Telus Sky | 221 M / 725 FT | 58 FLOORS

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The tallest building in the world is reinforced concrete. The advantage of steel is its greater tensile strength allowing for longer ("column free") spans. I'm sure our crusty building engineer will knock me to the ground over this but, I'm always interested in what he can add.

I can't think of a geographical situation where manufacturing structural steel beams would be cheaper than concrete and steel rods so, I'm definitely interested if anyone knows of such a place. Steel construction was exclusively used in Manhattan up until recently but, that wasn't because it was cheaper.

The tallest building in the world is a hybrid design, structural steel and reinforced concrete...

The economy of materials is partially decided by the effort invested in their manufacture. All critical construction materials used today require energy in the form of massive heat input. Wood must be kiln-dried for stability, glass, brick and cement are fired, steel and aluminum are born in a skyscraper-sized furnace. Of these, metals are the most costly to manufacture.

The first tall buildings were brick and/or timber frame. Brick is very heavy and not all that strong, so brick buildings of this type have very thick walls at their base. This is undesirable for several reasons, cost and accessibility being high on the list. Timber frame buildings of half a dozen stories or more were common enough. But they burn very well.

With the advent of cast and rolled steel sections of greater and greater size and strength, it became possible to make much taller buildings. Chicago and New York benefited greatly from tower construction booms during this time. Rivets were used exclusively for fastening, structural bolting methods had not yet been invented, nor reinforced concrete, so ALL tall tower construction was of steel. Fireproofing continued to be a problem, some early building codes required steel members to be encased in concrete or plaster. Entire industries were invented to solve this problem, this is why gypsum panels have a fire-rating value.

Around midcentury, construction methods took a flying leap ahead propelled by the war efforts, with arc welding, reinforced and post-tensioned concrete, and structural bolting systems becoming available. Engineering became highly specialized, and great advances in computer-aided design, materials science and geotechnical methods were made.

Erecting a steel-framed building became cheaper and faster, but building one out of concrete became a more economical option still. Concrete has the additional benefits of generally swaying less in the wind (much more mass) being much more fire-hardy, and much more sound-deadening, although it is still very heavy (sometimes too heavy, looking at you, San Francisco), and concrete clear spans of any great length must benefit from an aggressive post-tension system.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

The tallest building in the world is a hybrid design, structural steel and reinforced concrete...

The economy of materials is partially decided by the effort invested in their manufacture. All critical construction materials used today require energy in the form of massive heat input. Wood must be kiln-dried for stability, glass, brick and cement are fired, steel and aluminum are born in a skyscraper-sized furnace. Of these, metals are the most costly to manufacture.

The first tall buildings were brick and/or timber frame. Brick is very heavy and not all that strong, so brick buildings of this type have very thick walls at their base. This is undesirable for several reasons, cost and accessibility being high on the list. Timber frame buildings of half a dozen stories or more were common enough. But they burn very well.

With the advent of cast and rolled steel sections of greater and greater size and strength, it became possible to make much taller buildings. Chicago and New York benefited greatly from tower construction booms during this time. Rivets were used exclusively for fastening, structural bolting methods had not yet been invented, nor reinforced concrete, so ALL tall tower construction was of steel. Fireproofing continued to be a problem, some early building codes required steel members to be encased in concrete or plaster. Entire industries were invented to solve this problem, this is why gypsum panels have a fire-rating value.

Around midcentury, construction methods took a flying leap ahead propelled by the war efforts, with arc welding, reinforced and post-tensioned concrete, and structural bolting systems becoming available. Engineering became highly specialized, and great advances in computer-aided design, materials science and geotechnical methods were made.

Erecting a steel-framed building became cheaper and faster, but building one out of concrete became a more economical option still. Concrete has the additional benefits of generally swaying less in the wind (much more mass) being much more fire-hardy, and much more sound-deadening, although it is still very heavy (sometimes too heavy, looking at you, San Francisco), and concrete clear spans of any great length must benefit from an aggressive post-tension system.

This was a nice read. Lots in there that most people probably already knew, but packaged well in the post - thank-you!

[MichaelS]

Great post, but a question about what led to really tall buildings getting built. Was it the advent of new materials for building, or the elevator? I thought I heard that it was the invention of the elevator that really enabled buildings to surpass the 6-8 storey mark. Or, did they both come together at the same time?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Great post, but a question about what led to really tall buildings getting built. Was it the advent of new materials for building, or the elevator? I thought I heard that it was the invention of the elevator that really enabled buildings to surpass the 6-8 storey mark. Or, did they both come together at the same time?

Probably both. One could argue that people started thinking about how to move people up as a result of wanting to build higher, as much as people built higher because someone invented how to get people up.

Stepping back, however, it probably came from a want / need to have more people in the same footprint IE the whole concept comes from a want / need for density. The rest is just innovation on how to make that happen.

At the same time one should not lose sight of the fact people build higher because of ego and perceived prominence. No doubt that had a part to play also.

As an interesting aside, looking at multi-floor construction many centuries ago, you see some unique examples, including the mud-brick construction in places like Sana'a (a world heritage site noted for this very reason - it is the capital of Yemen so unsure of what is the situation now).

[RyLucky]

Thanks for that, BC. I knew the basics, but you've pointed me to a few things I'll read up on now: arc welding, post-tensioned concrete, and the San Francisco highway collapse (assuming that's to what you were referring).

Back to my original question: Is there any significant cost difference in construction methods&materials between markets?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Is there any significant cost difference in construction methods&materials between markets?

Yes

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Thanks for that, BC. I knew the basics, but you've pointed me to a few things I'll read up on now: arc welding, post-tensioned concrete, and the San Francisco highway collapse (assuming that's to what you were referring).

Back to my original question: Is there any significant cost difference in construction methods&materials between markets?

Why do people build homes of mudbrick over timber? Of course there are pronounced differences in price for materials, mostly depending on local availability. Shipping cost still affects local prices, because materials are heavy and diesel costs money... Unless you're a steel fabricator based in Quebec; then shipping is free and paid for by the provincial government.

As for my San Francisco mention, read ahead: Millenium Tower

[MrBigStuff]

That piece on the Millennium Tower makes me nervous about what could happen if there were a strong earthquake in the San Francisco area - particularly in the downtown core.
I would think that any material above the bed rock would just turn to liquid - if the quake were strong enough.

[craner]

Completed 4 levels of concrete structure now at Telus Sky.

At what level does the residential portion start - 15? Just want to know when we'll be safe knowing it's going to get built to full height.

[WhipperSnapper]

http://telussky.com/floorplans/#floorplan-0

[craner]

Thanks WS.
So it looks like the last office floor is 28 - more than I thought.

[TallBob]

With the impending "Meltdown" of the Office market.... Telus Sky run this baby up another 30-40 meters, "Cause it's going to be a long time before anything tall get's built!

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by TallBob

With the impending "Meltdown" of the Office market.... Telus Sky run this baby up another 30-40 meters, "Cause it's going to be a long time before anything tall get's built!

I love this kind of logic.


Seriously though, I wonder whether they'd be interested in converting some of their office floors to residential or hotel. Can that be done without major structure changes? How much is going to be occupied by Telus and do they have other tenants?

Damn, this is going to be a great building.

[Blue_Cypress]

Skydeck all the way. YEEEEEESH. Would've been a hell of a lot faster to use a steel structural programme.

[MrBigStuff]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

Skydeck all the way. YEEEEEESH. Would've been a hell of a lot faster to use a steel structural programme.

In Las Vegas - they put roller coasters on top of tall structures - case in point: The Stratosphere tower.

[Chadillaccc]

Walking by today, I noticed what looked like cladding materials on the building itself, between the first and second floor. It was the black "spandrel", but it looked more like painted steel or aluminium or whatever. Looks good so far. I'm excited to see how clear (or not) the glass is!

[KoolKool]

you should take some picture.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Walking by today, I noticed what looked like cladding materials on the building itself, between the first and second floor. It was the black "spandrel", but it looked more like painted steel or aluminium or whatever. Looks good so far. I'm excited to see how clear (or not) the glass is!

[Chinook Arch]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Walking by today, I noticed what looked like cladding materials on the building itself, between the first and second floor. It was the black "spandrel", but it looked more like painted steel or aluminium or whatever. Looks good so far. I'm excited to see how clear (or not) the glass is!

Try taking a pic next time.

[Just Build It]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Walking by today, I noticed what looked like cladding materials on the building itself, between the first and second floor. It was the black "spandrel", but it looked more like painted steel or aluminium or whatever. Looks good so far. I'm excited to see how clear (or not) the glass is!

I think you need to get a pair of glasses lol. There is no glass or spandrel at Telus Sky as of yesterday.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Just Build It

I think you need to get a pair of glasses lol. There is no glass or spandrel at Telus Sky as of yesterday.

I already wear glasses, thanks. And I never said there was any glass or spandrel, I said there was black painted steel/aluminium, which there is. Thanks