK out of proportion, but because they ARE out of proporiton. They only make economical sense as the residences of the ulta-wealthy and are otherwise a conisderable waste of money. I know this is a skyscraper forum and we are supposed to love height, but the sort of absurd towers that get built to cater to the ultra-wealthy (such as these skinny skysrcapers) or to regional dick measureing (such as in China and the Middle East) are just plain silly. I much prefer office towers like those at the World Trade Center and Hudson Yards that are more reasonably proportioned.
|
Though it is incredibly slender, the columns on 432 are quite robust, so I think the tower might be able to withstand the impact of a 767 if it was hit on the higher floors.
This however, couldn't withstand even a mid-sized airplane. It's 43feet wide and 1350 feet high! http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?...language=en-GB |
I don't know why this is even a concern. The World Trade Center was targeted as a symbol of American financial power, some of the world's tallest buildings sitting right off Wall Street. 432 Park is just a huge building for a bunch of billionaire jerks. It's an assemblage of private homes, not a target. When have major terrorist attacks ever focused on the homes of individuals, excepting political figures?
|
Hypothetically speaking, these will be the homes of the 1%. It's conceivable that a OWS type person might try to attack one of the towers because of that, and how prominent they are.
|
What is the risk of a major earthquake impacting these towers? Wind already puts a lot of strain as you get higher up but we are always hearing how sensitive NYC is to earthquakes. These always make me a little worried.
|
NY has a fairly good chance of getting moderate earthquakes of 6-7 magnitude every once and a while. Tall skinny skyscrapers are pretty good at resisting earthquakes though, because they have more height to dissipate the energy of the earth quake in.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/p...phic2pct50.jpg http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Silly wabbits, most of these condos are investment homes. They are unlikely to be occuppied at any given time. No one is stupid enough to spend their time and effort targeting a mostly empty condo building when there are lots of other busier targets like train stations, office buildings, markets, etc.
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.