4 ms·

Public transit doesn't need to be surface-level. It can be handled extremely well by subways, with stations located in the sub-basements of selected buildings.

Public transit doesn't need to be surface-level. It can be handled extremely well by subways, with stations located in the sub-basements of selected buildings. On a more utopian level, people of yesteryear envisioned skyways between tall buildings as viable public transit. Once the density of high buildings becomes high enough, it could become feasible.

chrisseaton 8y ago
But the point is people won't want to do the work to build the extra subways. They just think the buildings should get taller. People want to allow San Francisco to build tall buildings but the city has an almost non-existent public transport system and they aren't proposing to change that. They just want to cram more people into the same infrastructure.
- bluGill 8y ago
  It isn't tall buildings that need public transit. It is tall office buildings in office only downtown areas. If the tall buildings are mixed use much of that goes away. Put the office on floors 45-50, apartments on 15-44, school on 12 and 14, (13 is traditionally reserved for mechanical for superstition), more apartments on 6-11, gym on 5, and retail on 1-4. People would rarely have reason to use more than the elevator to get around as everything they need is in their building. Note, the floor assignments above are something I made up on the spot. It gives the idea, but it is surely wrong in the details. Anyone wishing to build such a building should do their own calculations.
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  building out subways takes longer then the typical election cycle. politicians have no interest in spending billions on a project that wont get finished in 10-20 years.
YorkshireSeason 8y ago
Hong Kong did this (public transport stations located in the sub-basements of selected buildings) really well. Note however that skyscrapers also have scalability limits: as height increases, the amount of interior that gets eaten up by non-usable infrastructure and support (e.g. beams, load-bearing wall, elevators). I have read on the internet (please correct me if my data is wrong -- I've not fact checked it) that the Burj Khalifa in Dubai occupies about 68796.6 m2, while offering about 334000 m2 of interior floor space. Thats about 4.85X increase. This means that if they simply occupied all the land and went up for 5 floors they'd have more floor space. As an example of a low-rise building, the Pentagon in the U.S., with 5 floors and 600000 m2 has more usable square footage than the Burj, the tallest building in the world. (Alas I don't know how much land the Pentagon uses, maybe somebody can tell me?) I also don't know if the Burj Dubai is representative w.r.t skyscraper economics. It's unlikely that Burj Dubai's main raison d'être has been rental income, it's more a landmark, drawing attention to Dubai, to the ruler's power, promote Dubai as a business location etc. (Those will indirectly affect achievable rental income in other, more functional Dubai buildings.) See [1] for a well-written introduction to the economics of skyscrapers. [1] http://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-i/ http://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-i/
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  northern Virginia has some of the worst sprawl in the country.

chrisseaton 8y ago

But the point is people won't want to do the work to build the extra subways. They just think the buildings should get taller. People want to allow San Francisco to build tall buildings but the city has an almost non-existent public transport system and they aren't proposing to change that. They just want to cram more people into the same infrastructure.

bluGill 8y ago
It isn't tall buildings that need public transit. It is tall office buildings in office only downtown areas. If the tall buildings are mixed use much of that goes away. Put the office on floors 45-50, apartments on 15-44, school on 12 and 14, (13 is traditionally reserved for mechanical for superstition), more apartments on 6-11, gym on 5, and retail on 1-4. People would rarely have reason to use more than the elevator to get around as everything they need is in their building. Note, the floor assignments above are something I made up on the spot. It gives the idea, but it is surely wrong in the details. Anyone wishing to build such a building should do their own calculations.
dajohnson89 8y ago
building out subways takes longer then the typical election cycle. politicians have no interest in spending billions on a project that wont get finished in 10-20 years.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago

Hong Kong did this (public transport stations located in the sub-basements of selected buildings) really well. Note however that skyscrapers also have scalability limits: as height increases, the amount of interior that gets eaten up by non-usable infrastructure and support (e.g. beams, load-bearing wall, elevators). I have read on the internet (please correct me if my data is wrong -- I've not fact checked it) that the Burj Khalifa in Dubai occupies about 68796.6 m2, while offering about 334000 m2 of interior floor space. Thats about 4.85X increase. This means that if they simply occupied all the land and went up for 5 floors they'd have more floor space. As an example of a low-rise building, the Pentagon in the U.S., with 5 floors and 600000 m2 has more usable square footage than the Burj, the tallest building in the world. (Alas I don't know how much land the Pentagon uses, maybe somebody can tell me?) I also don't know if the Burj Dubai is representative w.r.t skyscraper economics. It's unlikely that Burj Dubai's main raison d'être has been rental income, it's more a landmark, drawing attention to Dubai, to the ruler's power, promote Dubai as a business location etc. (Those will indirectly affect achievable rental income in other, more functional Dubai buildings.) See [1] for a well-written introduction to the economics of skyscrapers. [1] http://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-i/ http://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-i/

dajohnson89 8y ago
northern Virginia has some of the worst sprawl in the country.