HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 7:31 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,551
Light wouldn't travel far enough for great views.

Regarding a city build on land then flooded...those buildings wouldn't be sound in any way, or more specifically they wouldn't be trustable, even if you could get the lights to work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 8:48 PM
FREKI's Avatar
FREKI FREKI is offline
Kicking it Viking style..
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 6,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Light wouldn't travel far enough for great views.
Artificial light for the win
__________________
Recent FREKI PRESENTS threads:
Prague - Denmark - The Wild Wild West - Dubai - Phuket - Shanghai
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 10:11 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,551
Which you'd be able to see for tens or perhaps hundreds of feet. Not the long views in the images.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 10:45 PM
Krases's Avatar
Krases Krases is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,227
Yeah. I think it would be cool if built on land. But under the sea it wouldn't be that visually appealing seeing as you wouldn't actually see anything.
__________________
There are many things money can buy. But one thing money can't buy is your momma, she's for free and everyone knows it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 11:07 PM
vandelay vandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 807
It is being built. It's called Dubai.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 11:24 PM
JSsocal JSsocal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 609
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork View Post
the world should get all the money together and build either the floating city of the underwater metropolis,im sure we'd put aside our differences for that
We can barely put together a space station...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2011, 7:39 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,908
We simply do not have the technology yet, and a city underwater would not be economically logical. the city would be tacking alot more then it would ever give and take even thousands of years to build not to mention how are you going to get your oxygen? I could get into all the factors but right now I don't feel like it.
The answer to your question is no. even if it was possible it would be ignorant and a waste of humanities time to do so.

I do play the game though, I love it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2011, 7:43 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSsocal View Post
We can barely put together a space station...
HA!, you mean that tube junk? thats not a space station at all...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2011, 4:58 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHoward88 View Post
You can't just make a skyscraper and then plop it down to the ocean floor like a paperweight...
To be fair, that is essentially how off shore oil rigs are built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 9:29 AM
JohnMarko JohnMarko is offline
Architect
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas)
Posts: 58
Interesting idea.

First: Who says it has to be at the deepest portion underwater? I can see something that is "offshore" or in a few hundred feet to a thousand feet of water - the light in a few hundred feet would be just fine - think tropical waters.

Second: The tropical waters would be "warm" enough. Even Arctic locations would be OK - we already have submarines that survive in extreme temperatures.

Third: Submarines and space stations have already solved the the breathable atmosphere part as well as the pressures involved.

Fourth: While familiar rectangular shaped would probably not be feasable right now due to the pressure at extreme depths, like I said above, if it's not at extreme depths, there should be no problem.

Fifth: Even if at a particular location/depth the surrounding waters were dark, there could always be external lighting to achieve "views".

Last" A few firms are already exploring this idea - have been for a few decades now - all though so far most of them are locating them in tropical waters just off shore in the continental/island "shelves". Very initeresting stuff.

(And FYI - you wouldn't bellieve what major engineering/architectural firms have already developed for Moon and Mars based colonies - that stuff is more than three decaded old now and forever improving - I saw some really neat shit a while back. And these are serious proposals/presentations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 8:41 PM
DecoJim's Avatar
DecoJim DecoJim is offline
Art Deco Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMarko View Post
First: Who says it has to be at the deepest portion underwater? I can see something that is "offshore" or in a few hundred feet to a thousand feet of water - the light in a few hundred feet would be just fine - think tropical waters.

Second: The tropical waters would be "warm" enough. Even Arctic locations would be OK - we already have submarines that survive in extreme temperatures.

Third: Submarines and space stations have already solved the the breathable atmosphere part as well as the pressures involved.
Continental shelves can be up to about 500 feet (150 meters). If you sunk a supertall (how tall are the buildings in Bioshock anyway?) skyscraper at the outer edge of a continental shelf, only about 30-50 stories would be underwater.

Operators of military submarines do not have to worry about economics.

Spacecraft and space stations only have to worry about the pressure differential between (0 psi outside) and the internal atmosphere (presumably 14 psi). Only a few special submarines with spherical titanium pressure hulls can go down to the abyssal plains of the ocean floor. Military submarines can presumably dive at least a couple of thousand feet (the maximum depth is probably classified).

If you put the Burj Khalifa in water that was just deep enough for its tip to be at the surface of the water (2719 feet deep), the water pressure at ground floor would be about equivalent to 83 times atmospheric pressure at sea level or 1,220 psi (almost 2/3 ton per square inch)!
__________________
My Detroit and Lego architecture photos: flickr/decojim/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 4:24 AM
Krases's Avatar
Krases Krases is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,227
I still say it should just be freaking built on land.

Also, the floating city of Columbia could have been built on a mountain instead of actually flying (which I am pretty sure is basically impossible). It reminds me of the proposed America Summer Palace for the president that was rejected by Woodrow Wilson for being too over the top balls-crazy.
__________________
There are many things money can buy. But one thing money can't buy is your momma, she's for free and everyone knows it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 5:29 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,105
You can actually build a city like this in a shallow water lake. Maybe the lake can be artificial and you can turn it into a tourist attraction as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 8:33 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,720
"It's not that it was impossible to built Rapture underwater, it's that it was impossible to built it anywhere else."

Fuck, I love that game. Easily in my top five, right under MGS4.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2012, 3:34 AM
JohnMarko JohnMarko is offline
Architect
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas)
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by DecoJim View Post
Continental shelves can be up to about 500 feet (150 meters). If you sunk a supertall (how tall are the buildings in Bioshock anyway?) skyscraper at the outer edge of a continental shelf, only about 30-50 stories would be underwater.

Operators of military submarines do not have to worry about economics.

Spacecraft and space stations only have to worry about the pressure differential between (0 psi outside) and the internal atmosphere (presumably 14 psi). Only a few special submarines with spherical titanium pressure hulls can go down to the abyssal plains of the ocean floor. Military submarines can presumably dive at least a couple of thousand feet (the maximum depth is probably classified).

If you put the Burj Khalifa in water that was just deep enough for its tip to be at the surface of the water (2719 feet deep), the water pressure at ground floor would be about equivalent to 83 times atmospheric pressure at sea level or 1,220 psi (almost 2/3 ton per square inch)!
The question was can it be done. It can be done.

Is it cost effective? Is the private space flights for rich "space tourists" cost effective? Some think it is - because it's already happening. And private space launch companies are already being constructed.

Economics, pressure, etc. is not a problem. Only the timing hasn't been right so far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2012, 7:50 PM
DecoJim's Avatar
DecoJim DecoJim is offline
Art Deco Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMarko View Post
The question was can it be done. It can be done.

Is it cost effective? Is the private space flights for rich "space tourists" cost effective? Some think it is - because it's already happening. And private space launch companies are already being constructed.

Economics, pressure, etc. is not a problem. Only the timing hasn't been right so far.
I think pointing out what it theoretically possible given unlimited funds and no need to make a profit is easy. I would like to see someone actually propose a scenario in which it make economic sense to build an enormous underwater metropolis as depicted here. Any actually underwater communities will most likely have a completely different form to match the challenges of sea.

As far as Virgin Galactic's space tourism goes, that company has made a calculation that they can eventually make a profit by charging customers $200K per person for suborbital flights (or that even if they do not profit, later developments will lead to a profit).

If you can build an underwater city that can contain 500-1000 foot towers and house a million people or so and show that they will be able to afford to live there, then my hat is off to you!
__________________
My Detroit and Lego architecture photos: flickr/decojim/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2012, 11:10 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,883
Possible, yes. Would it look like the rendering? No.

If you built a skyscraper intended for land, and had it completely sealed so that water could not enter, and then sunk it 1000 feet down in the ocean, the water pressure would crush the whole thing. To make comfortable living space for even one family to live in would cost countless millions of dollars, and that's just for the structure itself. There's a reason why submarines are really cramped for the sailors on board. Not to mention all of the specialized mechanical systems that would be required when there isn't access to a nearly unlimited amount of fresh air.

Anything under a large amount of water must either be solid all the way through (no air pockets), or be built ridiculously strong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2012, 2:06 AM
JohnMarko JohnMarko is offline
Architect
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas)
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by DecoJim View Post
I think pointing out what it theoretically possible given unlimited funds and no need to make a profit is easy. I would like to see someone actually propose a scenario in which it make economic sense to build an enormous underwater metropolis as depicted here. Any actually underwater communities will most likely have a completely different form to match the challenges of sea.

As far as Virgin Galactic's space tourism goes, that company has made a calculation that they can eventually make a profit by charging customers $200K per person for suborbital flights (or that even if they do not profit, later developments will lead to a profit).

If you can build an underwater city that can contain 500-1000 foot towers and house a million people or so and show that they will be able to afford to live there, then my hat is off to you!
I never said "I" could - and I never said anything about any heights or population - I was only responding to the original question - nice moving of the goalposts, there!

If it can be imagined, then it CAN be built - whether it WILL or is PRACTIBLE or ECONOMIC are entirely different questions.

Does it make economic sense - and to build a whole city - I agree - NO WAY IN ANY CONSEAVABLE SENSE! I was speaking of a single complex. And I also agree, that it would take a vastly different shape/appearance.

Maybe we'll see it on one of the outer planet's moons that are totally covered in water - long after we're dead, naturally...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2012, 2:37 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,200
Since saltwater is extremely corrosive you have question the viability of these structures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.