HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2007, 5:03 AM
WilliamTheArtist's Avatar
WilliamTheArtist WilliamTheArtist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsider View Post
There already are. There are several 400-500k size citys with buildings reaching that high.
No need to wait 50 years. Heck, the "small town" of Tulsa had 30, 40, 50 and 60 story buildings 20 years ago. I can imagine the most loved skyscrapers and buildings lasting as long as the cathedrals. They are in a way, the cathedrals of our age.
__________________
Tulsa

Last edited by WilliamTheArtist; Dec 16, 2007 at 5:07 AM. Reason: added
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2007, 5:37 PM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
An interesting article on this subject


http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,6996429.story


Chicago ... without us
Imagining a crumbling, rotting, ratless urban wasteland; the squirrels move in


By Patrick T. Reardon

Tribune staff reporter

December 11, 2007

Standing on Navy Pier, scanning the imposing forest of proud Loop towers, Alan Weisman envisions a Chicago without us.

He sees roofs leaking, frozen pipes bursting, basements flooding and falcons nesting in the former offices of corporate go-getters. He pictures Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" and Georges Seurat's "A Sunday on La Grande Jatte -- 1884" covered with mold, ruined. Trees growing out of the State Street pavement. Bricks crumbling to dust. Fires. Vines crawling up the sides of buildings. And skyscrapers with weakened foundations tumbling down.

"If a building topples," he says, "it'll bring down other buildings, just like a big tree falling in the forest will bring down other big trees."

Weisman, an environmental journalist who lives in western Massachusetts, is the author of "The World Without Us." The book, based on interviews with scientists and other experts around the world, describes what would be likely to happen across the planet if, for some reason, human beings were suddenly to vanish all at once.

The disappearance of people from an otherwise undamaged landscape is a favorite Hollywood story line. "I Am Legend," set for release Friday and based on a Richard Matheson novel, stars Will Smith as a scientist who, somehow immune, appears to be the only survivor of a deadly virus -- except for the creepy mutants who stalk him. If that sounds familiar, it may be because two earlier films, "The Omega Man" (1971) and "The Last Man on Earth" (1964), used the same story from the same Matheson book.

Weisman's point, though, isn't to creep anyone out. His isn't a book of horror. It's a book of wonder and of warning.

He's clearly fascinated by the power of nature -- by the relentless push of the natural world to retake possession of a planet that human beings have made their own. At the same time, he's alarmed at much of what we people have done to that planet.

The result could have been yet another environmentalist sermon on the evils of a gluttonous, self-obsessed humanity. Instead, Weisman came up with a gimmick -- the disappearance of humans -- that puts the subject at arm's length.

...

Among those interesting facts:

- Humans use more than a third of the world's land surface for food production.

- In the ocean, north of Hawaii, there is a 1,000-mile-wide area containing 3 million tons of trash -- bottle caps, fish netting, six-pack rings, limp balloons, plastic bags and other detritus of human civilization -- that oceanographers have dubbed the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

- Over the past half-century, humans have produced 1 billion tons of plastic.

Virtually all of that plastic remains somewhere on the planet, and, even if humans disappeared tomorrow, it would stick around for a long, long time.

How long?

"No one knows," writes Weisman, "because no plastic has died a natural death yet. It took today's microbes ... a long time after plants appeared to learn to eat lignin and cellulose. More recently, they've even learned to eat oil. None can digest plastic yet, because 50 years is too short a time for evolution to develop the necessary biochemistry."

But, someday, that will happen.

...

"The foliage in [Lincoln Park] will definitely be the seed source from which the forests will start succeeding down the streets and eventually inside of the buildings," he says. "Winds will blow all kinds of seeds out of the park."

Squirrels in high-rises

Helping the process along will be squirrels throughout the city, taking up residence in bungalows, two-flats and high-rises. They'll bring in seeds of all sorts, and, pretty soon, trees will be growing out of living room windows.

"Within a few decades," he says, "you'll find a tremendous wild snarl of stuff growing over buildings, coming up from the streets. Just imagine, no one maintaining the streets anymore. And the plastic bags would be clogging the sewers, and you'll get all this leaf litter because nobody would be raking leaves."

Gone will be the cockroaches, which only survive in the northern climate in the comfort of our heated buildings.

Gone, too, will be the rats -- no garbage for them to eat, and a lot more raptors to prey on them.

On the other hand, Weisman says, "You'll get wildlife coming back in here. Certainly there will be plenty of coyotes. They will outcompete the dogs. Eventually wolves will probably range all over America. They'll be eating deer. There's going to be plenty of deer.
...

What about Navy Pier?
Navy Pier itself, where Weisman is standing, Chicago's urban playpen, with its mix of glass, brick and steel structures, including the 150-foot-tall Ferris wheel, will have a mixed future.

"The buildings on top will probably be more vulnerable than the pier itself," Weisman says. "Any building, if it's not being maintained constantly, is going to start springing leaks within five or 10 years. If those leaks are not attended to, then there's going to be a cascade of events that will start decomposing things rather quickly."

By contrast, the 20,000 wood pilings that have been holding up the pier since it was built in 1916 are likely to survive much longer.

"Wood, if kept away from oxygen, can last a long time," he says. "There have been many cases of shipments of lumber on boats that got sunk and ended up down at the bottom of a lake. That lumber was salvageable years later. In my book, there's a description of this wooden ship that's something like 2,300 years old that was found off Cyprus. It was preserved perfectly because it was away from the air and it wasn't being allowed to decay."

The point of all this fantasizing, of course, is to help readers understand the impact humans have on the world -- with the unstated hope that maybe we'll start to do a better job of stewardship.

But Weisman adds that, with the book finished, he realized there was a subtext as well.

"If it weren't for the maintenance people, the ones who pump the subways and keep the bridges painted, the people who maintain our streets and roads and keep our power plants going -- without them, civilization would crumble," he says.

----------



- - -

A bronze Lincoln beats a steel Picasso

In a Chicago without us, no one would be around to take care of public art. So which would last longer -- the 50-foot-tall steel sculpture, designed by Pablo Picasso, at Daley Plaza or the Augustus Saint-Gaudens bronze statue of a standing Abraham Lincoln behind the Chicago History Museum?

He explains that steel is an alloy created through the application of intense heat to iron and other ingredients. Given enough time, he says, "Nature will gradually break it down to its most elemental energy state, and it will eventually be oxidized."

In other words, it'll rust away.

"Bronze, on the other hand," he says, "is almost pure copper. It's 90 percent copper. It's very, very durable because it's much closer to its elemental energy state. When it reacts with oxygen or other elements in the ecosystem, it tends to form this patina that's kind of a protective layer around it."

-- Patrick T. Reardon



...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2007, 11:44 PM
lawsond lawsond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 554
Quote:
the difference between modern buildings and cathedrals and other structures in the past is that the latter were built of stone (and stone lasts indefinitely) where as the former are built from materials that are known to deteriorate in a short amount of time.
yes exactly. the skyscraper is a reflection of its time as the cathedral is.
our time is fluid and fast and disposible.
look at what happened to the WTC when they fell. they disintegrated into dust.
built of nothing really. more paper survived than anything else.
__________________
lawsond
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2007, 12:06 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
'How long will skyscrapers last?'

As long as we want them to.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 10:02 AM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by yarabundi View Post
In 50 years from now, there will be 30 to 50 stories building in small towns (200-500K pop.).

theres already lots of that and 200,000 to 500,000 is not a small town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2007, 2:12 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,128
I just saw a commercial for a new History Channel series called "Life After People", that looks like it'll be attempting to answer the question asked in this thread.
The promo showed an old rusted Seattle Space Needle collapsing.
Here's the official description:

Life After People
Premieres January 2008
(120 min.)

The human species appeared on Earth about two million years ago and has been changing it ever since. What will Earth look like in the days, weeks, months, years and millennia after humans are gone? How long would it take for our edifices to crumble–all traces of us gone, to be replaced by primordial forests, wild boar, rare cranes in pristine marshes? The clues to the future are right here in the present but are illuminated when we look through the lens of history. Experts from all fields of science will paint the picture, and the destructions and resurrections will all be animated by the magic of George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2007, 4:15 AM
TransitEngr TransitEngr is offline
(the rascacielo freak)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 387
The same answer applies to all major structures...

Maintenance vs. wear and tear by use and natural phenomenon. Economic forces and preservation are also HEAVILY involved. Eventually a structure can become too costly to maintain... and at that point it is probably only saved for historical purposes.... we're talking... a LONG way off.


However.... there is also the slight risk of oneday total global nuclear war... which would probably wipe out most major pieces of infrastructure in Earth's largest cities (except probably large earthwork embankments) in only a matter of seconds. Since all major skyscrapers are in major cities... I'd guess that in this schenario nearly all skyscrapers in the world would be wiped out very quickly. Let's hope this risk is VERY slight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2007, 4:24 AM
SapphireBlueEyes SapphireBlueEyes is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago-John Hancock Center
Posts: 206
I don't think skyscrapers will be around forever because of global climate changes and other things.
__________________
[CENTER][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Ornamentation is the principal part of architecture, considered as a subject of fine art.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue] - [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][URL="http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/john_ruskin_a001.htm"]John Ruskin[/URL], [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Impact][SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][I]True and Beautiful--Sculpture[/I][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]

Last edited by SapphireBlueEyes; Jan 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2007, 12:45 AM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 704
um, no actually. seismic activity has nothing to do with climate. its the tectonic plates. when was the last time you took a geography course?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2008, 8:40 PM
lawsond lawsond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 554
Quote:
I don't think skyscrapers will be around forever because of global climate changes and other things.
well, jeez louise. nothing will be around forEVer becuase the universe will ultimately collapse on itself before exploding again.
leaving room for another species to create pyramids, tract housing and golden arches
__________________
lawsond
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2008, 9:13 PM
PeterG PeterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldwide View Post
seismic activity has nothing to do with climate. its the tectonic plates.
That's not exactly true.
Yes, Plate Tectonics is the principle occurence, but this theory means seismic events - i.e. earthquakes - occur, which in turn trigger volcanic events. Volcanoes erupting significantly alter the climate.
__________________
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2008, 9:23 PM
PeterG PeterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 148
Stone does not last indefinitely, as some of you have posted.
Leave a stone exposed and untouched, and it will erode away to nothing but dust and sand, albeit over hundreds of millions of years.

Yes, I would agree that cathedrals and churches will last longer than skyscrapers, but they won't last forever.
External parts of Durham Cathedral, for example, have been patched up, rebuilt and renovated so much that they are practically new structures with none of the original material present.

This is not applicable to skyscrapers - you can't just say "that steel beam needs replacing, we'll just take it out" - the building would most likely collapse, or be severely compromised.
__________________
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 5:29 AM
Amanita's Avatar
Amanita Amanita is offline
Crane Goddess
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,229
Actually, if proper bracing and shoring were used to redistribute the loads, you COULD replace a damaged piece of steel with a new one in relative safety.

Look at the repair work done to the WTC basement after the '93 bombing, when sections of columns and their supporting floors were torn away.
Or the Amex tower of the World Financial center after 9/11. They had to replace a damaged segment of the building, but even with a chunk gouged out of a corner, the building was not in critical danger.

True, you can't just yank structural members willy-nilly out of a skyscraper. But if a few structural members need replacing, you can most likely do it without bringing it all down on top of you. Just make sure you put in that supplemental bracing first!
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 5:49 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
actually, i've always wondered what would happen to skyscrapers if a nuclear weapon were deployed in the heart of downtown.

Take Toronto for instance, and drop a 100KT nuclear weapon on top of FCP. Would the building be destroyed by the air pressure, vaporised by the heat, or potentially lower portions survive the blast, leaving the building severely damaged?

What about the buildings around FCP? Would they be vaporised, blown over, a combo of both, or would some stay standing, whitht he possibility of people still alive inside?

And what about structures such as the CN tower and Skydome. Would their size and material allow them to survive the heat and pressure? At what temp does concrete burn or vaporise? how long would that heat have to be applied to vaporise the CN tower or Skydome, and since they both are designed to survive large amounts of wind (CN tower = 450kph?), would they be able to survive the air pressure?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 10:02 AM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
That's not exactly true.
Yes, Plate Tectonics is the principle occurence, but this theory means seismic events - i.e. earthquakes - occur, which in turn trigger volcanic events. Volcanoes erupting significantly alter the climate.

my post doesnt make as much sense now cause he editied his as to not look like a dumbass 12 year old, but the general jist of it was that climate change would cause earthquakes to happen in places that hadnt experienced any in the past. anyone who would say such a thing has obviously never taken even a basic geography course in high school.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 1:52 PM
PeterG PeterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
actually, i've always wondered what would happen to skyscrapers if a nuclear weapon were deployed in the heart of downtown.

Take Toronto for instance, and drop a 100KT nuclear weapon on top of FCP. Would the building be destroyed by the air pressure, vaporised by the heat, or potentially lower portions survive the blast, leaving the building severely damaged?

What about the buildings around FCP? Would they be vaporised, blown over, a combo of both, or would some stay standing, whitht he possibility of people still alive inside?

And what about structures such as the CN tower and Skydome. Would their size and material allow them to survive the heat and pressure? At what temp does concrete burn or vaporise? how long would that heat have to be applied to vaporise the CN tower or Skydome, and since they both are designed to survive large amounts of wind (CN tower = 450kph?), would they be able to survive the air pressure?
If you put a nuclear weapon in downtown Toronto, the explosion itself would destroy 99% of all structures - the radius of this explosion would depend on how powerful the weapon is. One the same size as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs would have complete destruction for a radius of 1 mile or so.
You would then have severe damage for 0.5 mile, moderate damage for 2 miles and then light damage for 1.5 miles.
I can't really comment on what specific buildings would be damaged, and to what extent, but I don't think the CN Tower would last long, given that blast waves can be several hundred km/h in speed, and obviously insanely hot.

To be honest, it's a scenario I don't want to dwell on for too long.
If you are that desperate for more info google it or try wikipedia.
__________________
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 5:59 PM
lawsond lawsond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 554
Quote:
actually, i've always wondered what would happen to skyscrapers if a nuclear weapon were deployed in the heart of downtown.
i used to wonder that myself.
i also used to wonder what would happen if the WTC somehow fell over or was detonated, how they would fall and whether they'd do damge to the rest of the city.
i don't let myself wonder about things like that anymore.
__________________
lawsond
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 6:40 PM
Independence's Avatar
Independence Independence is offline
let's work together
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Straight up north
Posts: 146
Talking I'm trying...

How long will skyscrapers last?

That is an interesting question. I have wondered about the same thing many times.
We all know that skyscrapers are nonrigid structures, moving all the time, swaying from side to side under strong windloads and so on. And since we all know that some materials are likely to weaken and even break if they had been exposed to continuous movement for some time it is quite logical to begin to worry about this.

One could be wondering if and how the structural integrity of skyscrapers is being documented and tested, since we all know that it is uncommon to close and dismantle existing towers, even is they are being renovated. But if we think about that matter intensely, every building would need to be analized from the basement to the tip by using technology, such as ultrasonic devices in order to locate hairline cracks and all other indicators of fatigue.

Just because it never happened that a highrise fell apart just because of material failure, it cannot be assured that this possibility is unthinkable to happen some day.

Agreeing to some posts I scrolled over, the best we can do is providing the best maintenance work possible to our buildings. Let's also hope that no one responsible for the lives of millions of people would ever try to save money by neglecting maintenance work.

If not destroyed by natural disasters, fatigue or any other physical force, I'd say that the lifespan of a skyscraper is virtually unlimited. Technological advance is also a factor wich should not be forgotten. The future may provides advanced machinery that one could't even imagine to this date.

__________________
SOON TO BECOME AN ACTUAL SIGNATURE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2008, 12:28 AM
byrdman byrdman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tha Nati
Posts: 78
"actually, i've always wondered what would happen to skyscrapers if a nuclear weapon were deployed in the heart of downtown."


If you deployed a nuclear warheard in the heart of downtown, everything in at least a 5 mile radius would be VAPORIZED, as is if there were never a downtown to begin with. Look what the atom bomb did to Hiroshima, and that was in the 1940's. The bombs we have now are much more devastating. Haven't you seen Terminator 2 and 3 lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2008, 2:10 AM
babybackribs2314 babybackribs2314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UWS, Manhattan
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by byrdman View Post
"actually, i've always wondered what would happen to skyscrapers if a nuclear weapon were deployed in the heart of downtown."


If you deployed a nuclear warheard in the heart of downtown, everything in at least a 5 mile radius would be VAPORIZED, as is if there were never a downtown to begin with. Look what the atom bomb did to Hiroshima, and that was in the 1940's. The bombs we have now are much more devastating. Haven't you seen Terminator 2 and 3 lol
Because Terminator movies are SO scientific.

Realistically, there's a 99% probability there will never be a nuclear war. While a nuclear war is extremely unlikely, there's the possibility (still very low) of terrorists detonating a nuke in a city. If they managed to obtain a nuclear device, it would probably be similar in impact to Hiroshima or smaller, which although still large, isn't major by today's nuclear weapons standards. If there was a large nuclear warhead dropped on a city, it would be likely that hundreds of other cities would also be under attack and we would all die.

The effects of detonating a Hiroshima size bomb in Hiroshima vs. NYC would also be completely different. Hiroshima, while somewhat crowded, was no where near as dense as Manhattan is today. I'm not sure on the specifics of the Hiroshima bomb but let's assume that the total destruction zone was within .5 miles with death almost certain but destruction not total within 1 mile. If the same bomb was detonated in Manhattan, the area affected would be drastically reduced because of the building density; there's so much more for the bomb to go through. The area affected would be much smaller. I read a report on the impact of a Hiroshima sized bomb a few years ago, and it explained more in depth how the same area affected can't be imposed on Manhattan when talking about Hiroshima, but I can't recall the link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:19 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.