Feasibility/ proposals of a mile tall skyscraper

[hlostoops]

This is a thread for proposed mile+ skyscrapers as well as a discussion about the feasibility of such a project.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

I moved this thread to Buildings and architecture because the proposals section is only intended for the discussion of real proposals.

[mhays]

Sure it's feasible technically. That's not the issue.

As you go taller, everything becomes more expensive on a $/sf basis. Also, desirability probably doesn't increase, for some good reasons.

You devote more and more of each level to structure, elevators, plumbing, and everything else.

The building process gets tougher. One example among many: you can't crane pick from a mile up...technically sure, but even a minor wind would turn your materials into a battering ram, extremely unsafe to work with. So you'd pick everything in stages. It can be done, but very slowly. Meanwhile, views woun't be much better, if at all.

It wouldn't be convenient to live in or work in. Getting from the entry to your desk or home would take forever. To save space you'd phase elevators, so to get to the 380th floor you might have to transfer on 50, 130, 220, and 300 or so. The alternative would be running an absurd number of additional elevator shafts through every lower floor. The balcony, if any, would be extremely windy, and much cooler (good or bad!).

US regulations regarding egress capacity (how many stairways, etc.) and structural strength would presumably make it far tougher than in many other countries. Labor laws and safety laws (not that I'm taking issue) would be a big difference.

[turigamot]

Until we have little robots that can climb and assemble carbon nanofiber structural components, I don't really think it makes much sense to do.

[1Boston]

I don't see any reason to. It's not practical, who would want to go up and down those elevator everyday. If a mile high building was ever proposed, it won't be in America. Maybe developing countries that have huge growth and want something for the world to recognize them by, then they can pull a Dubai and build a giant tower, that probably will have low occupancy rates. I don't see something like this anywhere in the near future.

[jd3189]

This can only be practical if the structure was a spaceship capsule,not a tower, to put people and other organisms in when the Sun gets larger and life on Earth slowly goes away. The U.S. could do it if NASA wanted to. It would be a waste at the time,but it would serve a purpose in the future.

[theWatusi]

there are a lot of mile tall buildings ... in Denver

[Tyler Xyroadia]

The only way something like this would make sense is if you deisgend it as a hyper dense complex like one of Pablo Soleri's "Arcosanti" Hyper buildings.

Basically a massive structure in which people live and work together. Commute to an office on floor 210 isn't an issure if you live on floor 190.

As we run out of floor space for people to live "Hyper Buildings" are going to increasingly be a needed option.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by theWatusi

there are a lot of mile tall buildings ... in Denver

Gotta love Denver people. Hey, look at our 14,000 foot peaks! And hey, look at my 5,282 foot compost pile! They're measuring mountains correctly but it's less relevant from the view perspective.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

The only way something like this would make sense is if you deisgend it as a hyper dense complex like one of Pablo Soleri's "Arcosanti" Hyper buildings.

Basically a massive structure in which people live and work together. Commute to an office on floor 210 isn't an issure if you live on floor 190.

As we run out of floor space for people to live "Hyper Buildings" are going to increasingly be a needed option.

We'll never need to do that. In the US, the population could quintuple and we could solve it by simply replacing 1/4 of our residential/commercial area with 17 times the density...six story buildings might do it, accounting for half the housing units to be maybe three bedrooms for families. One quarter.

[hlostoops]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

I moved this thread to Buildings and architecture because the proposals section is only intended for the discussion of real proposals.

Ok, thanks. I'm new to the forum so I'll need to reread the rules section. Thanks again for the help.

[hlostoops]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sure it's feasible technically. That's not the issue.

As you go taller, everything becomes more expensive on a $/sf basis. Also, desirability probably doesn't increase, for some good reasons.

You devote more and more of each level to structure, elevators, plumbing, and everything else.

The building process gets tougher. One example among many: you can't crane pick from a mile up...technically sure, but even a minor wind would turn your materials into a battering ram, extremely unsafe to work with. So you'd pick everything in stages. It can be done, but very slowly. Meanwhile, views woun't be much better, if at all.

It wouldn't be convenient to live in or work in. Getting from the entry to your desk or home would take forever. To save space you'd phase elevators, so to get to the 380th floor you might have to transfer on 50, 130, 220, and 300 or so. The alternative would be running an absurd number of additional elevator shafts through every lower floor. The balcony, if any, would be extremely windy, and much cooler (good or bad!).

US regulations regarding egress capacity (how many stairways, etc.) and structural strength would presumably make it far tougher than in many other countries. Labor laws and safety laws (not that I'm taking issue) would be a big difference.

True. I've heard that some buildings are considering using electromagnetic elevators wich can run indefinitly. The observation deck would of course have to be indoors or only about halfway up the structure. Kangaroo cranes are personally the biggest problem (as you mentioned) and while the basic process would be much similar to most buildings E.G. the WTC and Burj Dubai (Kalifa) the cranes would have to be much stronger. Finally, the laws regarding egress capacity would have to be adjusted to allow for so called "safety floors". I suppose the trouble regarding various laws such as these are the main reason the US has fallen partially behind other countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the race for the tallest tower. You bring up a lot of good points and thanks for the insite.

[hlostoops]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

The only way something like this would make sense is if you deisgend it as a hyper dense complex like one of Pablo Soleri's "Arcosanti" Hyper buildings.

Basically a massive structure in which people live and work together. Commute to an office on floor 210 isn't an issure if you live on floor 190.

As we run out of floor space for people to live "Hyper Buildings" are going to increasingly be a needed option.

By all means it would have to be like the John Hancock Center (which has apartments, a hotel, office space, a mall, food court, post office, you get the idea). I haven't seen the Arcosanti Hyper buildings yet so I'll have to look it up.

[hlostoops]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

I don't see any reason to. It's not practical, who would want to go up and down those elevator everyday. If a mile high building was ever proposed, it won't be in America. Maybe developing countries that have huge growth and want something for the world to recognize them by, then they can pull a Dubai and build a giant tower, that probably will have low occupancy rates. I don't see something like this anywhere in the near future.

The architect Adrian Smith said about the kilometer tall Kingdom Tower project (which according to the never finished original design would have been approx. 1 mile tall) that the tower itself is not the major drawing power. It's the land around [Kingdom Tower] that would increase population. Once you put in an iconic structure like that, the land around it (in this case Kingdom City) becomes prime real-estate.

[THE BIG APPLE]

I love these types of threads because of everyones enthuiasm. BUT will there ever EVER be a mile high building in the US? NO. In Dubai? In 35-40 years. In China? MAYBE. In Russia? NO. In Yugoslavia? NO. In Antarctica? Maybe. ANYWHERE else in the world? NO

[Nowhereman1280]

Feasible? Yes. Practical? No.

[Roadcruiser1]

For the last time which have been said a million times in these forums a hypertall skyscraper will never be needed in the US. We already have had proven our worth decades ago by building tall buildings. In this modern era the US cares more about the living conditions in cities and mass transit than supertall skyscrapers to prove their worth. Is it possible to build one? Yes. Does the US want one? No. Building tall would be a waste of money in the US especially since there needs to be a tenant to build a hypertall skyscraper. Less than 10 percent of China's skyscrapers are occupied by a tenant. They build their buildings to show off, but a majority of them are empty. Does the US build buildings for the sake of emptyness? No. Dubai's skyscrapers are empty as well which proves that we don't need these buildings here. Not just that but the difficulty of construction, the moving of materials, and people make these buildings their own cities outright which is even more wasteful. In the end you don't have to live here if you don't like our skyscrapers. You can move to China, you can move to Dubai, but leave the US out of this because we build what we need and not to show off.

[turigamot]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

For the last time which have been said a million times in these forums a hypertall skyscraper will never be needed in the US. We already have had proven our worth decades ago by building tall buildings. In this modern era the US cares more about the living conditions in cities and mass transit than supertall skyscrapers to prove their worth. Is it possible to build one? Yes. Does the US want one? No. Building tall would be a waste of money in the US especially since there needs to be a tenant to build a hypertall skyscraper. Less than 10 percent of China's skyscrapers are occupied by a tenant. They build their buildings to show off, but a majority of them are empty. Does the US build buildings for the sake of emptyness? No. Dubai's skyscrapers are empty as well which proves that we don't need these buildings here. Not just that but the difficulty of construction, the moving of materials, and people make these buildings their own cities outright which is even more wasteful. In the end you don't have to live here if you don't like our skyscrapers. You can move to China, you can move to Dubai, but leave the US out of this because we build what we need and not to show off.

I don't think... I don't think that such a response was warranted.

[hlostoops]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

For the last time which have been said a million times in these forums a hypertall skyscraper will never be needed in the US. We already have had proven our worth decades ago by building tall buildings. In this modern era the US cares more about the living conditions in cities and mass transit than supertall skyscrapers to prove their worth. Is it possible to build one? Yes. Does the US want one? No. Building tall would be a waste of money in the US especially since there needs to be a tenant to build a hypertall skyscraper. Less than 10 percent of China's skyscrapers are occupied by a tenant. They build their buildings to show off, but a majority of them are empty. Does the US build buildings for the sake of emptyness? No. Dubai's skyscrapers are empty as well which proves that we don't need these buildings here. Not just that but the difficulty of construction, the moving of materials, and people make these buildings their own cities outright which is even more wasteful. In the end you don't have to live here if you don't like our skyscrapers. You can move to China, you can move to Dubai, but leave the US out of this because we build what we need and not to show off.

I agree with the fact that the US doesn't really need to build a mile tall skyscraper. The late 1990's the race for the tallest building transitioned to the Asian stage. As a last note, The thread never specified where the tower would be built... This is simply a thread to discuss the possibility (or lack thereof) to build a hypertall structure