HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2008, 2:25 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawsond View Post
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.
Just because you wonder it doesn't mean it will happen. But sometimes it can be a good thing to figure these things out, either for the media or for more practical purposes, like evacuating a downtown in the threat of nuclear war, where it is safest to put people, etc.

For instance, design a building who's glass will instantly darken when the nuke goes off, shielding some of the heat and radiation damage, allowing occupants to [quickly] get into a nuke-proof stairwell or core to survive the shockwave and latent heat/radiation of the blast.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2008, 11:59 PM
lawsond lawsond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 554
Quote:
Just because you wonder it doesn't mean it will happen.
oh i know. but i still feel a bit queasy about that...after the '93 bombing, i ruminated more than a few times about the effect of a wtc collapse.
then it happened.
so i leave the ruminating to the experts who do that shite for a living.
__________________
lawsond
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 8:55 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMancuso View Post
i would say indefinitely as long as they are maintained. there are cathedrals in europe that are centuries old so i don't see why a modern skyscraper can't last as long or longer.
The difference being that some of these buildings are quite tall and move alot more than an old cathedral, which probably doesn't move at all. also you have alot of steel which gets fatigued after a period of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2022, 6:13 AM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,065
Necroing this but whatever.
Like everyone else here has stated, if under good maintenance probably until the sun grows so big as too make the planet unlivable.
Otherwise? I'm thinking a couple thousand years, maybe more. While Modern Skyscrapers do have to deal with more than old Cathedrals, they're also made out of far stronger materials with modern engineering designs that are generally far better than anything those old Cathedrals were made with. And this isn't to diss them either, they are pretty amazing and it's crazy that they've stood as long as they have.
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2022, 5:16 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 7,285
Wow. . . you resuscitated a 15 year old thread about a topic no one has since felt like talking about. . . well done?

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2022, 6:20 PM
Rooted Arborial Rooted Arborial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 106
One thing which would cause maintenance of a skyscraper to be of questionable value would be if it became economically unbearable.

Another would be the likelihood that the topography of the planet - which is always very, very slowly fluctuating - would reach a point where it was rising or

sinking and thereby tilting whole regions. The mantle of the planet is deeply powerful and skyscrapers are mere flecks of dust by comparison. It doesn't seem

likely that any change would be noticeable for at least tens of thousands of years, but "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2022, 7:27 PM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
Wow. . . you resuscitated a 15 year old thread about a topic no one has since felt like talking about. . . well done?

. . .
Yes, I did. I mentioned that in the first sentence in that post. Did you actually read it?
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2022, 10:26 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,476
Wow this thread is interesting to see all of the people who no longer post here but I remember.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 10:24 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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