Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Can this be right?

Is a F.A.R. of almost 1,200 too much? Is a 17,000ft (3.2 mile) building too tall? Is 2.1 million square feet too big of a footprint for a single building? So far our zoning rules do not seem to preclude these outcomes:

..................................
(click here for the PDF version)

There are clearly some issues with this proposal:

1) 85% efficiency of occupiable area versus built area might be overly optimistic in a structure over 3 miles tall.

2) Reserving a half-dozen floors, each with 10' ceilings, for open-air greenspace probably won't work, considering the fact that natural daylight will only reach about 5% of the area.

3) Open greenspace on the roof? At over 3 miles high? Only if supplmental oxygen systems are available. Some more info on altitude vs. oxygen. Then there's the issue of being above the clouds, though that would only help with allowing more sunlight :)
.
4) Proximity to airport could be an issue. I still haven't found airspace maps for aiports yet, but I know they exist. Perhaps they just aren't published online, or for free...
.
As for the structural integrity of such a tall, tall thing, I am not convinced. I wonder what PvB would say about it...

Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. ParaMod.netMarch 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

    this is great! So far no one had played out the rules to see the result. What supplementary rules can you apply to design it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. NathanMarch 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM

    Methinks a rule regarding amount of natural daylight could DRASTICALLY change things. If there were a requirement that, say, 30% of the usable floor space on each floor needed natural daylight, that could lead to:

    greater floor2floor height --> deeper daylight penetration --> fewer floors --> less overall floor area for same overall building height

    OR

    less distance from facade to core --> daylight doesn't have to penetrate as deep --> skinnier buildings --> shorter building (to comply with slenderness ratio req't)

    OR

    upper floors moving out of the way of lower floors --> each floor not entirely shaded by floor above --> wiggly-hula-dancer tower (a la one tower of FOA's WTC proposal)

    OR

    lower floor projects out farther than upper --> each floor not entirely shaded by floor above --> tower tapers as it rises

    Supplementary Rule #2 could be something along the lines of Jane Jacobs' pedestrian-needs-a-choice-every-200', which would seem to eliminate extra-large footprints (or it would mean one mega-facade with an uber-footprint, and sub-footprints of buildings encased within that facade)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)