Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbannizer
|
If and only if the building cannot structurally cantilever the distance from one side of the preexisting Container Bar (in its current location) to where the property line is, the architect would need to take one of three paths to make the building structurally sound:
1. Decrease the length of the cantilever until is structurally sound.
This strategy decreases the amount of usable square footage because it would forfeit square footage on every floor above the Container Bar in an amount corresponding to the distance between where the cantilever ends and where the property line is.
2. Move the Container Bar to abut the property line and cantilever as far above the relocated Contained Bar as is possible.
This strategy incurs the unnecessary cost of the relocation (albeit chump change in a development like this), it incurs political & bureaucratic costs (will it even pass permitting or council now that you’re adding another layer to the development), it still isn’t clear that they’d be able to cantilever over the entire distance between the edge of the base of the new structure and the property line to remain structurally sound without significant added cost to recoup the (still) lost square footage (thereby having the same problem as number one above — see Citigroup Tower in NYC for a good example of the limitations and incurred costs of improper structural design over a preexisting building), and it definitely isn’t clear (although it is likely, IMHO, that it would) that the first floor above the cantilever in this approach could support the weight of the relocated bungalow.
3. Simply take advantage of the fact that the Container Bar does not abut the property line by discarding the cantilever approach and build the entire tower such that it is supported on three and three quarters sides and four corners on the ground rather than two full sides and two partial sides with three corners on the ground.
This is the approach taken. It is much more structurally sound, recoups the square footage lost in the above two approaches without the significantly added cost to make the building structurally sound not does it incur any extra problems discussed above.
Also, it’s way more unique to do it this way than a cantilever, which is a strategy used in many places and many towers. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to think of a structure that has a notch like this cut out for an existing building that is not a traditional cantilever. I like it.