HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 3:41 AM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox View Post
Most of Florida sits on top of limestone. It’s not the ocean that they’re blocking. The groundwater is going to rise up from beneath the city if the water has nowhere to drain. It’s also subtropical. Think about how long it took to drain New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. You’d have to repeat that after every rainstorm in Florida during the wet season.

There is no solution apart from raising the city.

Perhaps in the case of Miami it might be harder but Chicago raised itself up out of a swamp. Raising whole giant buildings and parts of entire blocks with incredibly mostly only screw jacks that have been around for thousands of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackscrew

There is evidence of the use of screws in the Ancient Roman world but it was the great Leonardo da Vinci in the late 1400’s who first demonstrated the use of a screw jack for lifting loads. https://www.china-reducers.com/screw...acks-Story.htm

Raising up skyscrapers are not likely possible but they could create a new first level from the second floor that one sees all over Venice.

The also reversed the flow of the Chicago river with massive canals and sent our sewage to St. Louis instead of the now pristine Lake Michigan.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago

Raising of Chicago

During the 1850s and 1860s, engineers carried out a piecemeal raising of the level of central Chicago. Streets, sidewalks, and buildings were physically raised on jackscrews. The work was funded by private property owners and public funds.





During the 19th century, the elevation of the Chicago area was little higher than the shoreline of Lake Michigan, so for many years, there was little or no naturally occurring drainage from the city surface. The lack of drainage caused unpleasant living conditions, and standing water harbored pathogens that caused numerous epidemics including typhoid fever and dysentery, which blighted Chicago six years in a row, culminating in the 1854 outbreak of cholera that killed six percent of the city’s population.



Workers then laid drains, covered and refinished roads and sidewalks with several feet of soil, and raised most buildings to the new grade.



In January 1858, the first masonry building in Chicago to be thus raised—a four-story, 70-foot (21 m) long, 750-ton (680 metric tons) brick structure situated at the north-east corner of Randolph Street and Dearborn Street—was lifted on two hundred jackscrews to its new grade, which was 6 feet 2 inches (1.88 m) higher than the old one, “without the slightest injury to the building.”[8] It was the first of more than fifty comparably large masonry buildings to be raised that year...

In 1860 a consortium of no fewer than six engineers—including Brown, Hollingsworth and George Pullman—co-managed a project to raise half a city block on Lake Street, between Clark Street and LaSalle Street complete and in one go. This was a solid masonry row of shops, offices, printeries, etc., 320 feet (98 m) long, comprising brick and stone buildings, some four stories high, some five, having a footprint taking up almost one acre (4,000 m2) of space, and an estimated all in weight including hanging sidewalks of thirty-five thousand tons.




The following year a team led by Ely, Smith, and Pullman raised the Tremont House hotel on the south-east corner of Lake Street and Dearborn Street. This building was luxuriously appointed, was of brick construction, was six stories high, and had a footprint taking up over 1 acre (4,000 m2) of space. Once again business as usual was maintained as this large hotel ascended, and some of the guests staying there at the time—among whose number were several VIPs and a US Senator—were oblivious to the process as five hundred men worked under covered trenches operating their five thousand jackscrews. One patron was puzzled to note that the front steps leading from the street into the hotel were becoming steeper every day and that when he checked out, the windows were several feet above his head, whereas before they had been at eye level. This hotel building, which until just the previous year had been the tallest building in Chicago, was raised 6 feet (1.8 m) without incident

..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisin...iggs_house.jpg


...

Last edited by bnk; Aug 20, 2020 at 3:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 4:36 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 6,022
^ I think buildings have gotten a wee bit bigger since then.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 5:31 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,794
Bigger and more complex...and with much more challenging building codes.

At absolute minimum, raising a building is a major renovation.

Same with converting a building to where the ground level can be in the water. The implications sound very difficult and likely prohibitive a large percentage of the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 6:10 AM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Bigger and more complex...and with much more challenging building codes.

At absolute minimum, raising a building is a major renovation.

Same with converting a building to where the ground level can be in the water. The implications sound very difficult and likely prohibitive a large percentage of the time.
As a current Chicago resident, I’m well aware of the raising of the city.

But the key difference is that Chicago raised buildings before most of the city’s critical infrastructure was in place. Miami would have to redo almost its entire water, sewage, electrical, and communications infrastructure on top of raising streets and homes.

Oh yeah! And Miami gets powerful hurricanes and storm surges.

I could see some of the skyscrapers being adapted, but most of Miami is just regular old single family.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 11:20 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Are people aware the California coast is mostly steep elevations? My aunt lives right on the coast (like you can hear sea lions from her kitchen, with the windows closed close) and on clear days she can see Century City from 30 miles away.

Unless we're about to enter Waterworld, I don't think the Pacific is gonna rise 100 ft. Most of the Pacific is accessed via steep grade changes.

Even the Atlantic, at least in the Northeast, has pretty steep elevation rises. You would need Day After Tomorrow-type changes to force a blanket coastal evacuation. And high value RE can be protected via sea walls, which have worked in Netherlands for over a century.

I agree that South Florida is a special case, because there's no elevation and the ground retains water, but I believe they can come up with a solution. Necessity is the mother of invention.
There are vast areas of the CA coast that are just a few feet above sea level, sometimes going miles inland. Much of the area around the Bay Area is on reclaimed land and low. Much of coastal Orange County, west L.A. , Long Beach, San Diego, etc. Of course not all but lots.

Last edited by CaliNative; Aug 20, 2020 at 11:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 11:26 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
lake michigan water levels have nothing directly to do with sea-level rise.

lake michigan water level is typically ~580' above sea level.

even if global sea level rises 500' over the next century, lake michigan would still be above that.




lakes huron and michigan are connected by the 5-mile-wide straits of mackinac, and are in fact one single giant lake, hydrologically speaking.

they share the same water level at all times. it is only through historical convention that we think of them as separate, individual lakes; the water inside them does not care.
^^^
The most sea level can rise is 230 feet. That would be if not only the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps melted, but all the mountain glaciers. It is highly unlikely that the entire Antarctic icecap would melt, even in the next thousand years. Maybe millions. But what could happen is much of the Greenland cap and much of the mountain glaciers could melt, raising sea level by about 12 feet in the next Century. 12 feet of sea level rise would be a disaster for coastal states, especially places like Florida, Bangladesh etc.

The cost of building sea walls, dikes or raising the land with dirt would be enormous and maybe impractical. Maybe it could be done in limited areas, like the Dutch have done. It has been done in New Orleans, but the cost is enormous and a hurricane or tsunami comes along and the protection might fail. Migration to higher land would be the cheaper and likelier option probably. At some point as more people realize this, coastal real estate could become less attractive to buyers unless cost effective solutions are found, or ways found to halt sea level rise.

The other issue is temperature rise. Frankly much of the south and especially non coastal southwest is becoming infernally hot. Maybe people can stand 95 or 100 degrees for days or weeks, but what about 110 or 115? 120???

Last edited by CaliNative; Aug 20, 2020 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 11:51 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
There are vast areas of the CA coast that are just a few feet above sea level, sometimes going miles inland. Much of the area around the bay area is on reclaimed land and low. Much of coastal Orange County, west L.A. , San Diego, etc. Of course not all but lots.
Right, but most of the CA coast consists of steep elevation changes. Some areas would be affected, but it would take radical sea level changes to transform coastal living patterns.

Much of the NE coast is similar, characterized by ridges and protected harbors. Flooding is more of a concern for inland rivers than right on the coast. South Florida, the Outer Banks of NC, and parts of South Louisiana are the only areas that have really existential threats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 12:10 PM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, but most of the CA coast consists of steep elevation changes. Some areas would be affected, but it would take radical sea level changes to transform coastal living patterns.

Much of the NE coast is similar, characterized by ridges and protected harbors. Flooding is more of a concern for inland rivers than right on the coast. South Florida, the Outer Banks of NC, and parts of South Louisiana are the only areas that have really existential threats.
I don't disagree with that. All low lying coasts are at risk. North or south. East or west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 2:14 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
My perception is that California is much more threatened by Wildfires and Earthquakes than Sea Level Rise. Even the lower lying areas of the LA metro are high enough that they wouldn't be wrecked by a 2 foot rise in sea level.

I also think the danger for South Florida is a bit overstated. Places like Louisiana and the Gulf Coast however are in for big problems in the very near future. They sit on mud, rather than rock, like much of developed South Florida.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 2:29 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,522
I guess the biggest threat to South Florida is the costs to keep them afloat, that will certainly affect taxes and general affordability. They can upgrade their whole infrastructure, but that will have a huge cost attached to it.

There's nothing special about its economy and businesses/people can easily move elsewhere.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 2:54 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
Within the US, there is actually nothing else like Miami. Nowhere else has its deep tropical climate, which is the reason it exists today. It's economy is not diverse by comparison, but still- I don't see a metro of 6 million just saying ''Screw it, we'll move to Jacksonville''.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 4:22 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Within the US, there is actually nothing else like Miami. Nowhere else has its deep tropical climate, which is the reason it exists today. It's economy is not diverse by comparison, but still- I don't see a metro of 6 million just saying ''Screw it, we'll move to Jacksonville''.
Not vanish, but it could become rust beltish, less attractive, with much more people leaving than moving in, in a downward spiral.

If they need to upgrade their entire street and sewage system, to build costly dykes, that will certainly force people away and Americans will have to give up on having a tropical city or look for another one abroad.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 4:44 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
This goes totally against all observed reality. Winters have been getting significantly less harsh and warmer even just compared to what they were 20 or 30 years ago and that trajectory is only expected to continue. Especially in the Northeast.


Where Are America’s Winters Warming the Most? In Cold Places.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...r-warming.html
If that's the case, that would be equally devastating because so many of the plants, trees, crops, etc up there depend on the snow and cold for their natural cycles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 4:56 PM
edale edale is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Not vanish, but it could become rust beltish, less attractive, with much more people leaving than moving in, in a downward spiral.

If they need to upgrade their entire street and sewage system, to build costly dykes, that will certainly force people away and Americans will have to give up on having a tropical city or look for another one abroad.
Not to be pedantic, but San Juan, PR is a tropical US city. When PR becomes the 51st state, it can battle Miami for the title of latin hub of the states.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 5:18 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
^^San Juan was my original pick for this thread a few pages back. It will have potential, but probably only if it becomes a state, like you mentioned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 9:14 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Not to be pedantic, but San Juan, PR is a tropical US city. When PR becomes the 51st state, it can battle Miami for the title of latin hub of the states.
Honolulu too. And it's much wealthier and with better landscape.

Puerto Rico is more problematic than Detroit city proper since the 1970's. It's helpless, I guess the island will eventually be returned to the wilderness.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 9:18 PM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 View Post
I really wish people would stop moving to Arizona and Nevada. We barely have enough water to support the people already here and if we go through a couple more winters and monsoons with hardly any precipitation, it's only going to get worse.

APS (Phoenix) and Tuscon Electric are already asking their clients to minimize their electricity use during the day. Mind you, Phoenix has already broken a record for most number of days above 110 F and it's starting to put strains on the power grid, made worse by more people staying at home because of the pandemic.

Then again, I have no desire to move east of Denver because I've lived in Arizona and California for so long that even the slightest bit of humidity is intolerable.
Honest questions here because I think of it occasionally: If Nevada/Arizona are truly close or at a tipping point of not having enough water for a larger population, can the states not enforce a moratorium on new housing developments and new sections of land being developed? Really curious how that works. Thanks.
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 9:28 PM
edale edale is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Honolulu too. And it's much wealthier and with better landscape.

Puerto Rico is more problematic than Detroit city proper since the 1970's. It's helpless, I guess the island will eventually be returned to the wilderness.
Have you been to San Juan, because that's not my experience...at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2020, 11:03 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
Honest questions here because I think of it occasionally: If Nevada/Arizona are truly close or at a tipping point of not having enough water for a larger population, can the states not enforce a moratorium on new housing developments and new sections of land being developed? Really curious how that works. Thanks.
I can't really speak for Nevada, but in Arizona, there's no incentive to stop people from coming. Real estate and whatever other associated businesses (housing developers, builders, etc) have long been entrenched in local/state government, so the primary driver of the economy is growth at any cost (I sound like Jon Talton, fwiw). There are laws and ordinances concerning water usage, but they're written in a way that most developers can exploit loopholes.

And as Pedestrian pointed out and I forgot, agriculture/mining actually uses more water than the worst of the sprawl in Maricopa and Pima counties, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action now to discourage it. Phoenix is starting to build upwards. I've lived in AZ off and on since 1996 and honestly don't ever recall a time like now where there are so many cranes downtown for building new condos/apartments. We're also potentially looking at a new tallest (mixed use office/residential).

Last edited by Buckeye Native 001; Aug 20, 2020 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2020, 12:37 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Have you been to San Juan, because that's not my experience...at all.
No, I haven't, but given their massive fiscal problems, completely dysfunctional economy, a whopping population drop (from 3.8 million to 3.1 million in the past 20 years), a ridiculously low fertility rate, nothing there seems promising.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:25 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.