Ha! Bobcat may be right, but only time will tell. The Fed raising interest rates - which is expected - would start to stack the deck against this financially.
While I'd also be the first to make the comparison to 56 Leonard in NY, we should be very honest with ourselves: CallisonRTKL is no Herzog and de Meuron. Not even close. So let's hope that if this gets built, let's hope they make this their pièce de résistance, and we actually get something we're proud of.
On the topic of the structural feasibility of the building, it's certainly feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfnspy
1. The foundation work for such a tall narrow tower cannot be done directly under the building. You'd need a wider footprint.
|
There is a 1,400 ft. supertall under construction in NY at the moment on a lot not much larger than this one, if not a bit smaller. So the precedence is there. NY is not in as extreme of a seismic zone as LA is, but this tower is half the height, so I'd wager the engineering of this has been at least thought through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfnspy
2. The cost of building the foundation and the complex engineering to balance all of that water shifting back and forth in the event of an earthquake would make each unit prohibitively expensive.
|
I won't argue the expense of building this - which is a valid point - but the water in the pools would probably act almost like a bunch of little tuned mass dampers. The water itself won't be attached to the structure, so it will move in the opposite direction, actually making the structure
more stable. Now, the water spilling out during a larger earthquake is another matter altogether, but that would be addressed in the permit phase anyway.