U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-25-2013, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,730 posts, read 9,838,713 times
Reputation: 9840

Advertisements

Is there a general rule or reference that shows what advantages or penalties there are for building skyscrapers?

In terms of usable surface area and usable volume, what is the optimal height?

Is it more cost effective to build one giant skyscraper ?
OR
Is it more cost effective to build a matrix of smaller buildings?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2013, 07:09 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
The American Institute of Architects has whole books on this stuff.

http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek...aiap016639.pdf

Note that space efficiency (usable floor space per total floor space) naturally goes down as height goes up, but not that badly; the Sears Tower has a 77% space efficiency compared to mid-80s for a typical 2-4 story building. The larger Taipei 101 tower is only 72%, but you're still nowhere near a point of diminishing returns.

A single story building has the most space efficiency, almost 100% (e.g a warehouse supported only from the outside walls would have exactly 100% space efficiency). It's also the cheapest to build per square foot. So that's your optimum in one sense, and it's the optimum in reality when land is cheap and plentiful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,730 posts, read 9,838,713 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The American Institute of Architects has whole books on this stuff.

http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek...aiap016639.pdf

Note that space efficiency (usable floor space per total floor space) naturally goes down as height goes up, but not that badly; the Sears Tower has a 77% space efficiency compared to mid-80s for a typical 2-4 story building. The larger Taipei 101 tower is only 72%, but you're still nowhere near a point of diminishing returns.

A single story building has the most space efficiency, almost 100% (e.g a warehouse supported only from the outside walls would have exactly 100% space efficiency). It's also the cheapest to build per square foot. So that's your optimum in one sense, and it's the optimum in reality when land is cheap and plentiful.
Thank you.

Off hand, is there a particular height / size, that if exceeded, raises the cost significantly?

In other words, what would be the "Wal-Mart" limit of skyscrapers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:14 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,935,865 times
Reputation: 3703
Many skyscrapers in the US max out around 55 storeys. After that the economics start to shift. It gets much more expensive to build higher and other factors come into play like developer/corporate/civic vanity or unusually stratospheric land values.

It's also tricky to find tenants who want to be that high up (even before 9-11).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2013, 09:24 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
Many skyscrapers in the US max out around 55 storeys. After that the economics start to shift. It gets much more expensive to build higher and other factors come into play like developer/corporate/civic vanity or unusually stratospheric land values.

It's also tricky to find tenants who want to be that high up (even before 9-11).
There are several points at which things get much more expensive. The first is from 1 to 2 stories. It used to be that the second was the point where you'd need elevators, but nowadays in the US you need elevators for all >1 story buildings. Then there's the point where you need to switch to traction elevators from hydraulic. Those are long before the "skyscraper" point though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2013, 10:17 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
So, would a 30 story building cost the same as 2 15 story buildings, excluding land costs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2013, 06:56 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
So, would a 30 story building cost the same as 2 15 story buildings, excluding land costs?
I think you'd have to get the book (and maybe the degree to go with it to understand it) to answer that question; I certainly don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 04:55 AM
 
1 posts, read 4,396 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
So, would a 30 story building cost the same as 2 15 story buildings, excluding land costs?
My guess is if you drew a graph with # of floors on the X axis, and cost per square foot on the Y axis, you would always see a positive slope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 09:58 PM
 
681 posts, read 434,820 times
Reputation: 322
i would love to see the cost differences for a 40,000 sq ft footprint rising to 30 floors, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,531 posts, read 1,311,621 times
Reputation: 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
So, would a 30 story building cost the same as 2 15 story buildings, excluding land costs?
No, because cost elements like excavation, foundations, utility work, etc. would be duplicated rather than simply being scaled for the additional loads/capacity etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top