ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[galaca]

Originally Posted by briantech

What has more population density per square ft: 50 floors of condos or 15 floors of condos?

If we're talking about reducing energy consumption by getting people living closer in the cities, its kind of a no brainer that the taller you make the buildings, the more people will be able to live in them.

not necessarily. a building like Metropolis will likely have more residents than The Mansion or Sovereign. building heights are not the only contributor to density.

[sevensixtwo]

I guess when resources become so scarce that the pumps wont send water to condos anymore, then yes; only having to carry barrels of water up a few stairs beats climbing 30 floors. Otherwise I cant see how future resource shortages affect the efficiency of buildings going up during a period of abundance.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by plorenc

Way to take the conversation to a great new level.

First of all, this man is not my superhero. I took a few of his comments that I found to have credence and quoted them. I do not agree with all of his opinions and viewpoints.

Second of all, really?

You're just going to insult me instead of responding with something constructive? I guess I shouldn't try to make a point on this forum; all I will get in response is petty insults.

This is a forum, we're here to discuss and debate. If you don't like my opinion, try to form a coherent argument as opposed to projecting some man's (understandably esoteric) opinions onto me in order to discredit me. I'm arguing against skyscrapers from a perspective of sustainability. What I may or may not think they represent does not matter at all in this context.

Edit: I read your posts previous to this one, which did continue a constructive debate. I apologize for any words exchanged that make it appear like you didn't.

There is no basis for this theory that skyscrapers are unsustainable. Your own arguments are contradictory nonsense.

First you talk about the end of cheap energy. That is a farce. The age of fossil fuels is over, but human progress never ends. We will find new cheap energy.

As far as resource cost goes, which was your second big argument, sevensixtwo broke down into more plain terms what I was trying to say. Building structures and feeding into them resources like energy and water is always going to be an engineering challenge, but to say that having 50 square miles of five story buildings is going to take fewer resources than five square miles of 50 story buildings is nonsense.

At the end of the day, you're not talking about necessities based on energy or resources and you aren't even talking about sustainability. What you're talking about is a cultural preference for older European cities over modern American ones. Framing the debate to sound like it is something other than a subjective values based argument is nonsense. The fact that you "strengthen" your case with arguments from a dude who thinks skyscrapers are gigantic phallus highlights the fact that this is a subjective debate based on personal values.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by plorenc

Take away fossil-fuel, and it becomes much more difficult to feasibly construct and maintain.

This single statement is the basis for your entire argument: The notion that if fossil fuels are taken from the equation, the system is unsustainable. Your entire premise is based on the concept that nothing will replace fossil fuels.

You should spend more time reading economics and history than the self-loathing nonsense from a European who thinks a skyscraper is a phallus. The solution to the end of cheap fossil fuels is not to fundamentally change our entire society, but to develop another cheap source of energy to replace fossil fuels.

[popewiz]

Originally Posted by galaca

not necessarily. a building like Metropolis will likely have more residents than The Mansion or Sovereign. building heights are not the only contributor to density.

You're comparing a building with a large footprint and small units geared towards entry level buyers (Metropolis), to two buildings with smaller footprints and larger units geared towards luxury buyers. I don't think you can make that argument using two extreme cases like that.

The fact is, with a similar footprint, and similar unit sizes, the more stories, the more density, no matter what.

[Student]

So...all this talk about density...,,,I have a question.

If all the new housing in Atlanta, as well as existing homes, were filled, what would be an approximate population estimate?

[shivtim]

Some DeKalb County updates:

The Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University is building a 195,000 square foot expansion that is 9 stories. LEED silver. Slated for May 2010 completion.

Rendering (courtesy Emory Magazine)


Construction shot from May 2009:



Literally across the street, the CDC's Building 23 has topped off. It's pretty substantial, at 17 stories.

May 09 construction shot (courtesy of Clifton Community Partnership)


More info on Building 23.

[sevensixtwo]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

Your own arguments are contradictory nonsense.

First you talk about the end of cheap energy. That is a farce. The age of fossil fuels is over, but human progress never ends. We will find new cheap energy.

I know most lay people see the energy crisis as a problem mostly with gasoline. Plastics are petroleum derivatives. Has anyone ever heard of an alternative to plastic? Seven billion people sure cant go back to using wood.

Your argument is nonsense. You know for sure humanity cant decline? It's always up and the bubble never bursts? We only know that the current epoch of human progress hasn't ended as of today. As a professional physicist I can tell you all petroleum replacements are pipe dreams. If something does replace petroleum it will be something no one has heard of yet and probably the greatest discovery ever. Notice the 1970's oil crisis in this plot of real data:




That sure looks like a bubble ready to burst to me. But I digest...

[R Emerson]

With all of the talk of the past 5+ pages on the development of mid-rise buildings vs skyscrapers etc, for me, what I find lacking is the fact that this is the SKYSCRAPER FORUM, not the mid-rise etc. I'm not trying to argue any point other than with this being the skyscraper forum, I read it to learn of new skyscraper development/construction. For the rest of the developments, I read forums dedicated to them. Based on the last 5+ pages, I guess I'm missing the point of what's being argued, but I enjoy this forum for it's dedication to Atlanta's skyscrapers whether they be 20, 30, 40 stories or more, I don't tune into it for 3, 5, 7 stories. Also I'm not saying we don't need low or mid-rise buildings in Atlanta. Just let me read about skyscraper development when I read the Skyscraper forum. Maybe a lot of what is being discussed here belongs in another forum. This is only my opinion.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by sevensixtwo

But I digest...

I think you mean "digress," which actually makes more sense because I was talking about energy, not plastics. Plorenc was specifically talking about fuel, but you can expand the topic to natural gas and coal. Either way, we're talking about energy for buildings and for transportation. We're not talking about water bottles and appliances. Seriously, go back and reread his comments. He talks about the unsustainability of Atlanta style development with a tall core city and far flung suburbs. I apologize if my comments actually had something to do with the discussion.

BTW, we won't need a replacement for petroleum based plastics if we stop burning it for energy, and there are replacements on that front.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by R Emerson

With all of the talk of the past 5+ pages on the development of mid-rise buildings vs skyscrapers etc, for me, what I find lacking is the fact that this is the SKYSCRAPER FORUM, not the mid-rise etc. I'm not trying to argue any point other than with this being the skyscraper forum, I read it to learn of new skyscraper development/construction. For the rest of the developments, I read forums dedicated to them. Based on the last 5+ pages, I guess I'm missing the point of what's being argued, but I enjoy this forum for it's dedication to Atlanta's skyscrapers whether they be 20, 30, 40 stories or more, I don't tune into it for 3, 5, 7 stories. Also I'm not saying we don't need low or mid-rise buildings in Atlanta. Just let me read about skyscraper development when I read the Skyscraper forum. Maybe a lot of what is being discussed here belongs in another forum. This is only my opinion.

Basically, some dude who is of the school of thought that skyscrapers are phallic symbols of a dysfunctional capitalist industrial society showed up to say we need to make Atlanta look like Paris and that we should no longer build skyscrapers. I don't know how SSP defines trolls, but that dude probably fits the bill.

[cybele]

Originally Posted by shivtim

The Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University is building a 195,000 square foot expansion that is 9 stories. LEED silver.

Get that thing out of here. It's a midrise.

[sevensixtwo]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

I think you mean "digress," which actually makes more sense because I was talking about energy, not plastics. Plorenc was specifically talking about fuel, but you can expand the topic to natural gas and coal. Either way, we're talking about energy for buildings and for transportation. We're not talking about water bottles and appliances. Seriously, go back and reread his comments. He talks about the unsustainability of Atlanta style development with a tall core city and far flung suburbs. I apologize if my comments actually had something to do with the discussion.

BTW, we won't need a replacement for petroleum based plastics if we stop burning it for energy, and there are replacements on that front.

Digress, really? WOW! There are no feasible replacements on the fuel front. You clearly have little understanding of the science behind energy. This is evidenced when you say, 'talking about energy not plastics.' With petroleum we do not have to expend massive amounts of energy to make the plastic precursors. We just suck it out of the ground. You may benefit from researching the Joule. Like I said before, if someone does find a replacement for petroleum it will be the greatest discovery ever. But I digest again...

[ATLaffinity]

Originally Posted by R Emerson

With all of the talk of the past 5+ pages on the development of mid-rise buildings vs skyscrapers etc, for me, what I find lacking is the fact that this is the SKYSCRAPER FORUM, not the mid-rise etc. I'm not trying to argue any point other than with this being the skyscraper forum, I read it to learn of new skyscraper development/construction. For the rest of the developments, I read forums dedicated to them. Based on the last 5+ pages, I guess I'm missing the point of what's being argued, but I enjoy this forum for it's dedication to Atlanta's skyscrapers whether they be 20, 30, 40 stories or more, I don't tune into it for 3, 5, 7 stories. Also I'm not saying we don't need low or mid-rise buildings in Atlanta. Just let me read about skyscraper development when I read the Skyscraper forum. Maybe a lot of what is being discussed here belongs in another forum. This is only my opinion.

then skip over it. this is a forum about development in Atlanta. it lives at SkyscraperPage.com.

there's nothing going up right now so what's wrong with talking about urban development that relates to existing and future skyscrapers???

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by sevensixtwo

Digress, really? WOW! There are no feasible replacements on the fuel front. You clearly have little understanding of the science behind energy. This is evidenced when you say, 'talking about energy not plastics.' With petroleum we do not have to expend massive amounts of energy to make the plastic precursors. We just suck it out of the ground. You may benefit from researching the Joule. Like I said before, if someone does find a replacement for petroleum it will be the greatest discovery ever. But I digest again...

Regardless of the fact that we'll continue to use petroleum to create plastics, there are emerging technologies that will likely replace fossil fuels in powering buildings and vehicles. That curve you posted earlier is going to start turning down. Whether it does so because we exhaust the supply, or because we reduce the demand by transitioning to other technologies is the question. The troll who wants to see the death of skyscrapers thinks the solution is to stop massive development. I think the solution is to find new technology.

Nice link you posted earlier. I like their survival gear page, though when the energy apocalypse comes I think I'd rather have guns and ammunition than an old push mower.

[sevensixtwo]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

I think the solution is to find new technology.

Of course that's the solution. I just cant see where your blind faith in humanity's ability to create it comes from. Buildings can be powered with alternative energy technology that we already have: nuclear. What Ive been telling you is that these emerging vehicular technologies youre so confident in are all bullshit. None of them, nor any combination is going to be able to power personal vehicles. 'Green technology' is a growth industry right now and everyone is excited, but it only makes sense on a small scale with heavy subsidy.

Back to construction...

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

Regardless of the fact that we'll continue to use petroleum to create plastics, there are emerging technologies that will likely replace fossil fuels in powering buildings and vehicles. That curve you posted earlier is going to start turning down. Whether it does so because we exhaust the supply, or because we reduce the demand by transitioning to other technologies is the question. The troll who wants to see the death of skyscrapers thinks the solution is to stop massive development. I think the solution is to find new technology.

Nice link you posted earlier. I like their survival gear page, though when the energy apocalypse comes I think I'd rather have guns and ammunition than an old push mower.

geez man - i really don't think plorenc is being a troll by presenting an opposing viewpoint here; he hasn't been overly abrasive about it either. there's no need to jump down his throat, we all want to see atlanta become denser at the street level and more walkable.

midrises will go up faster and aren't nearly as challenging to sell - the sheer number of units has already proven to be a problem. (with more still to come!) there's a good point in building out the streetscape to make the city more attractive in general. doing so will make selling the larger numbers of units in highrises more viable down the road. there is still far too much 'ugliness' in what are supposed to be our premier districts.


rotterdam, nl

[skapunkskatedude]

Originally Posted by plorenc

Seriously? Is no one taking into account the force of gravity?

The higher you build, the more you have to compensate for gravity by building stronger foundations, more water pumps and other internal infrastructure, not to mention the equipment required to counteract the force of gravity to build the tall buildings. Building a skyscraper is not a zero-sum game; the higher it gets, the amount of energy expended exponentially increases. Even if you have a relatively energy efficient skyscraper, it will always end up using more energy than a shorter building due to the problems caused by the force of gravity alone.

Also-let's not make the mistake that a dense, pedestrian environment can only be a consequence of tall buildings. First of all, Paris' density eclipses New York's even though it does not have skyscrapers throughout. Second of all, how do you suppose anyone got around cities before cars and skyscrapers?

Dot dot dot...

While i might agree that (obviously) a taller building will require more energy than a shorter building, the whole point in the taller building is that it can compensate for two or three smaller buildings. And use less energy to two or three of them. Plus, assuming that there are more people in one place, the more likely that different conveniences will be within walking distance, meaning less cars, meaning less gas usage, meaning cleaner.

Also, the whole point in high rises is conserved land use, meaning that less land will be used, meaning less sprawl, meaning less environmental damage.

Trust me mate, the future ain't going to show us people moving away from the cities because living spread out about the country is more efficient; everyone is gonna move into the cities because they really will be more effective.

[alleystreetindustry]

Originally Posted by tdawg

Actually, Manhattan is referred to simply as "the city" here, never "new york city." It's like on the weekend (i live now in astoria, queens), if i'm heading into Manhattan where my gyms are, I just say i'm heading into the city to work out. Just like if you lived in Dunwoody, you would refer to going into Atlanta as going into the city.

that is what i mean, but for some reason i didnt explain it correctly. thankyou.

and isnt the best example of how energy efficient density is in the first place, the fact that new york city has the lowest energy use per capita compared with every other major city in the united states? i remember reading that somewhere, and big surprise... im not shocked. i do also understand that new york isnt majority skyscraper, its majority midrise. but still. it has too damn many highrises.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by cabasse

geez man - i really don't think plorenc is being a troll by presenting an opposing viewpoint here; he hasn't been overly abrasive about it either. there's no need to jump down his throat, we all want to see atlanta become denser at the street level and more walkable.

In this thread he has regurgitated nonsense from a Welsh architect who thinks that all skyscrapers everywhere are an unnecessary waste created by men whose only desire was to project their wealth and power into the sky as giant phalluses. Who comes to a place called skyscraperpage.com and posts that sort of thing? I'm sure that most people who come here would agree with my sentiment regarding skyscrapers: They are beautifully inspiring marvels of engineering that showcase the brilliance of the human mind. They are works of art with a utilitarian purpose. To have someone come here and post arguments from a guy who thinks they're just big sky penises that should no longer be built, and then couch that in an argument about sustainability, is offensive.

midrises will go up faster and aren't nearly as challenging to sell - the sheer number of units has already proven to be a problem. (with more still to come!) there's a good point in building out the streetscape to make the city more attractive in general. doing so will make selling the larger numbers of units in highrises more viable down the road. there is still far too much 'ugliness' in what are supposed to be our premier districts.


rotterdam, nl

I agree. I love mid-rises and think that they are an integral part of Atlanta's growth. Again, I just don't think they belong in the middle of the Midtown business district in between Peachtree and Spring along 12th, which is the area we were talking about.