Skyscrapers Life Expectancy

[dchan]

^ Stainless steel would only be used as decorative material, not structural material. So it doesn't matter how much stainless steel there is - if the structural members aren't sufficiently protected from the elements, they will eventually fail.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by marshall

I think the Petronas Towers would survive for a long time without humans around because of the heavy use of stainless steel in their construction, which helps protect them against the high humidity and moisture in the warm climate where they are. Just a guess on my part, though.

A facade is only as good as it's seals. Once the rubber or latex in the joints wears out you'll get massive infiltration that will gradually destroy the structural members. In a dry dessert environment I wouldn't be surprised if a steel structure lasts as long as the pyramids. Sure the glass would probably be broken over the years, but with very little moisture steel simply won't oxidize very quickly. I would estimate that the skyscrapers that would stand the longest without constant repairs would be those constructed of reenforced concrete in dry dessert areas with a low incidence of natural disasters.

In other words the Burj Dubai is probably likely to be around for quite a while despite its extreme height though the marine environment might eventually take its toll. Perhaps even safer would be buildings in Riyadh or somewhere similar. The problem is human civilizations don't tend to locate in climatically stable areas as we need weather disturbances and the water sources they create to survive. There are few places in the USA that I feel would last long without human help as the land here is simply too fertile. The things that make the land fertile are inherently hazardous to human civilization. Things like tornadoes, floods, etc would gradually raze our cities while relatively low risk areas like Chicago would be destroyed by freeze thaw cycles.

We generally only give industrial buildings a 5 winters of vacancy before we expect that they will be irreparably damaged by the freeze thaw cycles. Having listed many buildings over the past few years that just aren't selling, I can tell you it's amazing the difference between an occupied and unoccupied building. Once the building is no longer inhabited it just falls off a cliff and rapidly deteriorates even if its almost new and that's even with minimal maintenance. With no maintenance at all I'd expect most buildings to be uninhabitable within a year or two and probably structurally unsound within 20.

[THE BIG APPLE]

That's the partial contribution to why the Manhattan Building in Chicago is still around today. While not the first steel skeleton building, it is the oldest surviving steel skeleton building, since it was not demolished. Usually concrete is a better material of sustainability in engineering and construction. But both concrete and steel are used in every type of building, many times the prior more than the latter and vice versa depending on the type of building.

[rjb001]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

After doing my research the longest surviving skyscraper would be the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It would stand for 5,000 years after people leave.

I remember seeing a "Life After People" episode that discussed the fact that the Petronas Towers would long outlive other normal steel frame skyscrapers around the world. I don't remember the exact length, but I can say I don't think it was 5,000 years. At the end of every episode they would always show some over-the-top number of years later, such as 5,000 or 50,000, just to make the point that nothing, other than certain non-metal structures, would be left of civilization.