Many years ago, I had a friend/coworker who had worked in one of the top floors of the World Trade Center (before 9/11, obviously). He said that in high wind conditions, the top of the build would rock more than 1 meter in each direction and people would get nauseous.
That is SO insightful! Thank you for your highly valued comment. Another problem is that even in a small apartment block one doesn't own the land under the building in which one has bought an apartment. Which means that one has to endlessly pay rent to the land owner of the tower. Including building governance problems. Who makes the decisions about renovation and upkeep? It also means that as the tower deteriorates one's apartment loses value, when in contrast, owning a piece of land is a safe bet because even if the building needs rebuilding the land value can go up.
I used to love going for a drink at the top of the tower and watching NJ sway back and forth. But I had to learn to check any friend or client I brought up there for motion sickness BEFORE going up. It was fun while it lasted, but the commute up & down could be tedious at rush hour.
It's always amazing to me, as a Brit, whenever I'm reminded of how far back my ancestors (and other Europeans) had in-depth record-keeping. To think that we have almost a millenium of building height records is just mind-blowing.
Now imagine the records that the world would have if the early Christians would have preserved instead of destroying all the literature and architecture of the classical period.
I suppose a lot of British record keeping goes back to the Normans? As we know well, the Domesday Book is a manuscript record of the Great Survey of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086 at the behest of King William the Conqueror. And, William the Conqueror was a kind of Viking-Frank (or Viking Frenchman). The great-great-great grandfather of William the Conqueror, was the Viking Rollo, and as we know the Vikings didn't do much record keeping. So it is really the Frankish (Parisians) people who influenced British record keeping. Essentially via the Catholic Church, who also were responsible for writing down the oral Viking Sagas as the Catholic Church expanded North and West. Brutish Frankish and Norman warriors brought with them the intellect of quill and parchment and great cathedral building. Was this thanks to the Roman Catholic Church following in the metaphorical shoes of the Roman Empire with its ink and parchment literary tradition and ancient knowledge going all the way back to Classical Athens? As far as this is relevant to the topic of tall buildings in Britain, it is interesting that one of our first tallest buildings was Canterbury Cathedral built with imported stone from the Norman capital of Caen, in Normandy. The great medieval cathedral of London, which followed Canterbury, of course, burnt down in the Great Fire of London. Records of those cathedrals were surely a key factor in our general history of record keeping?
@@johnnyhorton5984 Yeah, it's really cool to me to think that London dates back to the days of the Roman Empire, though it was called Londinum back then. I'm no expert on history, but my inclination is that there can't be that many countries with capital cities that are approximately two millennia old.
You missed one factor that made a big impact on people who might be tempted to build a record breaking skyscraper. That factor is the spire, or antenna, being counted as part of the building. Sears Tower lost its title for tallest to a shorter building. They built a shorter building and put a taller spire on it. When cheating gets rewarded, competitors back out of the game.
You realise the councils that judge these things have differing categories for that. Also the freedom Tower does the exact same thing -it even overrides their rules to put the antenna as the 'architectural' height, that no other building is allowed to do.
@@zupermaus9276 You realize that 99% of human beings count the roof of the top occupied floor as the top of the building. "Councils" can say whatever they want. The people who walk around on the sidewalks below these behemoths don't care what any council says.
Fun fact, currently Mexico has a taller building under construction than anything currently under construction in the US (excluding anything already built). Look up Torre Rise in Monterrey, Nuevo León, it's going to be about 1,552 ft when finished with the spire being taller than the newly built Central Park Tower in NYC...
I remember standing at the top of the Sears tower and seeing how many flat car parks I could see within a few blocks. It clearly wasn’t built because land was expensive.
- 10:49 - That's Not Sheikh Khalifa .. You are looking for Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al-Nahayan. No idea who this is. - Sheikh Khalifa did not pay for the building, it was financed with a loan from the Government of Abu Dhabi to the Government of Dubai (Both are Emirates in the UAE Federation). - The Spike in Sky Scraper building at the Turn of the 20th Century was mostly due to the Improvement in Quality and reduction in Cost of producing Steel.
Bingo! And supertall towers now make MOST of their money not from renting space but observation deck fees and telecom broadcasting use for their roofs.. The office space itself it sometimes even a loss leader...
@@stickynorth Does that mean we will likely not see too many other skyscrapers built, at least in America? Where might that take architectural and city planning aesthetics? More out than up?
When I was a teen there was this semi-scientific magazine that had a whole futuristic city built in a kind of cone or pyramidal form, with the housing all around but just say 5 or 10 stories high. The ceiling/ground for the next level was more than double that, so that light would shine to the central plaza. There were trees and plants and such on that plaza. The structure was held up by large structures around and I imagine in the center too. I could see such a structure actually being built in some oil-rich country or somewhere "between" the Sahel and the Sahara.
There's also the inconvenience factor of going up and down a 100+ story building. Waiting for elevators and changing elevators can be a hassle. If it takes you 10 to 15 minutes each way to go down and back up, that could lessen the desirability of being on a high floor and going out for a bite to eat if you're on a 1 hour lunch break. Standing in a crowded elevator with strangers for extra minutes in a 100+ story building can also put people off.
You gloss out too quickly what's stopping the U.S. from having even modestly tall buildings. If you go southwest, it's not just that there's not skyscrappers - it's all 1~2 floor single-family homes and malls. This has more to do with local zoning laws that prevent anything else form being built. For example, the US and Canada have a unique law that buildings of more than 2 floors must have 2 staircases in case of fire. This makes 3-5 floor buildings economically unfeasible. And overall this NIMY-ism prevents urban density, walkability, and housing affordability.
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p staircases are cheap compared to elevators. More importantly it's the cost of building up and the fact that fire departments need ladders tall enough.
The major problem with the Burj Khalifa is Dubai's lack of infrastructure to support it. It has no connection to a sewer system, so it relies on hundreds of tanker trucks to haul away waste water every day.
Ricky, in your exuberance you speak too quickly for non-Americans to follow easily, then the background "music" starts up making comprehension next to impossible. I enjoyed our one to one conversation when looking at cars in Farnborough, so it must be the unnecessary background noise/music track which made me switch off the video half way through. You make each video "exciting" enough not to need artificial aids 😀
An additional factor in the office space world is occupancy is way down post coronavirus. With the work from home trend buildings are finding it difficult to fill the existing space much less building more.
It is very difficult to dismiss the ease which the *twin* world trade center towers were taken down. Even when I go into a doctor's office at 27 floors up, I ponder observing all the mis-appropriated effort to construct, supply, maintain, and staff these buildings. My wife fought in Operation Desert Storm. Ten years later, we were sailing on the Pacific Ocean, safely far away, but she was devastated by the thousands of lives needlessly sacrificed that day.
1:24 As someone from Chicago it deeply offends me when they have the Sears tower horribly misscaled like that. The antenna part is not calculated in its height, so its roof is actually just below the top of the petronas’s spires! My only remorse is that the Freedom tower has an even worse scaling.
i agree. actually, 1wtc is taller than the sears tower just because of its spite. in the diagram, it shows that it's shorter just because it's a placeholder for the twin towers. i literally dont understand why he couldn't have justed used those..
@@enchantedhamburger8934 I didn't even realize that he got the wrong tower! I was confused why it was there because of course it was never the tallest.
Between concerns about terrorism, natural disasters, utilization in a remote-work world, and basic costs, the US is unlikely to ever again be a major player in super-tall building construction.
I always had a sense that Skyscrapers was and is still a power status symbol, with countries doing it to announce, hey look guys, we are a power like others are. Europe is one of the odd one out that doesn't really build them, part of that reason is that Europe didn't really have much to prove, it's already got a long history and is already a power, but another reason is culturally, Europeans don't find Skyscrapers appealing on the landscape and they are right, a lot of people around the world don't really like living near Skyscrapers. As we see, Asian is on the rise as a power and they are doing what is expected as a rising power, building lots of Skyscrapers, just like the US did to announce their rise as a power and to be different from Europe. Today, thought, Skyscrapers are not appealing and most of us don't want them or don't want to live near them, in Europe, we do build them but we have designated areas for them that are well away from landmarks and residential areas, usually they are in business areas that you travel to work in but not usually live in, and also, today, Skyscrapers doesn't have that power status symbol it used to have and honestly, I think Europe has the right approach when it comes to Skyscrapers and the well-being of its citizens. In any case, I think the real problem with Skyscrapers, the higher they go, the less appealing they become to want to work, live in them or to want to live anywhere near them as they block out a lot of the natural scenery and the more expensive they are to build and maintain, and I think some that build these buildings forget the quality of life impact it can have on the citizens in those areas. In fact, if I recall, in Europe, there was a boom of Skyscrapers in Europe, but a lot of people turned against them because of the harm they were doing to the natural landscape, so some regulations came into force, I think first starting in Belgium and then spreading across Europe on what kind of building can be built, how high and where they can be built, without those regulations, Europe might have ended up like many other cities around the world with lots of Skyscrapers around.
actually, more skyscrapers are being built in Europe now than ever before, and many are in the planning stages. Of course, not as many as in Asia or America, but a change is noticeable. In cities like Frankfurt or Warsaw, many people are quite proud of their own skyline. It's a very European phenomenon to initially reject many things fundamentally, but once they're built, it usually takes only 10-20 years before they become city icons-the same thing happened with the Eiffel Tower.
This video is exactly what makes this channel so good. A question you had asked yourself before but the answer was neither obvious nor was it easy to find online. Two Bit da Vinci is doing all the hard work and turning it into a concise presentation. Thanks again, Ricky.
The original “sky scrapers” were 7 stories tall. They were built high because the land was expensive, and engineering had advanced enough to make the buildings possible. But by the 1930’s the economic motivation was dropping behind the ego motivation, so we got super tall buildings like the Empire State Building. But now, the economic motivation is everything. As it should be. So we build as we need, not to support someone’s ego dream.
As a fellow engineer, I love your content. This is what learning is. Data driven, objective views to make the most efficient, effective answer. Also I don't remember if it was this video or the last one where you criticized our "safety centric" mentality and I also agree with our over doing of this subject.
In the the UK there's a lot less demand for office space, I doubt if a very tall buildings will ever be built again in the UK, unless it's a total vanity project.
I understand the higher floor cost argument, but not totally on board with the acre of land in California for $5,000. I live in rural Georgia, and the local property tax appraisal has my land just shy of$5,000 per acre. Surly there’s a 0 or two missing from that statement. Thanks for what you do and keep up the good work.
1:24 why the hell is 1wtc there taking the original World Trade Center's place? is it taboo to mention it or what. also, why is it horribly inaccurate. it shows that it has a height of aprox 1300 ft with the spire included, while in reality the rooftop is already past that height, at 1368 ft and the tip of the building is well above, taller than the petronas towers, at 1776 ft...
Haven't watched the video yet and maybe I am wrong, but my guess is: The tall skyscrapers that have been built in the last 30+ years or so, were pretty much all built as big vanity projects to boost someone's prestige, with usually little economic considerations taken into account. The USA and the western world in general, don't really need to spend a lot of resources on bragging. It is like when people trying to look rich spend lots of money on expensive brand clothes and sports cars and the such, while Billionaires wear the same 20 Dollar shirt and pants from Walmart every day.
Seems I was right, even though he worded it in a different way. He seems to come from the perspective that building stuff for bragging rights is OK and it is the US's own fault that people there don't do that, while I look down on that kind of mentality.
@@TrangleC It's also mostly wrong... Supertalls are economical because of broadcasting and observation deck fees. Empire State Building makes only $10M from rent per year but $100M for visitors via lift tickets... That isn't mentioned in this video. It was slap dash quality at best wrapped around an awkward advert.
@@stickynorth So you say it is wrong. Then what is the explanation for why basically only Oil Sheikhs trying to brag have been building skyscrapers in the last 30+ years? To say that sky scrapers are economical because one of them makes a lot of money with elevator tourism is not really something I can take serious, I'm sorry. Something makes me doubt that some sky scraper built in any other city, like Houston for example, would make 100 M per year that way.
We need to start looking at making Arcologies. It would help to bring down our carbon footprint, bring everyone closer, while allowing easier access to green areas. They can contain everything you need from residential, commercial, energy production, services, and even some industry. This could reduce the footprint we take up in our day to day lives.
1.From a China project we know buildings + plants = mosquito/bug infestation. Green spaces are best left separated in a park garden. 2. Everyone will have to be renters in an Arcologie. If ownership is split between inhabitants maintenance of shared spaces, infrastructure and services becomes impossible to organise. Maybe under a HOA or time share. Those are a whole other problem.
When you can find empty lots of dirt right next to the world’s tallest skyscraper (closer than its height) it is easy to see this is not about optimizing floor space value
Recently spoken to a guy in this business - he said, in Europe not only the cost increases dramatically with more stories, but sustainability decreases as well significantly - which is a no-go for many developers and in an increasing number of cities. In Europe, cost for high rise buildings (9 stories and more) make condo prices less market compatible, costing at least +25% - and, therefore, often have troubles finding buyers if resold.
It just America figured out early it wasn't worth building tall buildings anymore, and stop making them and the rest of the world is learning that very same lesson in there own time
In the coming decades, the architecture of cities will fundamentally alter to reflect changes in population, online shopping, work from home, AI replacing humans in certain roles, safety and environmental concerns. Office and retail spaces may play a less important role. Malls are already failing, office and retail spaces stay empty. Combine that with the extra expense of building taller, they won't be economically viable. I think project's focus will change to providing lower level building complexes with open space and maybe plenty of planting. These areas will still have office and retail spaces, but will be out numbered by homes. Given moves to reduce car use, public trams, subways etc need major overhauls. Outside these zones, the picture will be a very different picture. All the problems of today, with old dilapidated building, high crime and poverty. It will take time to rebuild cities to meet the changes in society. Not everywhere will be rebuilt. The younger generations aren't having as many children, more adults are choosing to stay single. Over the next several decades, as the boomers and gen x age, there will the problems of an aging population and less people paying taxes. That is going to impact cities far more than most realise given many are still convinced by over population narratives.
Super serious presentation with lots of serious info and then I hear SALMON bars! I had to laugh thinking the other ones must be Harlequin and Canary 😝
I'd be curious to see where we and the rest of the world is when it comes to building down. 10 floors 20 floors. How do they introduce lighting... Just bland electric lighting. Fiber optic cables for lighting from the Sun? Are the buildings cheaper or more expensive per floor? Safety from flooding earthquakes where do they stand in that regard? PS Loved the video
The economics of towers worldwide generally stop after the 60th floor even with advances in structural materials. The only towers taller than that now are luxury condo units sold and held between billionaires like trading cards and Observation decks that can make money off of the thrill of being able to take in a city from above. That's what keeps the Empire State Building profitable. Not rents from offices. It's $100M from tourists per year vs $10M from rents... Now you see why all TALL buildings have them?
The golden era is over. Being a country boy, I don’t like tall buildings. I’m afraid of heights so I avoid ultra tall buildings. I think the tallest building in Connecticut is Mohegan Sun resort hotel at 38 stories. My house is a 2 story house 21 feet above sea level.
Hi Ricky, Thanks for dealing with the subject of skyscrapers. It makes more sense to build more livable, useable spaces than the ego driven reach for the sly. However, there is no reason to give up on the aesthetics of buildings. People function better when they have their feet connected to the ground. We are not meant to live in sky like birds. It is not like there is a shortage of land anywhere to build on.
@@user-zw5jj2uf1pOr instead of repurposing, remodeling or even demoing the building & starting new they clear vacant land usually with plants & animals who utilize that space. A city near me, Dothan, keeps growing out in all directions consuming more & more yet if you go inside the city there is several large parts of the city left empty, buildings going to waste, falling apart after time of neglect. That’s not sustainable nor resilient.
Skyscrapers are efficient uses of land. Only thing is wasteful is non-functional vanity height crowns and most towers these days don't possess them. So it's like complaining about a Victrola when everyone uses Spotify... Rather poorly researched, shat out to wrap around an advert. This channel is normally a lot better but this felt slapdash and half baked...
Funny to see Brussels there at 9'40" - I hardly ever go to Brussels, hate it, to be honest because it's supposed to be our capital but hardly anybody speaks Dutch, while 60% of the country does. But it doesn't take much to recognize the "grand marketplace" (Grote Markt) and just by pausing it, you can tell by the double street name that it is indeed Brussels and no other Belgian city. It's filmed from the Hoedenmakerstraat, don't ask me what that's called in French.
You didn talk about the law-thing, that owners of buildings can sell their air-space above to others, so that they can build much taller. And that there is a restriction in height from city to city to make need of that.
Yeah man laws and regulations are what is responsible. Loopholes and contracts. There is enough money in urban cities to build skyscrapers. I don't know what he is talking about. It is BS too as building taller would solve some of the housing crisis.
It would be nice to see a more in depth analysis of building usage. Why not repurpose how we use this building space in more economical ways such as what other countries have done?
Well I mean, they are planning on building the 6th tallest building in the world in Oklahoma City. And with how things are going it might even become a reality, they have everything that’s needed for it to happen, and the developer is extremely passionate about it. It will be 1907ft (And yes it will be able to survive the almost impossible chance of it being hit by a tornado)
The more floors you have, the more elevators you need. The more floors you have, the more pipes, wires, and ducts you need. The more floors you have, the thicker your columns have to be. All of that takes space, so the more floors you have, the more of your square footage gets used up. Every extra floor you go up shaves off a bit of usable space from every floor in the stack. Ultra tall buildings are dumb.
Mega building needs very good public transport for a lot of people to get there, just imagine how long would it take to be stuck in traffic if everyone is driving there.
That's the point. Pun Intended. I've never seen a skyscraper surrounded by parking lots because they are urbane structures by their very nature. I don't know why Ricky isn't focussing on videos about bland, sprawling monoculture of America like industrial and office parks because those are way more "wasteful and inefficient" than skyscrapers ever could be...
I think the Golden Age of skyscrapers are slowly coming to an end. If enough of them are built at one time period in a city before long they'll start to block out the sun and give that city a grungy look before long. I do think this type of look in a city will eventually start to cause depression. This has been a big problem with a lot of people these days all over the world. Those are my thoughts. Peace, my friend!
You are seeing the Paradyme shift. Think greener. Bigger isn't always better. Personally, I won't step foot into a skyscraper. Towering Inferno left an impression on my young mind. And the military taught me to avoid crowds.
I’m surprised that there was no mention of the Legends Tower in Oklahoma City that will become the tallest building in the United States at 1907ft (compared to One World Tower at 1776ft). 100% of the financing for it has been secured. It will be mostly residential and hotel space.
Tearing down old buildings may be a problem. They should be built to last forever but sadly they don't. We are always thinking short term and not long term. That leads to waste and unsustainability.
Tearing down old buildings to make room for the new is a big problem. Very inefficient. You should just go tall when you get the chance so you don't regret it in 20 years.
Im surprised you didnt mention the effect of 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis. Chicago had a few ambitious skyscraper projects that ended up only being partially conpleted around 2009 due to financing, including the drill bit looking highrise they were going to build which was going to be the tallest in the city.
Tall building are built for economic or political reasons. NYC skyscrapers were largely built for economic reason (lack of land, population density). Yes, corporate image was also a factor, but economics drove the need. Building a skyscraper in the middle of a desert is a political statement.
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p Bingo! That's why tall towers are going to be built but not in the places you'd imagine... OK City makes sense... Free Market government OK with added density...I honestly hope it does get built even if its not that great a design... It will hopefully spur another skyscraper race in America and hopefully in what would be before called "second tier" cities... Here in Canada? Edmonton has the second tallest skyline in the nation after Toronto once Stantec Tower opened.. 251m/823' above our skyline which is about the same height as 30 Rock in NYC...
Great video! The commercial real estate market is in a downturn and there are many other skyscrapers being sold off at a massive discount in the U.S. I don't see a recovery looming any time soon and this might drag out for a while. Some of the newer high-rise construction projects are even being abandoned, and being demolished before completion. It's getting bad out there...
The $1.5 TRILLION wall of commercial real estate debt hits the American market by next October... Expect full meltdown by then... Think shuttered malls and skyscrapers.. Or at least bankrupt ones with few tenants to keep the lights on. Right now there's a flight to quality of the few remaining lucrative elite clients left that can afford to pay huge rents to lure workers back to their companies... And the rest? Like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic at night after striking the iceberg... They are sunk regardless of what they do now..
Well, for WW2 the steel was needed to make ships and planes and tanks. And the pandemic and movement to remote work (or even just partial remote work... coming into the office only 3 days a week instead of 5)... that did a number on skyscrapers as well. -Matt
Occupancy rates question the viability of super tall buildings. Is it better to have one 100 story building 50% occupied, or a 50 story building 80% occupied?
I don't get the need to go higher. The tallest building around where I live is just about 150m. The apartments on top are the cheapest to rent because no one want to live there(slow elevators, wind noise,...) and only the bottom floor is suitable for office and business. I don't think they made a big profit out of building that. I get that in big cities it might be different and maybe big structures are an attraction to tourist by itself but I don't see the need outside those situations
Sucks to be you... I live in a city that has always embraced height. Density is good for cities. I'd rather live in a dense one with skyscrapers than the endless bland sprawl MOST North American cities provide... When a bleak power centre is your town square? You can keep it! Chili's and Applebee's are both gross and overrated...
Thanks for researching this subject it must have been fun. I personally don't see the importance of skyscrapers, if it were about saving space the construction would have a wider base all the way to the top not some impractical architect's design dream that only serves oligarchs desires. Although awe inspiring, skyscrapers don't serve most of the population. Also as you mentioned there's a caste system to skyscrapers that doesn't really support cooperation and fairness. Focusing on tall buildings for bragging rights over helping restore America's infrastructure seems practical and more people/citizens can benefit from. How about retrofitting all those abandoned strip malls across America and turn them into useful spaces like community gardens, community solar panels, public housing, community schools with art, tech and sports programs. Also I'm sure the fatality rates of people who help build skyscrapers is pretty high as it's always been. Yet, most people don't talk about that particular statistic. While cool to look at and experience the height of a building from a tourist or curious mind aspect. Who would want to live in a skyscraper? I'm sure there are some well build skyscrapers, I have been on a 100 floor building and could feel a slight sway or movement. That doesn't inspire confidence. Perhaps in a place where there's no earthquake fault lines, tornados, flooding and soil corrosion building a skyscraper makes sense. Then there's the structure itself, how durable is a skyscraper over the years?
You mention flight…what do you think about the idea of flying around on rockets? They said New York to Shanghai, China in 23 minutes. I’m not so sure the average human body can handle that. Some can’t handle the newer Tesla’s, Lucid’s, or Rimac’s. Do you think they will be able to tolerate 23 minutes in a rocket? This could be an interesting topic. These rockets will be landing and re-landing shortly…maybe even landing themselves.
This is one "golden age" i think plenty of people are ok with ending. Why do we need taller buildings? They're just monuments to souless corporatism, which a lot of people are trying to move away from in all aspects of their lives....
Skyscrapers. You can have 'em. When you can feel them moving while you're standing in them, I get really spooked. And I used to jump out of perfectly good aircraft. Go figure...
Why build a huge tall building? its not economical going into a population decline. Its also just a huge eye soar. Other then for some elites to say "I have the tallest building, biggest yacht" its basically pointless.
0:29 what happened in the USA 9/11 happened that's what we don't want to build another building that we might not be able to get out of if something happens to it
Yup. Even hybrid/flex work sites only need about 40% of the space per worker so the industry is going to have to adjust to this new normal quickly or perish. Just like mall owners... Having an H&M or Forever 21 means nothing anymore when people order from Amazon, Temu or Shein directly from China...
It has been said that wherever man builds towers for prestige, and to show off human power and wealth, taller than the temple of God in that place, disaster follows. An example being the medieval towers of the city states of Northern and Central Italy, built around the 13th century, and followed by the plague that arrived in Europe in 1347. With the statue of Christ the Redeemer over it, and no taller towers, Rio seems like maybe a safe bet? And, it has a great beach! Or, maybe we could just put a statue of Christ on top of our skyscrapers and then our cities will be spiritually protected by the citizens' focus on God? Haha! Why not try? But, better and wiser still, just go low level. Oh, and brilliant overview Ricky! Low is also more economical. 🙂
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m05kZ2GDKXg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks DeleteMe for sponsoring this video! Protect your online Info Today! joindeleteme.com/TwoBitDavinci
Many years ago, I had a friend/coworker who had worked in one of the top floors of the World Trade Center (before 9/11, obviously). He said that in high wind conditions, the top of the build would rock more than 1 meter in each direction and people would get nauseous.
That is SO insightful! Thank you for your highly valued comment. Another problem is that even in a small apartment block one doesn't own the land under the building in which one has bought an apartment. Which means that one has to endlessly pay rent to the land owner of the tower. Including building governance problems. Who makes the decisions about renovation and upkeep? It also means that as the tower deteriorates one's apartment loses value, when in contrast, owning a piece of land is a safe bet because even if the building needs rebuilding the land value can go up.
@@grkuntzmd can confirm I was in a tower one month and one day before 9/11/21 as a Boy Scout on a tour group and it was windy day.
I used to love going for a drink at the top of the tower and watching NJ sway back and forth. But I had to learn to check any friend or client I brought up there for motion sickness BEFORE going up. It was fun while it lasted, but the commute up & down could be tedious at rush hour.
It's always amazing to me, as a Brit, whenever I'm reminded of how far back my ancestors (and other Europeans) had in-depth record-keeping. To think that we have almost a millenium of building height records is just mind-blowing.
second that
It is amazing but long standing empires in britain help.
Now imagine the records that the world would have if the early Christians would have preserved instead of destroying all the literature and architecture of the classical period.
I suppose a lot of British record keeping goes back to the Normans? As we know well, the Domesday Book is a manuscript record of the Great Survey of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086 at the behest of King William the Conqueror. And, William the Conqueror was a kind of Viking-Frank (or Viking Frenchman). The great-great-great grandfather of William the Conqueror, was the Viking Rollo, and as we know the Vikings didn't do much record keeping. So it is really the Frankish (Parisians) people who influenced British record keeping. Essentially via the Catholic Church, who also were responsible for writing down the oral Viking Sagas as the Catholic Church expanded North and West. Brutish Frankish and Norman warriors brought with them the intellect of quill and parchment and great cathedral building. Was this thanks to the Roman Catholic Church following in the metaphorical shoes of the Roman Empire with its ink and parchment literary tradition and ancient knowledge going all the way back to Classical Athens?
As far as this is relevant to the topic of tall buildings in Britain, it is interesting that one of our first tallest buildings was Canterbury Cathedral built with imported stone from the Norman capital of Caen, in Normandy.
The great medieval cathedral of London, which followed Canterbury, of course, burnt down in the Great Fire of London. Records of those cathedrals were surely a key factor in our general history of record keeping?
@@johnnyhorton5984 Yeah, it's really cool to me to think that London dates back to the days of the Roman Empire, though it was called Londinum back then.
I'm no expert on history, but my inclination is that there can't be that many countries with capital cities that are approximately two millennia old.
You missed one factor that made a big impact on people who might be tempted to build a record breaking skyscraper. That factor is the spire, or antenna, being counted as part of the building.
Sears Tower lost its title for tallest to a shorter building. They built a shorter building and put a taller spire on it.
When cheating gets rewarded, competitors back out of the game.
There are categories that account for that.
@@MrPAULONEAL Good point! Anyway, the spire is still a structural element of the building. I guess it's a matter of opinions
So, it just a competition at who has it longer?!
You realise the councils that judge these things have differing categories for that. Also the freedom Tower does the exact same thing -it even overrides their rules to put the antenna as the 'architectural' height, that no other building is allowed to do.
@@zupermaus9276
You realize that 99% of human beings count the roof of the top occupied floor as the top of the building.
"Councils" can say whatever they want. The people who walk around on the sidewalks below these behemoths don't care what any council says.
Fun fact, currently Mexico has a taller building under construction than anything currently under construction in the US (excluding anything already built). Look up Torre Rise in Monterrey, Nuevo León, it's going to be about 1,552 ft when finished with the spire being taller than the newly built Central Park Tower in NYC...
Ok nobody ask regio
I remember standing at the top of the Sears tower and seeing how many flat car parks I could see within a few blocks. It clearly wasn’t built because land was expensive.
I had the same feeling wheinI went up in the 1980s. Impressive high buildings but why go up when there was so much space
- 10:49 - That's Not Sheikh Khalifa .. You are looking for Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al-Nahayan. No idea who this is.
- Sheikh Khalifa did not pay for the building, it was financed with a loan from the Government of Abu Dhabi to the Government of Dubai (Both are Emirates in the UAE Federation).
- The Spike in Sky Scraper building at the Turn of the 20th Century was mostly due to the Improvement in Quality and reduction in Cost of producing Steel.
Bingo! And supertall towers now make MOST of their money not from renting space but observation deck fees and telecom broadcasting use for their roofs.. The office space itself it sometimes even a loss leader...
@@stickynorth Does that mean we will likely not see too many other skyscrapers built, at least in America? Where might that take architectural and city planning aesthetics? More out than up?
This picture is a medical physician working in Abudhabi 😂
When the Empire State Building was built, they didn't have OSHA, but they did have "Oh Shit!".
When I was a teen there was this semi-scientific magazine that had a whole futuristic city built in a kind of cone or pyramidal form, with the housing all around but just say 5 or 10 stories high. The ceiling/ground for the next level was more than double that, so that light would shine to the central plaza. There were trees and plants and such on that plaza. The structure was held up by large structures around and I imagine in the center too. I could see such a structure actually being built in some oil-rich country or somewhere "between" the Sahel and the Sahara.
There's also the inconvenience factor of going up and down a 100+ story building. Waiting for elevators and changing elevators can be a hassle. If it takes you 10 to 15 minutes each way to go down and back up, that could lessen the desirability of being on a high floor and going out for a bite to eat if you're on a 1 hour lunch break. Standing in a crowded elevator with strangers for extra minutes in a 100+ story building can also put people off.
We need vertical hyperloops! 😋
2:45 The 19th century. 18th century would be the 1700s.
You gloss out too quickly what's stopping the U.S. from having even modestly tall buildings. If you go southwest, it's not just that there's not skyscrappers - it's all 1~2 floor single-family homes and malls. This has more to do with local zoning laws that prevent anything else form being built. For example, the US and Canada have a unique law that buildings of more than 2 floors must have 2 staircases in case of fire. This makes 3-5 floor buildings economically unfeasible. And overall this NIMY-ism prevents urban density, walkability, and housing affordability.
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p staircases are cheap compared to elevators. More importantly it's the cost of building up and the fact that fire departments need ladders tall enough.
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p it has a lot to do with ADA Laws in the us and Canada mirrored.
The major problem with the Burj Khalifa is Dubai's lack of infrastructure to support it. It has no connection to a sewer system, so it relies on hundreds of tanker trucks to haul away waste water every day.
Ricky, in your exuberance you speak too quickly for non-Americans to follow easily, then the background "music" starts up making comprehension next to impossible.
I enjoyed our one to one conversation when looking at cars in Farnborough, so it must be the unnecessary background noise/music track which made me switch off the video half way through. You make each video "exciting" enough not to need artificial aids 😀
An additional factor in the office space world is occupancy is way down post coronavirus. With the work from home trend buildings are finding it difficult to fill the existing space much less building more.
such a good point... yeah ... i wonder if these are lasting trends... my gut says yes
It is very difficult to dismiss the ease which the *twin* world trade center towers were taken down. Even when I go into a doctor's office at 27 floors up, I ponder observing all the mis-appropriated effort to construct, supply, maintain, and staff these buildings.
My wife fought in Operation Desert Storm. Ten years later, we were sailing on the Pacific Ocean, safely far away, but she was devastated by the thousands of lives needlessly sacrificed that day.
1:24 As someone from Chicago it deeply offends me when they have the Sears tower horribly misscaled like that. The antenna part is not calculated in its height, so its roof is actually just below the top of the petronas’s spires!
My only remorse is that the Freedom tower has an even worse scaling.
i agree. actually, 1wtc is taller than the sears tower just because of its spite. in the diagram, it shows that it's shorter just because it's a placeholder for the twin towers. i literally dont understand why he couldn't have justed used those..
@@enchantedhamburger8934 I didn't even realize that he got the wrong tower! I was confused why it was there because of course it was never the tallest.
Between concerns about terrorism, natural disasters, utilization in a remote-work world, and basic costs, the US is unlikely to ever again be a major player in super-tall building construction.
I always had a sense that Skyscrapers was and is still a power status symbol, with countries doing it to announce, hey look guys, we are a power like others are.
Europe is one of the odd one out that doesn't really build them, part of that reason is that Europe didn't really have much to prove, it's already got a long history and is already a power, but another reason is culturally, Europeans don't find Skyscrapers appealing on the landscape and they are right, a lot of people around the world don't really like living near Skyscrapers.
As we see, Asian is on the rise as a power and they are doing what is expected as a rising power, building lots of Skyscrapers, just like the US did to announce their rise as a power and to be different from Europe.
Today, thought, Skyscrapers are not appealing and most of us don't want them or don't want to live near them, in Europe, we do build them but we have designated areas for them that are well away from landmarks and residential areas, usually they are in business areas that you travel to work in but not usually live in, and also, today, Skyscrapers doesn't have that power status symbol it used to have and honestly, I think Europe has the right approach when it comes to Skyscrapers and the well-being of its citizens.
In any case, I think the real problem with Skyscrapers, the higher they go, the less appealing they become to want to work, live in them or to want to live anywhere near them as they block out a lot of the natural scenery and the more expensive they are to build and maintain, and I think some that build these buildings forget the quality of life impact it can have on the citizens in those areas.
In fact, if I recall, in Europe, there was a boom of Skyscrapers in Europe, but a lot of people turned against them because of the harm they were doing to the natural landscape, so some regulations came into force, I think first starting in Belgium and then spreading across Europe on what kind of building can be built, how high and where they can be built, without those regulations, Europe might have ended up like many other cities around the world with lots of Skyscrapers around.
Very well stated😊
Well, La Defènse, London and Frankfurt have their fair share of skyscrapers, they just try very hard not to brag about them.
That's an excellent excuse for the Europeans.
actually, more skyscrapers are being built in Europe now than ever before, and many are in the planning stages. Of course, not as many as in Asia or America, but a change is noticeable. In cities like Frankfurt or Warsaw, many people are quite proud of their own skyline. It's a very European phenomenon to initially reject many things fundamentally, but once they're built, it usually takes only 10-20 years before they become city icons-the same thing happened with the Eiffel Tower.
@@paul1979uk2000 there isn't much "natural scenery" lost between a 4 and 40 story building. What are you losing, a little bit of sky?
This video is exactly what makes this channel so good. A question you had asked yourself before but the answer was neither obvious nor was it easy to find online. Two Bit da Vinci is doing all the hard work and turning it into a concise presentation. Thanks again, Ricky.
wow, you just made my day... thank you!
The original “sky scrapers” were 7 stories tall. They were built high because the land was expensive, and engineering had advanced enough to make the buildings possible. But by the 1930’s the economic motivation was dropping behind the ego motivation, so we got super tall buildings like the Empire State Building. But now, the economic motivation is everything. As it should be. So we build as we need, not to support someone’s ego dream.
As a fellow engineer, I love your content. This is what learning is. Data driven, objective views to make the most efficient, effective answer. Also I don't remember if it was this video or the last one where you criticized our "safety centric" mentality and I also agree with our over doing of this subject.
In the the UK there's a lot less demand for office space, I doubt if a very tall buildings will ever be built again in the UK, unless it's a total vanity project.
I understand the higher floor cost argument, but not totally on board with the acre of land in California for $5,000. I live in rural Georgia, and the local property tax appraisal has my land just shy of$5,000 per acre. Surly there’s a 0 or two missing from that statement.
Thanks for what you do and keep up the good work.
Need Mega blocks like in Dredd 🤣
1:24 why the hell is 1wtc there taking the original World Trade Center's place? is it taboo to mention it or what. also, why is it horribly inaccurate. it shows that it has a height of aprox 1300 ft with the spire included, while in reality the rooftop is already past that height, at 1368 ft and the tip of the building is well above, taller than the petronas towers, at 1776 ft...
Haven't watched the video yet and maybe I am wrong, but my guess is:
The tall skyscrapers that have been built in the last 30+ years or so, were pretty much all built as big vanity projects to boost someone's prestige, with usually little economic considerations taken into account.
The USA and the western world in general, don't really need to spend a lot of resources on bragging.
It is like when people trying to look rich spend lots of money on expensive brand clothes and sports cars and the such, while Billionaires wear the same 20 Dollar shirt and pants from Walmart every day.
Seems I was right, even though he worded it in a different way. He seems to come from the perspective that building stuff for bragging rights is OK and it is the US's own fault that people there don't do that, while I look down on that kind of mentality.
@@TrangleC It's also mostly wrong... Supertalls are economical because of broadcasting and observation deck fees. Empire State Building makes only $10M from rent per year but $100M for visitors via lift tickets... That isn't mentioned in this video. It was slap dash quality at best wrapped around an awkward advert.
@@stickynorth So you say it is wrong. Then what is the explanation for why basically only Oil Sheikhs trying to brag have been building skyscrapers in the last 30+ years?
To say that sky scrapers are economical because one of them makes a lot of money with elevator tourism is not really something I can take serious, I'm sorry.
Something makes me doubt that some sky scraper built in any other city, like Houston for example, would make 100 M per year that way.
We need to start looking at making Arcologies. It would help to bring down our carbon footprint, bring everyone closer, while allowing easier access to green areas. They can contain everything you need from residential, commercial, energy production, services, and even some industry. This could reduce the footprint we take up in our day to day lives.
1.From a China project we know buildings + plants = mosquito/bug infestation. Green spaces are best left separated in a park garden.
2. Everyone will have to be renters in an Arcologie. If ownership is split between inhabitants maintenance of shared spaces, infrastructure and services becomes impossible to organise. Maybe under a HOA or time share. Those are a whole other problem.
The most optimum height for a building is around 40 stories, if a building is taller than that then it is just a phallic symbol.
When you can find empty lots of dirt right next to the world’s tallest skyscraper (closer than its height) it is easy to see this is not about optimizing floor space value
Perhaps that lot is being preserved for its own super tall skyscraper.
@@arkology_city that’s just the closest one. There’s tonnes of unused land nearby.
Not about height, more concerned with quality
Recently spoken to a guy in this business - he said, in Europe not only the cost increases dramatically with more stories, but sustainability decreases as well significantly - which is a no-go for many developers and in an increasing number of cities. In Europe, cost for high rise buildings (9 stories and more) make condo prices less market compatible, costing at least +25% - and, therefore, often have troubles finding buyers if resold.
It just America figured out early it wasn't worth building tall buildings anymore, and stop making them and the rest of the world is learning that very same lesson in there own time
In most US cities, there is no where to left to build but upwards
In the coming decades, the architecture of cities will fundamentally alter to reflect changes in population, online shopping, work from home, AI replacing humans in certain roles, safety and environmental concerns.
Office and retail spaces may play a less important role. Malls are already failing, office and retail spaces stay empty.
Combine that with the extra expense of building taller, they won't be economically viable.
I think project's focus will change to providing lower level building complexes with open space and maybe plenty of planting. These areas will still have office and retail spaces, but will be out numbered by homes. Given moves to reduce car use, public trams, subways etc need major overhauls.
Outside these zones, the picture will be a very different picture. All the problems of today, with old dilapidated building, high crime and poverty. It will take time to rebuild cities to meet the changes in society. Not everywhere will be rebuilt.
The younger generations aren't having as many children, more adults are choosing to stay single. Over the next several decades, as the boomers and gen x age, there will the problems of an aging population and less people paying taxes. That is going to impact cities far more than most realise given many are still convinced by over population narratives.
Hopefully the next tallest structure project we engage in is a space elevator!
Super serious presentation with lots of serious info and then I hear SALMON bars! I had to laugh thinking the other ones must be Harlequin and Canary 😝
I'd be curious to see where we and the rest of the world is when it comes to building down. 10 floors 20 floors. How do they introduce lighting... Just bland electric lighting. Fiber optic cables for lighting from the Sun? Are the buildings cheaper or more expensive per floor? Safety from flooding earthquakes where do they stand in that regard?
PS
Loved the video
Very good points, especially natural light naturally or piped in
It is cheaper till 15th-20th floor, cost starts rising after that.
The economics of towers worldwide generally stop after the 60th floor even with advances in structural materials. The only towers taller than that now are luxury condo units sold and held between billionaires like trading cards and Observation decks that can make money off of the thrill of being able to take in a city from above. That's what keeps the Empire State Building profitable. Not rents from offices. It's $100M from tourists per year vs $10M from rents... Now you see why all TALL buildings have them?
Economics changed a lot, another great video Ricky
The golden era is over.
Being a country boy, I don’t like tall buildings. I’m afraid of heights so I avoid ultra tall buildings.
I think the tallest building in Connecticut is Mohegan Sun resort hotel at 38 stories.
My house is a 2 story house 21 feet above sea level.
The spire above buildings should not count for height. The ceiling on the top usable floor should be where the height is measured to
Hi Ricky, Thanks for dealing with the subject of skyscrapers. It makes more sense to build more livable, useable spaces than the ego driven reach for the sly. However, there is no reason to give up on the aesthetics of buildings. People function better when they have their feet connected to the ground. We are not meant to live in sky like birds. It is not like there is a shortage of land anywhere to build on.
We should definitely build more livable, usable spaces. But instead, the U.S. just builds more highways, stroads, and parking lots
@@user-zw5jj2uf1pOr instead of repurposing, remodeling or even demoing the building & starting new they clear vacant land usually with plants & animals who utilize that space. A city near me, Dothan, keeps growing out in all directions consuming more & more yet if you go inside the city there is several large parts of the city left empty, buildings going to waste, falling apart after time of neglect. That’s not sustainable nor resilient.
This video is terrible, btw. The whole concept is flawed.
Skyscrapers are efficient uses of land. Only thing is wasteful is non-functional vanity height crowns and most towers these days don't possess them. So it's like complaining about a Victrola when everyone uses Spotify... Rather poorly researched, shat out to wrap around an advert. This channel is normally a lot better but this felt slapdash and half baked...
And don't even get me started on the economics of skyscrapers which this video ENTIRELY missed the point of. So bad........ So very very bad!
At 4:46 the top chart is missing 300 - 350m so that >400m is a different colour to the bottom.
Funny to see Brussels there at 9'40" - I hardly ever go to Brussels, hate it, to be honest because it's supposed to be our capital but hardly anybody speaks Dutch, while 60% of the country does. But it doesn't take much to recognize the "grand marketplace" (Grote Markt) and just by pausing it, you can tell by the double street name that it is indeed Brussels and no other Belgian city. It's filmed from the Hoedenmakerstraat, don't ask me what that's called in French.
You didn talk about the law-thing, that owners of buildings can sell their air-space above to others, so that they can build much taller. And that there is a restriction in height from city to city to make need of that.
Bingo! NYC is the king of buying air rights to stack towers taller on certain sites... That's how Billionaires row got its toothpick powers...
Yeah man laws and regulations are what is responsible. Loopholes and contracts.
There is enough money in urban cities to build skyscrapers. I don't know what he is talking about.
It is BS too as building taller would solve some of the housing crisis.
It would be nice to see a more in depth analysis of building usage. Why not repurpose how we use this building space in more economical ways such as what other countries have done?
Well I mean, they are planning on building the 6th tallest building in the world in Oklahoma City.
And with how things are going it might even become a reality, they have everything that’s needed for it to happen, and the developer is extremely passionate about it.
It will be 1907ft
(And yes it will be able to survive the almost impossible chance of it being hit by a tornado)
The more floors you have, the more elevators you need. The more floors you have, the more pipes, wires, and ducts you need. The more floors you have, the thicker your columns have to be. All of that takes space, so the more floors you have, the more of your square footage gets used up. Every extra floor you go up shaves off a bit of usable space from every floor in the stack.
Ultra tall buildings are dumb.
The bean counters have taken over EVERYTHING. Hail the almighty buck.
It's always been that way. The tallest towers make back their money via observation decks something painfully left out of this video...
We have a wonderful gigantic round hole here in Chicago. Remember the "Spire"?
10:51 That’s not sheikh Khalifa
Yup! The quality of the video is sus... SUPER SUS... Slapdash is what I'd use...
10:00 - - *_SO TRUE!_*
Q: So last US record-breaking tower was Sears tower in … 1978? 1980?
Mega building needs very good public transport for a lot of people to get there, just imagine how long would it take to be stuck in traffic if everyone is driving there.
NYC is so dense that you don't even need public transport - most people just walk
That's the point. Pun Intended. I've never seen a skyscraper surrounded by parking lots because they are urbane structures by their very nature. I don't know why Ricky isn't focussing on videos about bland, sprawling monoculture of America like industrial and office parks because those are way more "wasteful and inefficient" than skyscrapers ever could be...
This was always known, so why were the skyscrapers built?
Ego, pride, arrogance, one track thinking?
I think the Golden Age of skyscrapers are slowly coming to an end. If enough of them are built at one time period in a city before long they'll start to block out the sun and give that city a grungy look before long. I do think this type of look in a city will eventually start to cause depression. This has been a big problem with a lot of people these days all over the world. Those are my thoughts. Peace, my friend!
You are seeing the Paradyme shift. Think greener. Bigger isn't always better. Personally, I won't step foot into a skyscraper. Towering Inferno left an impression on my young mind. And the military taught me to avoid crowds.
You sound hopelessly paranoid.
@@arkology_city Not hopelessly. lol, I just love open spaces. Not the space between spaces.
I’m surprised that there was no mention of the Legends Tower in Oklahoma City that will become the tallest building in the United States at 1907ft (compared to One World Tower at 1776ft). 100% of the financing for it has been secured. It will be mostly residential and hotel space.
Tearing down old buildings may be a problem.
They should be built to last forever but sadly they don't.
We are always thinking short term and not long term. That leads to waste and unsustainability.
Tearing down old buildings to make room for the new is a big problem. Very inefficient. You should just go tall when you get the chance so you don't regret it in 20 years.
Im surprised you didnt mention the effect of 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis. Chicago had a few ambitious skyscraper projects that ended up only being partially conpleted around 2009 due to financing, including the drill bit looking highrise they were going to build which was going to be the tallest in the city.
Taller buildings make for easier targets.
Tall building are built for economic or political reasons. NYC skyscrapers were largely built for economic reason (lack of land, population density). Yes, corporate image was also a factor, but economics drove the need. Building a skyscraper in the middle of a desert is a political statement.
productive cities naturally attract density and tall-ish buildings. but in the US, NIMBYs stop the free market
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p Bingo! That's why tall towers are going to be built but not in the places you'd imagine... OK City makes sense... Free Market government OK with added density...I honestly hope it does get built even if its not that great a design... It will hopefully spur another skyscraper race in America and hopefully in what would be before called "second tier" cities... Here in Canada? Edmonton has the second tallest skyline in the nation after Toronto once Stantec Tower opened.. 251m/823' above our skyline which is about the same height as 30 Rock in NYC...
Great video!
The commercial real estate market is in a downturn and there are many other skyscrapers being sold off at a massive discount in the U.S. I don't see a recovery looming any time soon and this might drag out for a while.
Some of the newer high-rise construction projects are even being abandoned, and being demolished before completion. It's getting bad out there...
The $1.5 TRILLION wall of commercial real estate debt hits the American market by next October... Expect full meltdown by then... Think shuttered malls and skyscrapers.. Or at least bankrupt ones with few tenants to keep the lights on. Right now there's a flight to quality of the few remaining lucrative elite clients left that can afford to pay huge rents to lure workers back to their companies... And the rest? Like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic at night after striking the iceberg... They are sunk regardless of what they do now..
US towns and city centres are full of ground level parking. US city centres need groundscrappers which Google loves
Well, for WW2 the steel was needed to make ships and planes and tanks. And the pandemic and movement to remote work (or even just partial remote work... coming into the office only 3 days a week instead of 5)... that did a number on skyscrapers as well.
-Matt
Occupancy rates question the viability of super tall buildings. Is it better to have one 100 story building 50% occupied, or a 50 story building 80% occupied?
I don't get the need to go higher. The tallest building around where I live is just about 150m. The apartments on top are the cheapest to rent because no one want to live there(slow elevators, wind noise,...) and only the bottom floor is suitable for office and business. I don't think they made a big profit out of building that. I get that in big cities it might be different and maybe big structures are an attraction to tourist by itself but I don't see the need outside those situations
Sucks to be you... I live in a city that has always embraced height. Density is good for cities. I'd rather live in a dense one with skyscrapers than the endless bland sprawl MOST North American cities provide... When a bleak power centre is your town square? You can keep it! Chili's and Applebee's are both gross and overrated...
As long as our transportation network is one-dimensional, it makes more sense to build out and not up. We need skybridge and skytrains and airtaxis.
Annual property taxes are killing American
Going tall doesn’t make sense when you can move your corporate headquarters to some place cheaper.
We also feel pessimistic about our future right now in the US. That plays a role.
Thanks for researching this subject it must have been fun. I personally don't see the importance of skyscrapers, if it were about saving space the construction would have a wider base all the way to the top not some impractical architect's design dream that only serves oligarchs desires. Although awe inspiring, skyscrapers don't serve most of the population. Also as you mentioned there's a caste system to skyscrapers that doesn't really support cooperation and fairness. Focusing on tall buildings for bragging rights over helping restore America's infrastructure seems practical and more people/citizens can benefit from. How about retrofitting all those abandoned strip malls across America and turn them into useful spaces like community gardens, community solar panels, public housing, community schools with art, tech and sports programs. Also I'm sure the fatality rates of people who help build skyscrapers is pretty high as it's always been. Yet, most people don't talk about that particular statistic. While cool to look at and experience the height of a building from a tourist or curious mind aspect. Who would want to live in a skyscraper? I'm sure there are some well build skyscrapers, I have been on a 100 floor building and could feel a slight sway or movement. That doesn't inspire confidence. Perhaps in a place where there's no earthquake fault lines, tornados, flooding and soil corrosion building a skyscraper makes sense. Then there's the structure itself, how durable is a skyscraper over the years?
I’ve been to Burj Khalifa and it’s amazing. If you love creative architecture, take a trip to Dubai & Abu Dhabi.
👍
It's like vertical farming.
You mention flight…what do you think about the idea of flying around on rockets? They said New York to Shanghai, China in 23 minutes. I’m not so sure the average human body can handle that. Some can’t handle the newer Tesla’s, Lucid’s, or Rimac’s. Do you think they will be able to tolerate 23 minutes in a rocket? This could be an interesting topic. These rockets will be landing and re-landing shortly…maybe even landing themselves.
This is one "golden age" i think plenty of people are ok with ending. Why do we need taller buildings? They're just monuments to souless corporatism, which a lot of people are trying to move away from in all aspects of their lives....
Skyscrapers. You can have 'em. When you can feel them moving while you're standing in them, I get really spooked. And I used to jump out of perfectly good aircraft. Go figure...
Well the US is usually about profit/cost first and designs and height second.
The US doesn't feel the need to prove itself anymore while emerging economies do.
very very good point!
I liked the video, except for one thing. Please loose the camera shutter noise. It's very annoying.
Why build a huge tall building? its not economical going into a population decline. Its also just a huge eye soar. Other then for some elites to say "I have the tallest building, biggest yacht" its basically pointless.
In Chicago’s case, politics. Alderman position should not exist.
They are expensive to maintain, we are going remote, HOA's make them prohibitive for housing. Their time has passed. Remote has changed the world!
0:29 what happened in the USA 9/11 happened that's what we don't want to build another building that we might not be able to get out of if something happens to it
With remote working office space is going by the way of the Dodo
Yup. Even hybrid/flex work sites only need about 40% of the space per worker so the industry is going to have to adjust to this new normal quickly or perish. Just like mall owners... Having an H&M or Forever 21 means nothing anymore when people order from Amazon, Temu or Shein directly from China...
It has been said that wherever man builds towers for prestige, and to show off human power and wealth, taller than the temple of God in that place, disaster follows. An example being the medieval towers of the city states of Northern and Central Italy, built around the 13th century, and followed by the plague that arrived in Europe in 1347.
With the statue of Christ the Redeemer over it, and no taller towers, Rio seems like maybe a safe bet? And, it has a great beach! Or, maybe we could just put a statue of Christ on top of our skyscrapers and then our cities will be spiritually protected by the citizens' focus on God? Haha! Why not try? But, better and wiser still, just go low level. Oh, and brilliant overview Ricky! Low is also more economical.
🙂
If only we could figure out a better roi on these buildings. Seems like a steal
2nd
In my city, the buildings are not allowed to be taller than the capital.
Thanks......
Cool video .
Whats up with the poor sound quality?
Are you not familiar with all the new super tall skyscrapers being built in NYC and recent ones on billionaire road?
So it’s about width, not length. Got it.
Wrong direction, sorry, it's down, not up. "Looks" are bunk.
Ha, ha. You obviously have not been to New York recently. They are experiencing a super tall skyscraper boom.
Is it just me or does the audio sound a bit off?
It's true, I even thought it was a problem with my audio system and I went to test other things and the video really does have a very strange sound.
We don't have supersonic airliners becuase the enacted laws prohibiting supersonic speeds.
People prefer a private yard and a tree.
I’m questioning the whole research done on this video after seeing Shiekh Khalifa’s photo at 10:50 !
Bingo! this was a crap slapdash effort that needs to be taken down.. So bad...
Like hurt the brand bad...
Floating cities are next.