11 ms·
Tokyo to build 350m tower made of wood
- prostoalex 9y agoHaving just paid for a termite inspection, are infestations not a risk?
- swampthinker 9y agoNot if the lumber is pressure treated.
- querulous 9y agostructural wood is almost always treated with boron to prevent insect infestation
- baud147258 9y agoI first read that as thermite and I asked myself how does it work with wood buildings. (even if, as per this thread, wood is better regarding heat)
- foobarbazetc 9y agoIs there a good article on fire safety in these buildings?
- anonymous5133 9y agoCurious as well. Seems like it would be a death trap and help spread the fire more.
- yawniek 9y agoActually wood buildings are safer in case of fire if done right. New techniques (can't find the link) are able to control the way fire spreads and how fast it burns far better, also iirc because the heat that develops is lower.
- tmas 9y agoSafer? Than steel or brick?
- Numberwang 9y agoYes.
- alkonaut 9y agoYes. The reason is slow and predictable burn that doesn’t affect the structural integrity until it has burned for a very long time. Even without special fire proofing, glulam burns at less than 1mm/minute. The idea behind a fire safe high rise isn’t that it can’t burn but that when it burns it doesn’t collapse until people have left. That’s why the integrity is measured after 30min burn, 60min burn etc. As a wood beam burns the charring limits the oxygen supply of the fire, slowing the burn. Steel beams require fire proofing and high temperatures or compromised fire proofing makes them structurally unsound which can cause unpredictable catastrophic failure (this happened in both of the WTC towers).
- mongol 9y agoIs really collapse the the main danger to consider when a fire happens? I would think that when a building collapses from fire, many people in the building would already be dead from smoke and heat. If a wooden building would stand longer but be smoke filled earlier, I am not sure it can be said to be safer.
- alkonaut 9y agoIn a highrise it can be, a collapse can block esacapes for people in unaffected floors above, or crush unaffected floors below.
- evgen 9y agoEverything else around your structural elements are going to be putting out smoke that will kill occupants regardless of whether the structure is steel or wood in situations like this. You worry about collapse for cases when the fire on a lower level traps occupants above, and the more time you can buy to control the fire or evacuate the better.
- remontoire 9y agoIt's probably safer than steel frame buildings https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21636929-preventing-timber-buildings-becoming-tinderboxes-up-smoke https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/216369...
- steve19 9y agoThey plan on finishing it in 2041, more than two decades away. I think this sounds far more like a marketing ploy than an actual building project.
- Yetanfou 9y agoPeople working in forestry are used to planning long-term, what you sow or plant now will be reaped by the next generation. They just planted the building and are now waiting for it to grow to harvestable size.
- jacobolus 9y agohttp://blog.longnow.org/02014/12/31/humans-and-trees-in-long-term-partnership/ http://blog.longnow.org/02014/12/31/humans-and-trees-in-long...
- sitkack 9y agoI would love for humans to plant Red Woods and Iron Woods that would someday be harvested. They take so long to grow that they are not replaced, an ultimate testament to selfishness.
- steve19 9y agoYou would enjoy reading about this forest: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/visingso-oak-forest https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/visingso-oak-forest Ultra long term planning is hard.
- aikinai 9y agoI had the same thought, but actually the super long timeline could also be evidence that they're taking it seriously. Roppongi Hills, another Tokyo development, took about 18 years from the start of planning to the end of construction.
- romeoEtJoliet 9y agoThe reason why Roppongi Hills took 18 years was because much of that time was spent acquiring lots from 400 smaller property owners. The construction of Mori tower itself took ~3 years. This proposal does seem more marketing like marketing than a serious attempt to construct a building in that neither the website nor press release mentioning the location that the tower will be built (Marunouchi).(http://sfc.jp/information/news/2018/2018-02-08.html http://sfc.jp/information/news/2018/2018-02-08.html) (http://sfc.jp/english/news/pdf/20180214_e_01.pdf http://sfc.jp/english/news/pdf/20180214_e_01.pdf)
- oever 9y agoHere's a site with more information on wooden skyscrapers. It has a design for a wooden empire state building. https://www.metsawood.com/global/Campaigns/planb/cases/wooden-skyscraper/ https://www.metsawood.com/global/Campaigns/planb/cases/woode...
- swampthinker 9y agoVery interesting! But there is quite literally zero cross-bracing in that structure, which leads me to believe this was designed by an architect and not a structural engineer.
- ansgri 9y agoDo architects nowadays not have to be competent structural engineers? If so, it would amuse me greatly: how can you be entrusted in drawing new building shapes if you have no clue on their feasibility? In other words, have the word 'architect' devolved into a 'building (exterior & interior) designer'?
- nakedrobot2 9y agoArchitects these days often seem to be large scale sculptors who inflict strange shapes on people who then have to live in or around them, without regard for engineering or human psychology.
- mc32 9y agoReminds me of the complaints and lawsuits[1] regarding the Stata building at MIT. Apparently in the beginning it had leaks and other lacks of fit and polish. [1]https://thetech.com/2007/11/09/lawsuit-v127-n53 https://thetech.com/2007/11/09/lawsuit-v127-n53
- cjalmeida 9y agoNot really "these days". Unliveable spaces has a good longstanding tradition. Just check Le Corbusier and Niemayer works.
- incompatible 9y agoI have a certain dislike for wooden houses because a) they seem to have high maintenance requirements, since wood as an organic material is often attacked by fungi, mould, or insects b) the ones I've lived in were old buildings lacking insulation and draughty, thus freezing in winter. That could be fixed with insulation of course.
- jotm 9y agoBricks (everywhere, internal walls and all) and concrete (for the floors) are the best - no stupid squeaking, nothing to rot, nothing to break, great soundproofing, good thermal insulation if done right, will last a long time provided no natural disasters. Not even expensive depending on the region. That said, I don't get the point of a wooden skyscraper. I'd guess it's earthquake resistant, and it's not actual natural wood but a mix of synthetic materials and wood.
- swampthinker 9y agoBricks and concrete are absolutely not the best. They have terrible insulation properties, poor sound absorption, and cost more than wood structures. Wood is an overall superior construction material if you can use it, and I think you're misunderstanding the pressure treatment process. It's normal wood placed in a vacuum chamber so preservatives can seep into the lumber.
- jotm 9y agoReally? I've seen and lived in a lot of houses. Full concrete + brick were much more enjoyable than the creaky (I really hate those noises heh) wood and plasterboard houses. Colder, definitely, but better soundproofed imo.
- MertsA 9y agoDon't forget, brick and mortar also holds moisture and is porous. This can lead to spalling in cold weather and rotting whatever's behind it in warm weather. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1m5VShzxYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1m5VShzxYs
- pimmen 9y agoIs it harder to build this thing resistant to earthquakes than if it was made out of steel and concrete?
- faragon 9y ago"The W350 tower will be mostly wood, and 10% steel." Wood and steel.
- imtringued 9y agoYou might as well call it a steel tower at this point. Steel is heavy but it's also very strong. You don't need a lot of it to build something. A pure steel building actually ends up being lighter than a concrete building because of this.
- vinceguidry 9y agoSteel with wood fireproofing.
- Sharlin 9y agoSteel has a great tensile strength but an average compressive strength at best. It's prone to buckling. Concrete is the exact opposite. In a skyscraper you need great tensile and compressive strength in different structural elements. This is why reinforced concrete is such a big deal. The properties of steel and concrete naturally complement each other.
- tromp 9y agoCurrently under construction is this 73m tall residential wooden tower in Amsterdam: https://hautamsterdam.nl/en/ https://hautamsterdam.nl/en/ The name HAUT appears to be a play on the Dutch word for wood (HOUT) and the french word for tall (HAUTE).
- agumonkey 9y agoI wish France and other would follow on building wood based punscrapers
- mikeash 9y agoNote that “haute” is the feminine form, and the masculine version of tall is just “haut.”
- tromp 9y agoThanks for pointing that out. Now I learned that "cuisine" is feminine.
- Epholys 9y agoNo, adjective like "haut" change according to the noun it describes and most of the time by appending a "e". A "tour" (the feminine word for tower) will be "haute". An "arbre" (the masculine word for tree) will be "haut". "Cuisine" is a general noun so it does not change, even if it ends with a "e". There are not a masculine or feminine cuisine, it's just a cuisine :).
- gomox 9y ago"Cuisine" is a feminine noun (e.g. "la belle cuisine").
- ibz 9y ago> "Cuisine" is a general noun so it does not change, even if it ends with a "e". There are not a masculine or feminine cuisine, it's just a cuisine :). "cuisine" is definitely a feminine noun. There is no such thing as a "general" noun. Also, it is the adjective that changes to match the noun, not the other way around.
- KhanMahGretsch 9y agoJapan is unrivaled in building long-lasting wooden structures using only joinery (no nails, screws). This allows the wood to expand and contract harmoniously without cracking. Multi-story buildings (temples are a great example) have “floating” stories than may shift several feet during an earthquake, all kept together with a freestanding “spine” mounted only to the ground.
- y123y 9y agoIt's just a proposal/advertisement of one company.
- m3kw9 9y agoAdhering to fire codes must be big part of the costs. How do you fireproof some crazy dude just decides to throw a Molotov cocktail at it?
- mseebach 9y agoI don't remember the details, but on a previous article on wooden skyscapers, it was explained how the engineering of the wood, which is also required for the necessary structural strength, made it very dense and practically incombustible. Fire proofing is an inherent quality, not something that's applied and thus could be done poorly. IIRC.
- DasIch 9y agoWood also just burns, slowly. Steel might not burn but as it gets hot it loses structural integrity very quickly.
- bparsons 9y agoThe wood is all treated and sealed, so flammability is largely mitigated. Even with steel, the actual frame of the building is surrounded by firewalls, fire resistant insulation and various suppression systems.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jakewins 9y agoFire safety in wooden structures is interesting. A friend who does research in the area explained that, in some ways, wooden beams are simpler to engineer than steel beams when dealing with fire. The goal, engineering wise, is to put a number on a given structure - how many hours can it burn before it falls? A steel beam will maintain most of its strength up to the point it suddenly becomes soft and loses all of it. The exact point in time this occurs is hard to predict, because it varies substantially with several variables. A wood beam will maintain the full strength of the beam, minus the average thickness of wood that is burned off per hour, which is a reasonably well known quantity. This makes it simple (though not easy, of course!), relative to steel structures, to put a number on a wooden structure - "this building can burn for 2 hours before it is no longer safe for firemen to try to put it out from inside".
- tbabb 9y agoThe question is: how does the number for a steel structure compare to that of a steel one?
- bch 9y agoThis doesn't answer the question, but on topic: I was working with a building engineer who described a situation where a car engine caught on fire underneath a buildings (large, extended) eve that was built with steel beams, and they did melt, obviously necessitating a lot of fix-up work. He reckoned though that if the beam was built of wood, in that situation you'd just have to clean of some blackened material and carry on business-as-usual. He also said that of steel, perfect glass, and wood, glass was (strength to weight) the strongest material (I don't remember if this was in compression, or tension, or ...), but it's so affected by its environment (chemically, physically (a scratch)), there's really no such thing as perfect glass, so it's moot.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- armada651 9y agoSo Tokyo is finally going to build a Skytree made of actual wood this time?