3 ms·

> tall, rectangular buildings maximize volume to surface area, I imagine that you mean that tall buildings maximize ground area, and that most property is rect

> tall, rectangular buildings maximize volume to surface area, I imagine that you mean that tall buildings maximize ground area, and that most property is rectangular. The way to maximize volume to surface area is to build spheres, or cubes if you're forced to remain rectilinear, but tall buildings optimize for ground area.

dooglius 6y ago
You shouldn't be downvoted, this is correct
gpm 6y ago
Surface area in this case refers to surface area of the earth, while volume refers to volume of the structures placed on the earth. OP is entirely correct, and no one misunderstood the point OP was making. You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect. Someone else commented on the downvotes on your post being wrong, the above is why I downvoted you.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  I misunderstood the point OP was making. But even interpreting "surface area" to mean "ground area", it's only right in dense areas without open land. The reason schools are built the way they are is to optimize for cost. Some of that's land, but some is also the design and construction. You're probably hiring a design firm that specializes in building efficient brick box schools and similar institutional projects, maybe with a big glass atrium to have one showcase area, and they've got that design patten pretty well nailed down. When you have space, you get sprawling flat schools. Still probably a brick box, but not a tall one. My school had large portions that were only one floor tall, and one area that stacked two floors. They've since knocked it down and replaced it with a 3-story building, because now they need more capacity and no longer had space to keep tacking additions on. Would it have used a smaller footprint to stack it taller to begin with? Sure, but the building lot wasn't the liming factor, budget was.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  > You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect. Dial it back. When I hear "most volume per surface area" I think of dome architecture, and anyone with even a slight interest in geometry or architecture would probably think similarly. I wasn't being rude, I was helping explain their point because the words they used didn't match the ideas they meant to convey.

dooglius 6y ago

You shouldn't be downvoted, this is correct

gpm 6y ago

Surface area in this case refers to surface area of the earth, while volume refers to volume of the structures placed on the earth. OP is entirely correct, and no one misunderstood the point OP was making. You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect. Someone else commented on the downvotes on your post being wrong, the above is why I downvoted you.

wlesieutre 6y ago
I misunderstood the point OP was making. But even interpreting "surface area" to mean "ground area", it's only right in dense areas without open land. The reason schools are built the way they are is to optimize for cost. Some of that's land, but some is also the design and construction. You're probably hiring a design firm that specializes in building efficient brick box schools and similar institutional projects, maybe with a big glass atrium to have one showcase area, and they've got that design patten pretty well nailed down. When you have space, you get sprawling flat schools. Still probably a brick box, but not a tall one. My school had large portions that were only one floor tall, and one area that stacked two floors. They've since knocked it down and replaced it with a 3-story building, because now they need more capacity and no longer had space to keep tacking additions on. Would it have used a smaller footprint to stack it taller to begin with? Sure, but the building lot wasn't the liming factor, budget was.
jhardy54 6y ago
> You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect. Dial it back. When I hear "most volume per surface area" I think of dome architecture, and anyone with even a slight interest in geometry or architecture would probably think similarly. I wasn't being rude, I was helping explain their point because the words they used didn't match the ideas they meant to convey.