# How Tall Can We Build?



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

In this article an engineer from SOM, architects of some of the world's tallest buildings offer some ideas:


*The Atlantic Cities*



> Is There a Limit to How Tall Buildings Can Get?
> 
> Nate Berg
> Aug 16, 2012
> ...


----------



## Сталин (Dec 29, 2011)

You can build as tall as you want. In space I'm sure you can build "skyscrapers" that are a few planets long.


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

Reality means you can build as high as you don't impede a satellite ? Aircraft can divert but those pesky satelites just zoom around an orbit that could break windows and mess up the furniture!


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

i guess you can build as tall as you want, i for one do not like buildings over 2000 feet because, they just dont look right, and obviously their just for show those buildings aren't actually needed..


----------



## Uaarkson (Feb 11, 2009)

That was a great article. Imagine if one day we discover a planet of sentient beings who have inhabitable structures poking off the planet's surface, like the antennae of a spherical satellite.


----------



## Hudson11 (Jun 23, 2011)

you can only go so high without a building looking like a needle or taking up an entire city's worth of space.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

Uaarkson said:


> That was a great article. Imagine if one day we discover a planet of sentient beings who have inhabitable structures poking off the planet's surface, like the antennae of a spherical satellite.


Very well possible. Imagine what the skyscrapers of a civilization, which has a million year headstart on us, may look like :drool:

Btw, awesome article, thanks for posting :cheers:


----------



## Atmosphere (Mar 15, 2009)

Сталин;94291752 said:


> You can build as tall as you want. In space I'm sure you can build "skyscrapers" that are a few planets long.


Well probably you can. But it's interesting to think of all the problems you will encounter. For example, after 4 miles or so, even oxygen will become problem. So that means the whole (or top part) of the building should be keep pressurized just like an airplane. Opening (or breaking) a window and you will get sucked out :lol:


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

What developer wouldn't want their hypoxic tennants gasping for breath on the 11,000th floor?


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ It's more a question of who wants to live in a pressurized house that uses the airco to pump in oxygen on the 11,000th floor. 

It's technically possible, but living that high will simply be to impractical and unpleasant for people that the market for such apartments will be almost non existent. And that's a problem since making it possible will cost more then enough money.


btw, the article is wrong about the main reason why X-Seed 4000 was never built. It's proposed location was in the Tokyo, therefor it wouldn't eat up block after block of expensive land. It was never built because although it was presented as real project it was of course just a vision on how a future city could look like. Neither the architect or the developer would have in their right minds thought this would become reality.


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

Technically I would say that we can build as high as we weant, as long as there is cash to support that kind of thing.
However, from an economical point of view a tower higher than the Kingdom Tower in Jeddah would be totally useless. It would be nice to spend an evening on one of the top flors but it would be quite irritating if you had to take long elevator rides just to get back to your car because you forgot to take on little thing.
There are no social benefits of that either - communities living in big tower blocks have the tendency to not know each other and they become even more separated. 
Let's say we have a superstructure made to accomodate thousands of poorer families - they see each other very seldom and grow no sympathy for each other, so some kinds of security measures would have to be taken so that no crimes or thefts occur (people who are anonymous are more likely to do that).
If business buildings get as tall, they also would be impractical - imagine 10 000 people leaving one supertall structure at once and trying to get their cars.
I think that in the future we will aim towards tall buildings being landmarks and housing spreading over bigger area (due to lower floor count). Of course that would require more advanced public transport and a switch to more indirect methods of work that could be done from a personal computer (since I guess production and most physical work will be done by robots).
I hope I didn't stray too far away from the topic


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Nicely said, definitely on topic :cheers:


----------



## iloveclassicrock7 (Feb 23, 2010)

It is hard to say, how far we can go, but if we could transport ourselves 1,000 years into the future, you can bet that what we saw would be indescribable. It is crazy to think how different NYC might look, just think for a moment, can you imagine it ?

As construction costs get cheaper, we will continue to build higher.

I don't expect a Utopian future though, quite the opposite actually. Eventually, I can see a city with buildings stretching miles high, not beautiful buildings, but structures void of any great architecture, more of a symbol of tyranny, and our oppression.

We all know that America can't last forever, or atleast in this current state. As globalization continues to increase, we move closer to fascism, and possibly a one world government.

So, before I start writing a novel called 2084(1984), tell me, what are your thoughts on what I just brought up ?


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

iloveclassicrock7 said:


> It is hard to say, how far we can go, but if we could transport ourselves 1,000 years into the future, you can bet that what we saw would be indescribable. It is crazy to think how different NYC might look, just think for a moment, can you imagine it ?
> 
> As construction costs get cheaper, we will continue to build higher.
> 
> ...


america cant last forever? uhm is it going to disappear? i dont think so lol, yea some countries rise and others fall, but it wont disappear..i mean its kinda hard for other countries to surpass it, but chinas the closest, but with slowed growth and lower exports, i doubt it will surpass it anytime soon, and seriously, one world government? lol, yea that wont happen :lol:


----------



## Atmosphere (Mar 15, 2009)

I think buildings will not only be higher, but also a lot bigger. Cities within cities. Apartments on the outside where the sunlight is. Shopping malls, clubs, maybe even industrial area's or farms on the inside. This already this case in big cities like shanghai for example. Where you can walk for hours inside underground shopping complexes which connect multiple metrostations and other huge buildings.

Like coruscant 

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/a/a0/Coruscantpanorama.jpg (huge panorama)


----------



## Jan (Jul 24, 2002)

The deeper the pockets the taller the building, really.


----------



## Maastricht (Feb 13, 2012)

^^ exactly


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

There are many limitations. 
The first one would be the available Materials with their limited stress resistance and their specific weight used for the structure. There is no harder material in the universe than diamond for example and even modern lightweight materials all have their limiations.

The other would be the various cost factors and the fact that the higher one builds the more support structure and material is necessary and the more expensive the suport structure is for each additional squaremeter of useable 
space. At some point it will allways just get ridiculously inefficient to build a building higher and higher, depending on the available land the cost to aquire the necessary land. A vertical building does allways also have natural disadvantages to a more horizontally streched out one.

So starting out with any given theoretical building or structure and enlargeing it, you can theoretically allways add to the structure on all sides to make it bigger. 
You can theoretically add floors vertically or just enlarge the building horizontally by making each floor bigger. And at some point the relation between making a building taller to making it just wider will naturally allways become ridiculously absurd and awfully inefficient, depending on various parameters, including the given costparameters for additional work and material in relation to other costs etc. 

So there will naturally allways be an individual optimum height to build, depending on where and when a building is being planned and constructed as well as an individual height limit from where on a project just gets plain absurd, even if it may theoretically be possible.

To give some examples: in ancient times where people built with wood heights where naturally very limited. In the antique times where the tallest structures were pyramids there were also natural limitations to how high people were able to build. An exellent example there which demonstrates how an attempted structure reached the limitations of the available used material, is the Bent pyramid of Snofru: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid 
The Pyramids in Egypt beautifully demonstrate how immensely difficult it was at that time with the given technologies and available construction matrials to build higher and higher structures and how the required labor and construction times exploded with every meter higher a structure was attempted to be built.

Today of course we mostly have steel and concrete as building material and highly optimized lightweight steel structures, but they also have their limitations and the difficulties in building higher and higher are very simmilar and basically still of the same nature today, as they were back in the ancient times.
The next natural step has been and will more and more lie in finding an optimum material mixture of available materials, building with lightweight materials on the top and using very stressresistant materials in the lower parts of the building.
But all those structures have their individual limitations, depending on each of their structural designs and the used Materials and the used joining and 
assembly technologies, as well as the involved cost factors that come along with those.

As an entertaining example of how ridiculous a larger and larger structure could theoretically become, here a little link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...culate-the-cost-of-building-a-Death-Star.html

Even if it was theoretically possible, those cost factors and the necessary amount of Material to build it are just plain absurd and could never ever be provided by anyone or any society.


So to pick up the example of the city of New York: 
Before buildings in New York would raise twice or three times as high as they are now, it would probably be far more likely and reasonable to expect that the buildings nearby would raise to a simmilar height as those currently in Manhattan. 
And so the overall city would also be probably much rather expected to grow more horizontally than vertically, if at all.
It would just probably be far more likely to expect the average buildings in the vicinity of the city center to raise to the simmilar level as in the center instead of the skyscrapers just in Manhattan boosting unreasonably higher and higher.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Hudson11 said:


> you can only go so high without a building looking like a needle or taking up an entire city's worth of space.


A tall building with a small footprint will always looks like a needle from a distance.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Kopacz said:


> Technically I would say that we can build as high as we weant, as long as there is cash to support that kind of thing.
> However, from an economical point of view a tower higher than the Kingdom Tower in Jeddah would be totally useless. It would be nice to spend an evening on one of the top flors but it would be quite irritating if you had to take long elevator rides just to get back to your car because you forgot to take on little thing.


I believe if and when we reach those multiple km buildings, it will not be a residential apartments as we have now where you park the car in the basement, it will be city size structure (or even city on top of city structure), you may be living on Level 545, and work on L535, there might even some version of cars and roads so you park close to your apartment, and actually drive to your office. 

There will be schools, cinema, disco, hospital, even farms or even beaches within the buildings, chances are you will stay in the building, within your floor for majority of the week or months.

Going from floor to floor is similar to driving from city to city, going from building to building will be similar to leaving your state or country. 



> If business buildings get as tall, they also would be impractical - imagine 10 000 people leaving one supertall structure at once and trying to get their cars.


Chances are you will work and live in the same building, or even the same floor.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

mrfusion said:


> I believe if and when we reach those multiple km buildings, it will not be a residential apartments as we have now where you park the car in the basement, it will be city size structure (or even city on top of city structure), you may be living on Level 545, and work on L535, there might even some version of cars and roads so you park close to your apartment, and actually drive to your office.
> 
> There will be schools, cinema, disco, hospital, even farms or even beaches within the buildings, chances are you will stay in the building, within your floor for majority of the week or months.
> 
> ...


When such buildings will be built there will be no offices. Offices are dying off, already on the end of this century all office jobs except for classified government jobs will be done from home online. The age of offices continues to disappear and this brings another point, which indicates that construction of skyscrapers will be reduced in the future, because there will be a lot of office skyscrapers, which will undergo transformation to being residential :cheers:


----------



## Bill Ding (Aug 23, 2012)

If there's a beach in your building, it's no longer a building. What you have there is better described as an engineered ecology or a biosphere. That's what X-Seed would be. 

I wonder about the amount of energy it takes to maintain supertall skyscrapers. James Howard Kunstler believes the end of cheap energy spells the end for skyscrapers. 

Is there a practical purpose for buildings the size of the Burj Khalifa or the Kingdom Tower, or are they just a spectacle of phallic triumphalism? Certainly, the vertical advantage of the Empire State Building is obvious where horizontal space in Manhattan is severely limited, but is it the same out in the middle of the desert?


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Kanto said:


> When such buildings will be built there will be no offices. Offices are dying off, already on the end of this century all office jobs except for classified government jobs will be done from home online.


I am not sure so sure if office work will disappear, while there will be a increase of working from home, what do you see as the main advantage to stay at home 9 - 5 except saving some travel time.

We have already waste a lot of time in facebook, or other non-work related activity in the office, if you are at home, you will waste even more time. 




> The age of offices continues to disappear and this brings another point, which indicates that construction of skyscrapers will be reduced in the future, because there will be a lot of office skyscrapers, which will undergo transformation to being residential :cheers:


You might prefer to work from home and conduct all your business online, but will you drink from home, now, a group of friends can get together in the pub getting drunk, will you drink from home while meet your friends onscreen, no drink driving.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Bill Ding said:


> If there's a beach in your building, it's no longer a building. What you have there is better described as an engineered ecology or a biosphere. That's what X-Seed would be.


Yes, a beach might be a bit extreme.


----------



## sekelsenmat (May 20, 2008)

iloveclassicrock7 said:


> I don't expect a Utopian future though, quite the opposite actually. Eventually, I can see a city with buildings stretching miles high, not beautiful buildings, but structures void of any great architecture, more of a symbol of tyranny, and our oppression.
> 
> We all know that America can't last forever, or atleast in this current state. As globalization continues to increase, we move closer to fascism, and possibly a one world government.
> 
> So, before I start writing a novel called 2084(1984), tell me, what are your thoughts on what I just brought up ?


But totalitarism already started in the USA. Didn't you head about the Chick-fil-A controversy? Mayors of Chicago, SF and Boston saying: You don't share our liberal values, so get our of our cities!!! This is exactly stalinism, but instead of being forced to believe in marxism you are now forced to believe in their new favorite set of crazy ideas.


----------



## sekelsenmat (May 20, 2008)

Kanto said:


> When such buildings will be built there will be no offices. Offices are dying off, already on the end of this century all office jobs except for classified government jobs will be done from home online. The age of offices continues to disappear and this brings another point, which indicates that construction of skyscrapers will be reduced in the future, because there will be a lot of office skyscrapers, which will undergo transformation to being residential :cheers:


But who wants to live in a huge phallic tower where you need to pay huge amounts of money to maintain all of the building+the huge fast elevators and where you waste 15 minutes just to get from your home to the sidewalk? Ok, sure some people will like that, but the tendency is exactly the opposite in my oppinion. The vast majority of people want a house with a garden or to live in small buildings, think about how the suburbs grow everywhere?

Not to mention that they must be great targets. I think that in a case of war iranians would first thing down Burj Dubai =D And the chinese would down Taipai 101


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

sekelsenmat said:


> But who wants to live in a huge phallic tower where you need to pay huge amounts of money to maintain all of the building+the huge fast elevators


Building maintenance can be a problem.



> and where you waste 15 minutes just to get from your home to the sidewalk?


 If everything is in the building, you may rarely need to go to bottom of the building. It is very hard for us to accept, but consider the building as your city, how long does it take for you to get out of your city?



> Ok, sure some people will like that, but the tendency is exactly the opposite in my oppinion. The vast majority of people want a house with a garden or to live in small buildings, think about how the suburbs grow everywhere?


And what if in the distance future, country side living is no longer a option. 

Speaks to the country people, and it share your view, speaks to the city people, they will say, who would want to live in the country with a hectare of garden to maintain, and is 20 minutes drive to just get some milk. City people wants everything to be within minutes of where they live.



> Not to mention that they must be great targets. I think that in a case of war iranians would first thing down Burj Dubai =D And the chinese would down Taipai 101


China is not going to do anything to Taiwan, they are brothers.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

sekelsenmat said:


> But totalitarism already started in the USA. Didn't you head about the Chick-fil-A controversy? Mayors of Chicago, SF and Boston saying: You don't share our liberal values, so get our of our cities!!! This is exactly stalinism, but instead of being forced to believe in marxism you are now forced to believe in their new favorite set of crazy ideas.


There is nothing crazy about believing all citizens should be free to live in freedom and equality and to oppose those who are against it. 

:sleepy:


----------



## Сталин (Dec 29, 2011)

Something like this?


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

mrfusion said:


> I am not sure so sure if office work will disappear, while there will be a increase of working from home, what do you see as the main advantage to stay at home 9 - 5 except saving some travel time.
> 
> We have already waste a lot of time in facebook, or other non-work related activity in the office, if you are at home, you will waste even more time.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that real life friends are important, but office work has only huge disadvantages compared to home work and no advantages. I'll name those disadvantages of office work below:

- Huge costs for both employer and employee, to rent or build an office building is extremely expensive and so is transport of the employees to and from it.

- Top class firms aim for top class A office space to ensure that their employees will have as much comfort as possible, but even then, nothing is as comfortable as your own home.

- Productivity. Huge amounts of time are saved when working at home, because you can do household work during the pauses in your work, which means you get either more free time, or you can produce more work, or find a balance between both these advantages.

Final note. Preventing employees from visiting Facebook during work is an outdated and hopelessly ineffective approach. People can be deceived. If you want to ensure productivity of your employees you have to stop concerning yourself about how long they work and instead start caring about how much results they produce. Let them chat at Facebook all day if they want but they can't deceive time, they won't have enough time to produce the results the employer requested and they get fired. If they know that they have to produce results, they know that it takes time to produce them and they know that not producing those results will get them fired, they will not chat all day long and they will do their work even if you state that they are allowed to chat during work. I both work and study at home and I can tell you that my productivity is in every aspect vastly better than it was when I used to go to school or during the short period when I had an office job :cheers:


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

Kanto said:


> I agree with you that real life friends are important, but office work has only huge disadvantages compared to home work and no advantages. I'll name those disadvantages of office work below:
> 
> - Huge costs for both employer and employee, to rent or build an office building is extremely expensive and so is transport of the employees to and from it.
> 
> ...


Yep that is absolutely right. While I was working during the summer in an office, I just couldn't help but constantly look at the clock, waiting for lunch or time to go back home. Even though we moved to a small building where only this company was located, I still didn't feel quite well, even though the time spent traveling to and from workplace was shorter. 
I'm doing commisioned 3D and 2D art from my house right now and I just can't describe it. I can wake up at 7, work till noon, cook something up, watch a movie, take a nap and then work in the night. 
I hope this is the direction we take in the near future - sharing out time as we see fit, adjusting amount of work to other things we do and most of all, enjoying the place we live in. 
Industrial times brough us smoky and dirty cities with factories all over.
These are now transformed into shopping centres and housing.
Modern times give us tall office buildings with smaller ones everywhere.
It's just a matter of time before things change.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Kanto said:


> I agree with you that real life friends are important, but office work has only huge disadvantages compared to home work and no advantages. I'll name those disadvantages of office work below:


No advantage? 



> - Huge costs for both employer and employee, to rent or build an office building is extremely expensive and so is transport of the employees to and from it.


I agreee running a business can be expensive, 



> - Top class firms aim for top class A office space to ensure that their employees will have as much comfort as possible, but even then, nothing is as comfortable as your own home.


This is just their choice, they want classA office because they can afford it, it has more to do with reputation and presentation then employee comfort, while your home maybe more confortable then your office, can you claim the same to every employee. 

Some of your employee may be sharing a room with others, or don't even have a active internet connection which will restrict their ability to work effecticely. Smartphone does help, but still can not completely replace computers. 

Anyway, office is not about comfort, whatever you see as comfortable is more to for your customers/client, then the employees.



> - Productivity. Huge amounts of time are saved when working at home, because you can do household work during the pauses in your work, which means you get either more free time, or you can produce more work, or find a balance between both these advantages.


From a employee perspective, you got a lot of time to do your own stuff, but exactly that reason, to a employer's prespective, huge amount of time is waste. 

If the role does not involved anyone else, then home office is a option, if it involved group activities, then you can't always rely on a net meeting. 



> Final note. Preventing employees from visiting Facebook during work is an outdated and hopelessly ineffective approach. People can be deceived. If you want to ensure productivity of your employees you have to stop concerning yourself about how long they work and instead start caring about how much results they produce.


I am not even a employer, and I see this from a employee's perspective.

Results can not always be measure, how is the employer suppose to know if you really got into problem trying to solve a computing bugs, or if you spent time playing games, or worse, working on a 2nd job.

My wife is watching tv, and my kids is screaming behind me, I just can't stay focus, how am I suppose to work from home. If I live alone, with the space, with the necessary computing power, it may be ok.

FB or many other personal things does not need to be restricted, but I do admit, it can be a distraction. 

Home Office has its places and will increase in the future, but will never replace tradional office.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Kopacz said:


> I'm doing commisioned 3D and 2D art from my house right now and I just can't describe it. I can wake up at 7, work till noon, cook something up, watch a movie, take a nap and then work in the night.


I see that you work alone, suppose you need connections with other employer, do you expect them to share your desire work arrangement.


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

mrfusion said:


> I see that you work alone, suppose you need connections with other employer, do you expect them to share your desire work arrangement.


I don't think it would be a problem since in the end I complete even more than the standard 8 working hours and the only requirements I have is a certain level of quality and a deadline. 
It works in movie development, video game industry and banking, tech support etc. so it's just a matter of time before it gets easier and more accepted overall.


----------



## Atmosphere (Mar 15, 2009)

Kopacz said:


> Yep that is absolutely right. While I was working during the summer in an office, I just couldn't help but constantly look at the clock, waiting for lunch or time to go back home. Even though we moved to a small building where only this company was located, I still didn't feel quite well, even though the time spent traveling to and from workplace was shorter.
> I'm doing commisioned 3D and 2D art from my house right now and I just can't describe it. I can wake up at 7, work till noon, cook something up, watch a movie, take a nap and then work in the night.
> I hope this is the direction we take in the near future - sharing out time as we see fit, adjusting amount of work to other things we do and most of all, enjoying the place we live in.
> Industrial times brough us smoky and dirty cities with factories all over.
> ...


There are even more changes on the horizon. Already we see that more and more shops go out of business because we order everything online. If the 3D printer gets mainstream, it may change even more. Physical shops, storage centers, even factories will be obsolete when everyone can download blueprints of everyday stuff and just print them out. Interesting times :cheers:


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Atmosphere said:


> There are even more changes on the horizon. Already we see that more and more shops go out of business because we order everything online. If the 3D printer gets mainstream, it may change even more. Physical shops, storage centers, even factories will be obsolete when everyone can download blueprints of everyday stuff and just print them out. Interesting times :cheers:


is it possible to print food?


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

mrfusion said:


> is it possible to print food?


Well technically yes  They are already printing things on edible stuff (mostly cakes) and Japan has a very popular trend of food you make by adding water. If basic ingridients such as sugar and wheat can be altered in some kind of a machine to get varying results then food printing isn't far off. You would just order bags (printing cartridges ?  ) of the basic ingridients and let the printer do the rest. 
I wouldn't do that though  I prefer cooking my meals on my own, since it would take years to determine that these ways of preparing food are absolutely safe.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Kopacz said:


> You would just order bags (printing cartridges ?  ) of the basic ingridients and let the printer do the rest.


This will probably be very expensive. 



> I wouldn't do that though  I prefer cooking my meals on my own, since it would take years to determine that these ways of preparing food are absolutely safe.


Me too, I don't want to eat an apple comes out of a printer, or a steak.

Will we have the same soft of ethic issues when people starts to print a puppy.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

mrfusion said:


> You might prefer to work from home and conduct all your business online, but will you drink from home, now, a group of friends can get together in the pub getting drunk, will you drink from home while meet your friends onscreen, no drink driving.


I can't see that happening at all. On-line communication is a very poor subsititute for actually meeting people.

Heaven knows, I've sat through enough drawn-out unproductive phone conferences to know how terrible they are, and skype conversations are nearly impossible between more than two people.

This idea of people contacting online is rather similar to the "cashless society" we've all supposed to have been moving towards for the last few decades. We're nowhere near irradicating cash, even though the technology exists, as we still prefer it for more personal transactions. It's quicker for one thing.

And it's the personal interaction that means the idea of all office workers working online is doomed to failure. It's just far less convenient for people who need to interact with others to do their job.

The problem with technology is that people get excited by the uses of it to such a degree that they don't consider if those uses are beneficial. It's like the invention of man-made fibres and artificial food colouring and flavours. We could all be walking round in polyester clothing that never needs ironing, but we actually found that people preferred the old fabrics. We may have the technology to have cheese that comes in lurid orange in an aerosol can, but people prefer real cheese. Likewise, it may be technically possible for a ground of friends to talk from their own homes to each other via an internet connection, but given the choice, nearly all would rather meet up in a bar.


----------



## iloveclassicrock7 (Feb 23, 2010)

Nouvellecosse said:


> There is nothing crazy about believing all citizens should be free to live in freedom and equality and to oppose those who are against it.
> 
> :sleepy:



Chickfila's CEO just gave his view point. He never said he wouldn't hire or serve gay people, he just said that he was against gay "marriage". He has the right to do that because of the first amendment. 

He is just expressing his opinion. Denying him service in Boston and Chicago goes against the 1st amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional!


----------



## asharca (Aug 28, 2012)

Engineers universally agree that the Chrysler Bulding and the ESB would have survived a commercial jetliner. Because they're predominately stone-mason, and not utlra-modern flammable materials. So not only were the Towers a more symbolic target, they were literally weaker buldings.i guess you can build as tall as you want,


----------



## archilover (Mar 19, 2012)

i think the highest will be less than 2000m..if more,then it will be less practical


----------



## Wunderknabe (Jun 29, 2010)

The higher you build, the thicker the base has to get to withstand all the mass on top of it.
That will produce _very_ deep floorplans where the sunlight will never touch the ground.
What rooms shall be in such floor plans and who shall work or live there?

Burj Khalifa is a very elegant solution for that problem through its 3-winged-design of a floorplan
but that can not be extended endlessly. 

At very high altitudes also the air itself gets less dense, so there will probably never be a skyscraper taller than Mt. Everest 

I think there will be a lot of ~1 km buildings in the not too distant future, but probably very few of well over 2 km.


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

technical innovations will give us taller and taller buildings and since it will never stop to be a sign of prestige, people will always want to have the tallest, so they will try to trumpf each other again and again. :cheers:


----------



## sanaya david (Aug 27, 2012)

Hey Nice picture. Good Collection.. ranthambore package


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

sanaya david said:


> Hey Nice picture. Good Collection.. ranthambore package


But the pictures is not related to this thread.


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

^^ it is a spam bot


----------



## Atmosphere (Mar 15, 2009)

mrfusion said:


> This will probably be very expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Printing a living thing is a BIG step further (if not impossible. Cloning and growing a puppy is more logical) than printing an apple. An apple, or a steak, is basically just the same cells stacked on top of each other and they already have printers that can print layers of human skin. It would solve some huge problems in the world if we could print a steak, but that's another discussion.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Wunderknabe said:


> The higher you build, the thicker the base has to get to withstand all the mass on top of it.
> That will produce _very_ deep floorplans where the sunlight will never touch the ground.
> What rooms shall be in such floor plans and who shall work or live there?


Advance in material science will help a bit, but there will be a limit.

A huge footprint will be kind of defeat the purpose as it is the lack of space at the first place.



> Burj Khalifa is a very elegant solution for that problem through its 3-winged-design of a floorplan
> but that can not be extended endlessly.


Burj Khalifa is all about pride then need, Dubai or even the whole of UAE doesn't need it. 



> I think there will be a lot of ~1 km buildings in the not too distant future, but probably very few of well over 2 km.


I think there will be very few over 1km. 

It is much cheaper and less risky to build 2x 600m then 1x 1000m tower.


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

Atmosphere said:


> Printing a living thing is a BIG step further (if not impossible. Cloning and growing a puppy is more logical) than printing an apple. An apple, or a steak, is basically just the same cells stacked on top of each other and they already have printers that can print layers of human skin. It would solve some huge problems in the world if we could print a steak, but that's another discussion.


I really want to see (if I am still alive) to see how technology progress to print organic materials, what base materials do you need, etc. Printing apple, steak is not as trival as "same cells stacked on top of each other". 

Skins or other organs contains genetic informations and printing those will probably be as complicated as cloning.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Atmosphere said:


> Printing a living thing is a BIG step further (if not impossible. Cloning and growing a puppy is more logical) than printing an apple. An apple, or a steak, is basically just the same cells stacked on top of each other and they already have printers that can print layers of human skin. It would solve some huge problems in the world if we could print a steak, but that's another discussion.


I wonder if someday we could grow buildings and skyscrapers like "super trees" using genetically reassigned protein 'building blocks' that enable the organism to rapidly shoot out of the ground, absorb huge amounts of CO2 and grow to enormous heights with a hollow core that can be fitted out for dwellings and other uses. I wouldn't imagine such an organism growing to megatall height but it would be cool to grow structures that could replace conventional high rises that would require increasingly scarce materials.

Also, we could develop strong, lightweight new materials using bioscience to enable extremely tall structures to be built more cheaply and sustainably.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

I think the physical limit for it based off of how high a human can with stand do to air and air pressure is 4000 meters in that the Andes Mountains and Rockies are around that tall above sea level and they have people living on them. So if we look at it that way people should be able to live in a 4000 meter skyscraper.


----------



## RPICHARDO (Dec 26, 2008)

If there's one thing that we must learn (more like unwillingly accept) is that we have NO limitations, other than what technologies we can afford at each stage of development.

Imagine the face of a caveman that would had traveled to today's time and landed in midtown Manhattan or God forbid! On the front door to the Burj Khalifa in Dubai?

Limitations are only a temporary thing for humanity. A mere pothole in the road.

Can we build them 2 miles and up? Can we reach the limits of our own atmosphere? These are not questions, but simple problems that can be dealt with with time.

Would there be any usable need to live at such high places? Can you go back in time to the 1800's and make the same question? Or better yet! Why not go back in time to when we all lived in communal homes!

The driven factor is not development for the sake of reaching new altitudes, but driven by needs our present heights can't fulfill 100%.

Why go up? $$$! Space is equal to $$$ and the more that space goes up in value and scarcity, the higher we'll be seeking the skies above us.

We have already reached the point where "air values" have been preset in highly congested and supra developed cities. The next limit, of course, would be space. 

The question is not how tall can we build, but how soon will the next altitude records be reached in our generation.

The TV set was not created after the programming, but the contents followed the invention. If it can be made to be habitable, by any means of technological advances, then it will be populated for sure. That's the lesson we take from our long history and development.

If you take a look at what we have today for basics in our tallest residential buildings (or mixed use if you will), you'll find that things as old as plumbing for water needs and sewage are included. 

Given the advances we have reached so far and will surely step onto in the next generations, it's safe to say that plumbing won't be a factor in future buildings at all. We can, today, make water from other particles. It's safe to say that the same trend will also make it viable to take apart when it's not needed, or after use. It's not only viable, but done today in space!

The number of things that can and will change, are only limited by our imagination. 

Again, take the Burj Khalifa concept and go back in time to the Empire State building's next day inauguration. See how such idea would had seemed out of the Milky Way then... And yet, today that same outlandish concept is very real to all of us!


If you had the resources today to place the best and most innovating minds of today's world in the same room, give them a concept to build not only a space elevator but a functional space elevator spacescraper whilst at it. Not only will you have the blue prints for such outlandish concept within our generation, but so many innovations and world setting inventions to boot, that the future of development would take a giant leap for the engineering mankind.

I believe that mankind is bound to reach a technological advanced that in the future, we'll be able to engineer and design an entire man-made planet from the other celestial bodies. A man-made planet will not only be more stable and purpose-built than what we have now, but made to order to our very needs as an species.

We soar in the skies above us and beyond the limits or our own planet. We dive in the deepest waters of our seas. We can probe the inner core of our own Earth. We populate the most inhospitable and barren sites in our crust's surface.

All this was achieved and being achieved as technology, innovation and inventions, answer each riddle we come across in our quest to push the boundaries of said limitations. 

The only limitation know to be a major problem to surpass for us a men, lies in our mortality. And even that's the subject of intense research today and ever since we took upon that bump in our road.

Maybe for a man of today the physical limits to withstand altitude and air pressure is low. But for a possible man of tomorrow with a technological enhanced body, that would be the same trial our present amputees faced in order times.


----------



## elking (Dec 27, 2012)

Why do people so high skyscrapers? There's scary =)


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

We have a little discussion about office vs telecommuting 6 months ago, today, we see some company want to reverse it.

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busine...e-aint-what-it-used-to-be-20130225-2f10u.html



> With Yahoo and Google sledging teleworking as slow and detrimental to work quality and creativity, has working from home lost its lustre?
> 
> Yahoo's head of human resources Jackie Reses sent out a memo on Friday telling remote staff they must be working in the office by June and if they had an issue they could quit.
> 
> ...


----------



## LABHOUSE (Apr 19, 2014)

If made on the equator exactly the centrifical force of the rotation of the earth could keep it up and it may even be stretched







sure it might cost a few hundred billion bucks and holes be needed for satellites but possible with the money.


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

You can't knock reply post information when it's backed by precision diagrams !


----------



## BASRAH2013 (Mar 9, 2013)

With respect to high of building tall limit depend on new theory of discover technology that appears in each time 
And I think any roles of tall building will be not stable and rehanged due to ideas 
Therefore, this scenario will be developed continuously


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)




----------



## NickABQ (Jun 6, 2007)

Here is an interesting article on building height. Kinda lengthy but thought provoking.

Feel free to crosspost as it might be relevant to other threads as well.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/69073


----------



## lukahead6 (Jan 9, 2014)




----------



## NanoMini (Apr 15, 2013)

At one kilometer (0.6 miles) high, the largest of the two Phoenix Towers planned for Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, will be the tallest in the world if completed on schedule in 2017/2018.
Phoenix Towers will be an iconic landmark within an ambitious environmental master plan, this is one of four master plans *Chetwoods* *Architects* are developing for Hua Yan Group in Wuhan, the capital of central China. Situated on the Yangtze River at the crossroads of nine provinces, the ‘City of 1000 Lakes’, population 10 million, has recently been designated an environmental ‘Super City’ by the regional and central government.









http://chetwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Phoenix-Towers-website.jpg










http://chetwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Main-image-exhib-website.jpg


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

^ What's the purpose of these (sorry to say) hideous thingies? :? Communication towers?


----------



## roxanwright (Apr 17, 2014)

We can build as tall as we want but it involves huge engineering skills, huge amount of money and massive risk in constructing the tower. I remember Burj Khalifa when they are still planning it, some of the engineers where reported very skeptical on the project.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

erbse said:


> ^ What's the purpose of these (sorry to say) hideous thingies? :? Communication towers?


They are beautiful. :yes:


----------



## mrfusion (Oct 2, 2010)

NanoMini said:


> At one kilometer (0.6 miles) high, the largest of the two Phoenix Towers planned for Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, will be the tallest in the world if completed on schedule in 2017/2018.http://chetwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Main-image-exhib-website.jpg


What about Kingdom Tower, minimum 1000m.


----------



## kunming tiger (Jun 30, 2011)

roxanwright said:


> We can build as tall as we want but it involves huge engineering skills, huge amount of money and massive risk in constructing the tower. I remember Burj Khalifa when they are still planning it, some of the engineers where reported very skeptical on the project.


 Visionaries get things done in spite of the skeptics. if you don't have skeptics then what you are trying to do most likely isn't worth doing.


----------



## Binsyo (May 1, 2012)

wow... I hope I can be able to see these things!


----------



## Arquitture (Jun 29, 2014)

I am too!


----------

