China Is The Capital Of Supertall Skyscrapers. Why Is It Banning Them?

[M II A II R II K]

China Is The Capital Of Supertall Skyscrapers. Why Is It Banning Them?


07-22-21

By Nate Berg

Read More: https://www.fastcompany.com/90657442...t-banning-them

.....

New rules from China’s National Development and Reform Commission prohibit the approval of any new buildings taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), strictly limit buildings taller than 250 meters (820 feet), and require that any building taller than 100 meters (328 feet) match the spatial scale of the city and comply with local fire and rescue capabilities.

- These new guidelines follow a recent string of architectural rulings from on high. In 2014, President Xi Jinping urged architects not to “engage in weird building” pushing back against a quirk of China’s hyper-speed urbanization that led to the development of ersatz neighborhoods modeled on idealized English Towns, replicant White Houses and Eiffel Towers, and ambitiously engineered structures like the looping China Central Television Headquarters building in Beijing designed by OMA. The national government doubled down in 2016 declaring that “odd-shaped” buildings would no longer be allowed. “Bizarre architecture that is not economical, functional, aesthetically pleasing, or environmentally friendly will be forbidden,” the directive proclaimed. — The new rules, however, are aimed squarely at height, focusing on buildings that rise far taller than the 30- or 50-story office towers one might see in any major city. Beyond China’s skylines, these new rules will have an impact on the large Western architecture firms that have designed many of China’s and the world’s tallest skyscrapers, cutting off a lucrative source of business. These firms include Kohn Pedersen Fox (the 1,765-foot CITIC Tower in Beijing), Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (the 1,738-foot Tianjin CTF Finance Centre), and Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill (the 1,535-foot Greenland Tower Chengdu).

- “This is not brand-new, but I think it is a significant change in China. But I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Because it had gotten out of control,” says Antony Wood, CEO of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. He says the building boom in China was often a kind of arms race between cities trying to outcompete each other and grab global attention, typically without much care given to the urban context in which the tall buildings were placed. The new rules could mark an end to that fevered pace of development. “It’s not necessarily going to mean a cessation of tall building activity or urban density, it just means they’re going to be better thought out,” Wood says. — James von Klemperer, president and design principal of Kohn Pedersen Fox, says the prohibition on very tall buildings will result in only a small number of projects not getting built. “Cities don’t really need dozens of 500-meter towers,” he says. “It’s a special, rarified building type and it does not belong everywhere for a number of reasons.” It’s partly a question of economics, he says. To build above 400 meters or so, the economic returns start to run up against the costs of taller elevators, extra wind bracing, staging areas for construction and cranes, and the longer construction timelines. Building tall for the sake of building tall often doesn’t make sense. “For private developers, very few are motivated by anything more than the bottom line,” von Klemperer says.

- And cities in China may be nearing their carrying capacity for such massive towers. Von Klemperer compares the city skyline to a chessboard, with lots of smaller pawn-like buildings, and only a few very tall king and queen structures. “In China, we’ve gotten to the point now where the major cities have their kings and queens,” he says. The new rules are about more than aesthetics. They call for more standardized building application, review and approval processes, as well as more stringent quality controls at the early stages of projects. Given the recent wobbling of a 980-foot tower in Shenzhen, the collapse of an occupied condo tower near Miami, and China’s own experience with poor materials and weak structures known as “tofu dregs” buildings, the emphasis on safety is welcome. — Von Klemperer says the real reasoning behind the rule change is likely just a natural urge to control and shape the growth that happens as China’s megacities mature. His firm has been working in China since the early 1990s, and he says these new building height rules are an example of planning processes evolving from the discretionary to the rule based. “As a regulator or a government policy maker, if I were in their shoes I would do the same thing,” he says. — Despite China’s new rules, this may not be the end of supertall buildings on the mainland. “I don’t view this restriction as absolute,” von Klemperer says. “There will be cases where it makes sense to allow something special to happen.”

.....

[sentinel]

"Why Skyscrapers Seem to Predict Market Crashes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDQFpZsM3tQ

Maybe the current Chinese government believes that by including height restrictions, they'll be able to stem any economic downturn /s

[muppet]

I think from a mathematical view, the ratio to profit, usability and height disappears beyond a certain amount (Im guessing that 500m limit), whereby the enlargened area for lift shafts cancels out space efficiency, and the over-engineering for that height cancels out monetary returns for a long time. Also the 'demand' for that much space -at height -doesn't seem right, it becomes more a firm/ city council's PR peacocking.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[austlar1]

Because nobody besides skyscraper geeks really cares about super-talls anymore. They are a dime a dozen.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by muppet

I think from a mathematical view, the ratio to profit, usability and height disappears beyond a certain amount (Im guessing that 500m limit), whereby the enlargened area for lift shafts cancels out space efficiency, and the over-engineering for that height cancels out monetary returns for a long time. Also the 'demand' for that much space -at height -doesn't seem right, it becomes more a firm/ city council's PR peacocking.

It's possible that tenants would pay more to be up really high, or for the building's prestige. They might also pay (or build it themselves) to get millions of square feet in one building in district with almost no extra land.

But how many tenants want that much space, and are also willing to wait four years to get it? How many tenants want that sort of vertical commute?

My point is that rents can be very different in this sort of tower, but in the end your point is probably right most of the time.

[M II A II R II K]

Rents could decrease if more people work remotely.

[Pedestrian]

"comply with local fire and rescue capabilities"

San Francisco limits them for the same reason. We all saw how impossible it is to rescue people from a supertall when the Twin Towers came down.

The thing about this that surprised me a little is that the Chinese are prioritizing the safety of their people over the prestige of building mega-buildings, but it is what they SHOULD be doing.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Because nobody besides skyscraper geeks really cares about super-talls anymore. They are a dime a dozen.

As much of a skyscraper geek I am, I don't think I'd want to work in one. The tallest I've ever worked in was 25 stories and that was enough.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

As much of a skyscraper geek I am, I don't think I'd want to work in one. The tallest I've ever worked in was 25 stories and that was enough.

I know for sure I couldn't live in this thing:


https://www.brickunderground.com/buy...s-432-park-nyc

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

As much of a skyscraper geek I am, I don't think I'd want to work in one. The tallest I've ever worked in was 25 stories and that was enough.

I've worked on the 48th, 42nd, 40th, and 31st floors (as well as 9th, 7th and 6th) so far. The biggest issue is elevator-related--the wait time for an elevator, and then, depending on the setup, how many floors it will stop on before I get to my destination level. It can definitely be frustrating. When I worked on the 6th floor, I knew I could walk down the stairs if I wanted some exercise and to avoid the elevator--but that's just not practicable for higher floors.

That said, the taller towers have more elevators available, so wait times can be shorter. Also, the 48th, 42nd and 40th floor offices had express elevators that skipped the first 30 floors or so. The 9th floor office was the worst of both worlds--only two elevators for the entire (old, skinny) building, but with each floor coming in at 20 ft. tall, it was too high up to take the stairs on any regular basis.

[M II A II R II K]

That maybe the only supertalls that ever get built next. Because a vanity project can attract vanity people where they can be charged anything to ensure the costs are covered.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by craigs

I've worked on the 48th, 42nd, 40th, and 31st floors (as well as 9th, 7th and 6th) so far. The biggest issue is elevator-related--the wait time for an elevator, and then, depending on the setup, how many floors it will stop on before I get to my destination level. It can definitely be frustrating. When I worked on the 6th floor, I knew I could walk down the stairs if I wanted some exercise and to avoid the elevator--but that's just not practicable for higher floors.

That said, the taller towers have more elevators available, so wait times can be shorter. Also, the 48th, 42nd and 40th floor offices had express elevators that skipped the first 30 floors or so. The 9th floor office was the worst of both worlds--only two elevators for the entire (old, skinny) building, but with each floor coming in at 20 ft. tall, it was too high up to take the stairs on any regular basis.

Yup, totally an elevator issue. Even worse with Covid because no one will pile into them anymore. I used to walk up to my floor every morning (about 15 floors)...good exercise.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I know for sure I couldn't live in this thing:


https://www.brickunderground.com/buy...s-432-park-nyc

Me neither. In Manhattan, I wouldn't want to be anything over 20 or so stories; you're still up kinda high (less noise, good view) but still in the city.

[M II A II R II K]

But anyone who can afford a place up there don’t exactly have to live there in a permanent basis.

[mhays]

I used to cook on the 46th floor. In a high wind, the dining room partitions swung three feet, i.e. stood still while the building swung three feet. We couldn't feel much in the kitchen but the sight was disconcerting.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

I used to cook on the 46th floor. In a high wind, the dining room partitions swung three feet, i.e. stood still while the building swung three feet. We couldn't feel much in the kitchen but the sight was disconcerting.

You know about "tuned mass damping" right? There's an explanation and a list of buildings that employ it here. We have one in San Francisco: One Rincon Hill. That one employs liquid--like a large water tank on top of the building. Anyway, it should reduce the swaying from wind quite a bit.

On the other hand, I've been on Bay Area bridges that were swaying a good deal in high winds and I remember a couple of times they closed the Golden Gate because the movement had gotten so bad. More recently they've added some features that are supposed to reduce the wind resistance and I don't remember any recent closures but they usually happen during winter storms and I'm out of town in winter now.

[mhays]

Yes, I was tangentially involved in a recent project with a mass dampener in Seattle.

[Manitopiaaa]

Every Chinese city of note wanted a major "centerpiece" supertall tower. I think we're simply at the point where every major city has one of those (1,500+).

Also, I agree with supertall fatigue. New York getting its 3rd supertall in the spire-tastic New York Times Building in 2007 was a momentous event and there was tons of Internet coverage.

Now that New York is building #18, they're losing their awe. A 1,046' building in NYC in 2007 was amazing. Now a 1,041' like the Spiral just elicits casual attention.

[craigs]

It is going to be quite costly to properly maintain supertalls in future decades. And they will eventually lose some or all of their luster as they age, meaning they may have trouble commanding the necessary income to cover increasing maintenance bills. Unlike most properties, these things cannot just be left to rot if they start losing money--full or partial collapse would be catastrophic for the cities in which they stand. Perhaps the Chinese government realizes that it will probably be left holding the bag if investors/owners cannot properly maintain and repair troubled and money-losing supertalls?

[The North One]

China doesn't need mega tall buildings to prove it's status in the world anymore or get people to take the country seriously. It's a world power now.

But this title is also clickbait, they're obviously not banning supertalls.