12 ms·

This got me reading up on buildings with 100+ floors. It's interesting to note how the US basically just gave up in the early '70s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

This got me reading up on buildings with 100+ floors. It's interesting to note how the US basically just gave up in the early '70s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buildings_with_100_floors_or_more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buildings_with_100_floo... What happened in the early 1970s? It seems like that was the beginning of the decline of American power. Tall buildings construction seems symbolic of that.

jakeonthemove 14y ago
It's the same thing as with aircraft carriers - today, smaller, more maneuverable ships (hence the focus on VTOL, as well) and drones are favored over the huge floating islands that are basically sitting ducks. I think the reason for no more tall buildings is the lack of space in the big cities - nobody's going to build a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere, after all :-)...
- PakG1 14y ago
  http://www.wired.com/design/2012/09/broad-sustainable-building-instant-skyscraper/all/?pid=917&viewall=true http://www.wired.com/design/2012/09/broad-sustainable-buildi... edit: found the HN discussion. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4574100 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4574100
  - jakeonthemove 14y ago
    Oh God... not that I don't trust the Chinese (they do tend to overpromise, though), but I really hope that building doesn't come down at the first earthquake or fire. Plus, building it in the middle of nowhere almost guarantees that it will become yet another abandoned property like the famous Chinese "ghost cities" and malls...
    - PakG1 14y ago
      Well, the founder apparently was motivated by the whole Sichuan earthquake thing. Article says he wanted to figure out a way to cheaply and easily build tall buildings that were both environmentally friendly and earthquake safe. FWIW, the article says: Broad's design has aced 9.0-magnitude earthquake tests.
- cchurch 14y ago
  I disagree about the lack of space. If anything, it makes more economic sense to build a wider, shorter building in the expanding suburbs and exurbs. This is why the US has so much sprawl.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    Wider, flatter buildings have enormous infrastructure costs, especially with the typical layout with a large building surrounded by an even larger parking lot. Spreading things out means sewer lines have to be longer, power lines need to go further, and more roads have to be built and maintained to get to these new destinations. Then there's the phenomenon of the more roads you have, the more roads you have to build to get around those roads since they take up so much space themselves, further complicating things. It doesn't make economic sense on the whole, only from the perspective of a developer that doesn't have to build and maintain infrastructure. The carrying costs are borne by other parties.
maratd 14y ago
> It seems like that was the beginning of the decline of American power. Or the beginning of the realization that such buildings make little economic sense? After the 70s, local governments were far more reluctant to finance such endeavors ... with no subsidies, building them made even less sense.

jakeonthemove 14y ago

It's the same thing as with aircraft carriers - today, smaller, more maneuverable ships (hence the focus on VTOL, as well) and drones are favored over the huge floating islands that are basically sitting ducks. I think the reason for no more tall buildings is the lack of space in the big cities - nobody's going to build a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere, after all :-)...

PakG1 14y ago
http://www.wired.com/design/2012/09/broad-sustainable-building-instant-skyscraper/all/?pid=917&viewall=true http://www.wired.com/design/2012/09/broad-sustainable-buildi... edit: found the HN discussion. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4574100 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4574100
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  Oh God... not that I don't trust the Chinese (they do tend to overpromise, though), but I really hope that building doesn't come down at the first earthquake or fire. Plus, building it in the middle of nowhere almost guarantees that it will become yet another abandoned property like the famous Chinese "ghost cities" and malls...
  - PakG1 14y ago
    Well, the founder apparently was motivated by the whole Sichuan earthquake thing. Article says he wanted to figure out a way to cheaply and easily build tall buildings that were both environmentally friendly and earthquake safe. FWIW, the article says: Broad's design has aced 9.0-magnitude earthquake tests.
cchurch 14y ago
I disagree about the lack of space. If anything, it makes more economic sense to build a wider, shorter building in the expanding suburbs and exurbs. This is why the US has so much sprawl.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Wider, flatter buildings have enormous infrastructure costs, especially with the typical layout with a large building surrounded by an even larger parking lot. Spreading things out means sewer lines have to be longer, power lines need to go further, and more roads have to be built and maintained to get to these new destinations. Then there's the phenomenon of the more roads you have, the more roads you have to build to get around those roads since they take up so much space themselves, further complicating things. It doesn't make economic sense on the whole, only from the perspective of a developer that doesn't have to build and maintain infrastructure. The carrying costs are borne by other parties.

maratd 14y ago

> It seems like that was the beginning of the decline of American power. Or the beginning of the realization that such buildings make little economic sense? After the 70s, local governments were far more reluctant to finance such endeavors ... with no subsidies, building them made even less sense.