I am a docent at the Chicago Architecture Center giving tours on the river. I just want to say that this channel has provided so many intriguing materials for my tour takers. Thank you so much!
_Pushing_ _on_ the tower, not hitting it. Let's actually listen to the words being spoken. Maybe they could have talked about the equivalent hundreds of jet engines pushing against the tower. Maybe there was a better illustration to use. But let's not obfuscate and stretch the actual information shown and comparisons used.
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 How is using an example of an established name change met with opposition, not similar to another example of an established name change met with a lot of opposition?
The technical refinement of the towers, necessary to combat the devilish winds, have also led to greater aesthetic refinements. These two towers really add a pleasing new element to the Chicago skyline.
After seeing the skyscraper window video on this very channel , i'll keep a safe distance from these things , windows falling down and onto innocent pedestrians ... no thank you !
The graphic could have been better showing increased force on a tower with height. As I recall the top floor of the Hancock Tower has a designed movement of up to ten feet that is dampened so that the movement is not perceptible when you are eating in the restaurant up top.
Tire tread. The facades of these buildings looks like the second iterations of tire tread. Where they staggered lines within each channel to eliminate road noise
Another great video, Stewart. Chicago continues to lead the architectural way as it has for 150 years. Louis Sullivan said that "form follows function". But I have theorized that form "allows, creates, generates, enables, drives, directs, defines and determines function." This video shows how that is true.
That's because it goes by two names, it's current official name, Willis tower, and the old outdated and former name that all the locals just can't forget, the sears tower. Buildings can change names at any time, 875 north Michigan Ave used to be called the john Hancock center
it's actually the exact same principle but used for a different application. the ball resists air friction to move past the wind easier, the building resists air friction to allow the wind to move past itself easier
@@Kavukamariop was just cracking a joke nbd but, the man in the vid is actually referring to how the dimples on a golf ball create turbulent flow around the ball to reduce drag. they’re applying the same principal to the tower
Amazing explanation by Ryan here... Great way of showing how the building attempts to alleviate the wind pressure more and more as the design evolves 4:24 👍
14:41 wind tunnel testing in F1 actually began in the 1970's, not the 90's. The former is when cars sprouted wings all over and the concept of ground effect aerodynamics to suck the car into the road began.
After 20 years of nothingness, I'm glad that land is finally being developed. It was supposed to be the Chicago Spire or whatever it was called, but that amounted to nothing but a circular hole in the ground.
No comments I see discuss the inherent beauty of the buildings. I think that is pretty telling. The architects themselves really only discussed "form and function". How are the aesthetics so ignored?!
7:48 I love your content man and I'm usually not one to go out of my way to comment on videos, but I have to say using Boeing 777s as the reference for how resistant these buildings are may not have been the best example to use. Reminds me of a certain date in September, could've been anything other than jets lol...another great video all around though
Maybe he wanted to jinx the building. Boeing also has an interesting connection to Chicago. They moved their management from Seattle to a Chicago headquarters. This was one of the reasons the company went down the tubes ........ Chicago people , Chicago mentality. 💩👎😂
As a formula one fan, I was thinking about F1 through the whole video and found it fascinating how some of the same aerodynamic concepts can apply to a skyscraper. I was so happy you mentioned F1 toward the end!
Good video, but man, that pronunciation of “Guangzhou” at 10:03 is something else. It’s pronounced like “gwahng Joe”, not “gang zoo”. I wouldn’t ordinarily complain, but this is part of the monologue of a high production value video.
You could tell the whole time that these guys knew what they were doing, great descriptions the whole way Also the dudes facial expression at 6:15💀Bro felt like he had to simplify his explanation for a toddler (which in his case, is what he *essentially did)
This was very interesting. One topic not really mentioned was what happens to the wind _after_ it passes over, alongside, or through big buildings? How will the building's presence affect other buildings in the area at ground level and at altitude? It seems designers need to consider not just how the wind affects their buildings, but how their buildings affect the wind.
@@bill9540 Or how wind turbines 'harvest' the force of the wind if put too close and in certain paths, limiting their efficiency further down in a park
Did SOM learn from the wind shear mistake at their 2019 Lincoln Commons complex (Chicago, Lincoln at Fullerton)? The winds around this complex can be intolerable on breezy days-like standing at the bow of a fast moving boat. In winter it is unbearable. This video does not mention the wind shear effect of this project on the surrounding area: the sidewalk, street and any other buildings in the area. When the wind is diverted after hitting the building, where does it go from there? p.s. I’m not saying SOM failed with the Lincoln Commons complex. They did a remarkable job on many aspects. I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years and the complex has been a great addition to the neighborhood. It created several opportunities for restaurants, etc. The complex enhances the neighborhood because of its integration of public spaces with the neighborhood. I feel decidedly safer walking around the complex than I did when it was Children’s Memorial Hospital which physically walled itself off from the neighborhood. Not to mention the noise coming from the heliport on the roof. Although not a resident of the complex, I feel very welcome relaxing on their benches and chairs as if it were at public park. But oh boy, that wind!
Stewart, At the time of this comment entry, I was in Chicago. I hope to see some of the things you’ve shown on your channel while in town (June 13-18). I hope to rekindle the excitement I had when I found the Standard gas station during my San Francisco trip. Thanks for the enjoyment.
This discussion was fascinating. My late uncle was the head of the wind tunnel at Purdue University. I remember visiting his lab and seeing the model of Chicago that they kept because they did tests of so many big buildings in the city. I don't know how much computer work they had back then (late 60s/early 70s) but I do remember huge banks of tubes of colored liquid that had calibrated scales for taking readings off all surfaces of the building being tested.
How do you sell this project to the neighboring buildings? Peoples' homes and company's businesses have premiere lakefront views from their East facing windows. This new building tower looks taller based on rendered drawings, so now the neighbors get to look at the side of your skyscraper instead of looking at Lake Michigan. Won't that piss them off and reduce their property values? What was once lakefront views now become partially obstructed views. I understand that's probably just typical city real estate life to be expected, but I was just curious how the neighboring residents react in situations like this. Do rental rates go down in those once lake view units which are now obstructed by a new skyscraper?
Great video! Question here; seems that the approximate height mentioned (almost 900ft/275m) is a good bit taller than the last figures the developer gave out (something in 850's ft), and the purported final design models likewise appear to be different than latest renderings. Did this get a height bump?
In the past we had people doing silly dances in the hopes that it would rain. In the modern day we have architects acting silly and confusing, in the hopes that the wind gets confused and forgets to topple our high towers
@@freetolook3727 Same for me. It's the weirdest thing. Every year in September, I feel the heartache when they show the videos. I was a 20 year old college kid when it happened, but I didn't have any classes on that particular day of the week.
I wouldn’t trust a bunch of engineers that have the city tilted at 90°. I’d worry about people falling out of the building windows if it was tilted like that. Yesterday I couldn’t even spell engineer today IR One.
The Regis Tower is 1,191 feet tall.... A Boeing 777 engine has a diamter just shy of 11 feet... It takes 108 engines stacked on top of each other to reach the height of the Regis Tower and you're telling me there is "the equivilant of 290" jets with two engines each...thats 580 turbines...pushing on this building at full throttle??? That is 5.5 engines every 11 feet of building stacked from bottom to top....and you want me to believe thats the force pushing on the building? Thats 66,874,000 foot pounds of thrust since each 777 engine is capable of 115,000 foot pounds on it's own. So if I open a window on that building I might as well be staring into the back of a turbine with 175,000 horsepower at full throttle? What planet do you think Chicago exists on? Neptune with it's 1600 mph winds? I mean I know they call Chicago the windy city and you are proving it wasn't for the actual wind but for the incapability of its people to shut up. This claim is such complete and utter nonsense I can't bring myself to take anything else you say seriously. Where did you honeslty come up with this scenario for your video???
The term "affordable housing" is defined as "80% of the mean income of the area." So yeah... It's highly likely that there will be "affordable" housing in the building. Not designed for a millionaire, but an $800,000-aire. "Low income" housing is an entirely different matter.
So do they wind tunnel test the glass and casement, or even test it under expansion and contraction! The widows seem to present most of the issues in high rise buildings!
I was living in Houston during the construction phase of the new St Regis Chicago, designed by Studio Gang. I wasn't aware of the decision to leave the 83rd and 84th floors open until I moved back last summer and saw what is now described as a "blow-through". While I understand that this feature has effectively reduced the building sway by 20%, to my eye, it looks like a flaw in the design. I would be curious to know what kind of wind studies were done during the design phase. I can think of another example, the Shanghai Financial Centre, designed by Kohn Peterson Fox, which has a hole cutout at the top of the building. This accomplishes the same thing, but was integrated into the overall design. Likewise, in New York, the Rafael Viñoly-designed supertail building known by its address, 432 Park Ave, has five screened sections throughout its overall height, which mitigate wind currents from other high-rises in Midtown Manhattan.
I'm guessing it will take a single of the mentioned aircraft to prove said assertions are hyperbole. WTC were designed to take a direct hit from a plane, per models and statements at the time of construction... much like the one which brought them down. So, which developer is overstating? One's already been put to the test and failed. And, meeting the Natrual word, that's open for profound debate within architecture. Going down solves many problems, from offering geothermal to mounting a rooftop manifold of lenses to filter natural light via optic cables, as well as many other things. We can dig a tunnel under an ocean, we can put a 20 story bldg subsurface, most likely already have.
That pass through floor on the St Regis Tower wasn't planned it was added later when the building had so much movement that windows were breaking. Ah the benefits of having an in house wind tunnel and staff engineers.
At least these structures bring an overdue elegance to skyscraper design. It’s a nice change from the weirdo shapes and the “Hanging Gardens of Braylon” look that you often see in current high-rise design. Hopefully, the financial returns to the project’s investors won’t be invisible.
I wish you would offer some criticism once in a while. They shortened these buildings to 267 meters (not 275) and drastically minimized the step-backs of the balconies which now don't begin until 2/3rd's of the way up. They also removed the terra-cotta and bay windows. Everything isn't iconic and world class or "Masterful" as you say. David Childs' original design definitely was but these value- engineered versions are far from it.
Great video, but small nitpick - there's no active aero in F1 (short of situational DRS). It's all passive, at least until 2026. Though aeroelasticity definitely bridges that gap a bit!
Stuart, completely unrelated, have you seen The Illinois in the Apple TV+ show "Dark Matter"? You get a really good shot of it from a few angles in episode 7
Who will be occupying these newest towers ? Commercial office space is really suffering as more and more businesses are giving up office space to have their people work from home. The pandemic changed how we live and work . nearly a quarter of all commercial office space in the city of San Francisco is empty. 17% of New York City office towers are empty. I think we are saying the demise of the American skyscraper as it now stands.
Another terrific video! Imagine if that building could capture the energy of just 1/3rd of those "290 Boeing 777s" pushing against it. Turned into electricity, with some battery banks the building wouldn't need to be connected to the grid -- unless it was to sell surplus generated electricity. Another way of looking at the problem is what if you were standing in 60 mph winds. You'd have a hard time not being pushed backwards. But if you leaned into that wind you'd find an angle where forces would balance out. (There's still a lot of energy going into this otherwise static situation.) This makes me think we're just at the beginning of all of this engineering. There are reasons these things aren't already being being done... but no good reason they won't eventually be just part of the design. Whoever gets there first Is going to engineer/design a lot of buildings. The statement "computational dynamics aren't yet good enough to replace wind tunnel tests", should hasten the pulse of every young aerodynamic engineer -- that is the sound of limitless possibilities waiting to be discovered and invented. DIY a wind tunnel (not hard). Then try everything. Who knows, one day young Chicagoans may need grandma to explain why it was called the Windy City before it was called the energy capital of the Midwest. Of course I'm watching this on my sailboat .
I am a docent at the Chicago Architecture Center giving tours on the river. I just want to say that this channel has provided so many intriguing materials for my tour takers. Thank you so much!
Man, they really used every word possible other than saying they want turbulent flow
That was EXACTLY what I was thinking. I wonder why they didn’t want to say, “turbulent flow.”
I assume „turbulence“ is too close to unfavourable stock market wording when selling buildings to investors
Maybe they presumed viewer would not be familiar with aerodynamic turbulence 🤷
@@jsbrads1 Totally, just amusing
@@dominikschaefer7626marketing team got involved there lol
RIP Chicago Spire foundation hole 👋
was it this one, really? 😢
Yes, but it looked like they incorporated it into the new foundation, I saw some pictures of the new foundation woth the hole still visible.
@@Lv-nq9qz Wait, what happened?
7:52 I don't know that "number of planes hitting tower" is the most appropriate unit of measurement...
anything but metric i guess :"/
i think its very relateable to americans
I was like REALLY?!??! Is it already so long ago that people forgot lol
_Pushing_ _on_ the tower, not hitting it. Let's actually listen to the words being spoken.
Maybe they could have talked about the equivalent hundreds of jet engines pushing against the tower. Maybe there was a better illustration to use.
But let's not obfuscate and stretch the actual information shown and comparisons used.
@@fiery_transition Yes. I have literally no memory whatsoever of 9/11, due to being born only two years prior. *I am a college graduate.*
Stewart, thank you for calling it the " _Sears_ Tower".
It will always be the Sears Tower. Just like the Cleveland baseball team will always be the "Indians"!
@@Josh-yr7gdNot a good example. Better example - the stadium the Sox play at is Comiskey.
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 How is using an example of an established name change met with opposition, not similar to another example of an established name change met with a lot of opposition?
The technical refinement of the towers, necessary to combat the devilish winds, have also led to greater aesthetic refinements. These two towers really add a pleasing new element to the Chicago skyline.
After seeing the skyscraper window video on this very channel , i'll keep a safe distance from these things , windows falling down and onto innocent pedestrians ... no thank you !
Maybe the airplanes pushing on towers analogy could've been rethought lol
Oh no 😂
no i like it quite a lot
plot twist: it was thought ... a LOT 😢😂
The graphic could have been better showing increased force on a tower with height. As I recall the top floor of the Hancock Tower has a designed movement of up to ten feet that is dampened so that the movement is not perceptible when you are eating in the restaurant up top.
Especially since the buildings are referred to as the “North Tower and South Tower” 😭
Tire tread. The facades of these buildings looks like the second iterations of tire tread. Where they staggered lines within each channel to eliminate road noise
Curious of what sound preparation and mitigation that they go into...would suck to find out it is whistling 24/7 in the living quarters.
Good point.
That's supposedly a big problem in the billionaire's row apartments in Manhatten, but part of that comes from also how skinny those guys are.
Another great video, Stewart. Chicago continues to lead the architectural way as it has for 150 years. Louis Sullivan said that "form follows function". But I have theorized that form "allows, creates, generates, enables, drives, directs, defines and determines function." This video shows how that is true.
8:29 the what tower? I'm from Chicago and I haven't ever heard of a Willis tower.
That's because it goes by two names, it's current official name, Willis tower, and the old outdated and former name that all the locals just can't forget, the sears tower. Buildings can change names at any time, 875 north Michigan Ave used to be called the john Hancock center
“You know the dimples on a golf ball? This is completely unlike that.”
it's actually the exact same principle but used for a different application. the ball resists air friction to move past the wind easier, the building resists air friction to allow the wind to move past itself easier
@@Kavukamariop was just cracking a joke nbd
but, the man in the vid is actually referring to how the dimples on a golf ball create turbulent flow around the ball to reduce drag. they’re applying the same principal to the tower
@@jacobgross319 oh MB I thought they were misunderstanding what the video said lol
Skin friction drag @@Kavukamari
That 3:57 is an absolutely amazing physical contour map! That model alone is a masterpiece of art & sculpture & math & science.
Amazing explanation by Ryan here... Great way of showing how the building attempts to alleviate the wind pressure more and more as the design evolves 4:24 👍
14:41 wind tunnel testing in F1 actually began in the 1970's, not the 90's. The former is when cars sprouted wings all over and the concept of ground effect aerodynamics to suck the car into the road began.
I love that room full of models of SOM buildings!
After 20 years of nothingness, I'm glad that land is finally being developed. It was supposed to be the Chicago Spire or whatever it was called, but that amounted to nothing but a circular hole in the ground.
No comments I see discuss the inherent beauty of the buildings. I think that is pretty telling. The architects themselves really only discussed "form and function". How are the aesthetics so ignored?!
This Is Fascinating Indeed 🖖🏾
LC From Chicago 😎
7:48 I love your content man and I'm usually not one to go out of my way to comment on videos, but I have to say using Boeing 777s as the reference for how resistant these buildings are may not have been the best example to use. Reminds me of a certain date in September, could've been anything other than jets lol...another great video all around though
I had the same thought too 💀
We’re all adults here
“More powerful than a locomotive” doesn’t relate like it used to
Maybe he wanted to jinx the building.
Boeing also has an interesting connection to Chicago.
They moved their management from Seattle to a Chicago headquarters.
This was one of the reasons the company went down the tubes ........ Chicago people , Chicago mentality. 💩👎😂
As a formula one fan, I was thinking about F1 through the whole video and found it fascinating how some of the same aerodynamic concepts can apply to a skyscraper. I was so happy you mentioned F1 toward the end!
Good video, but man, that pronunciation of “Guangzhou” at 10:03 is something else. It’s pronounced like “gwahng Joe”, not “gang zoo”. I wouldn’t ordinarily complain, but this is part of the monologue of a high production value video.
Lol I had to scroll way too far to find a comment saying this
I was looking for this as well. Having lived there for a few years I had a heart attack listening to that pronounciation.
This was absolutely fascinating. Such a great video and explainer!
I will never call the Sears tower the Willis Tower
Whatchu talkin' bout Willis!
if u know u know
I think you just did!
Should build the Chicago Spire now, as we're in the market for it, plus that would have dramatically changed the Chicago Skyline for the better!!!
You could tell the whole time that these guys knew what they were doing, great descriptions the whole way
Also the dudes facial expression at 6:15💀Bro felt like he had to simplify his explanation for a toddler (which in his case, is what he *essentially did)
Please explain what is wrong with that in a video aimed at a general public.
@@BGTuyau Please explain how this is a relevant response to a joke
Willis Tower? Never heard of it.
Stewart, your videos are superb. Thank you so much for taking the time to produce such professional content. You are a gifted educator!
Couldn't agree more! What a fabulous video on an interesting subject.
This was very interesting. One topic not really mentioned was what happens to the wind _after_ it passes over, alongside, or through big buildings? How will the building's presence affect other buildings in the area at ground level and at altitude? It seems designers need to consider not just how the wind affects their buildings, but how their buildings affect the wind.
Similar to the concentration of the sun’s rays on adjacent properties that melts surfaces☺️
@@bill9540 Or how wind turbines 'harvest' the force of the wind if put too close and in certain paths, limiting their efficiency further down in a park
Just wanted to point out you said "willis tower" it's actually pronounced "Sears Tower" as you correctly pronounced it later in the video
Now if they could work on traffic congestion relief now that would be impressive.
Did SOM learn from the wind shear mistake at their 2019 Lincoln Commons complex (Chicago, Lincoln at Fullerton)? The winds around this complex can be intolerable on breezy days-like standing at the bow of a fast moving boat. In winter it is unbearable.
This video does not mention the wind shear effect of this project on the surrounding area: the sidewalk, street and any other buildings in the area. When the wind is diverted after hitting the building, where does it go from there?
p.s. I’m not saying SOM failed with the Lincoln Commons complex. They did a remarkable job on many aspects.
I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years and the complex has been a great addition to the neighborhood. It created several opportunities for restaurants, etc. The complex enhances the neighborhood because of its integration of public spaces with the neighborhood. I feel decidedly safer walking around the complex than I did when it was Children’s Memorial Hospital which physically walled itself off from the neighborhood. Not to mention the noise coming from the heliport on the roof. Although not a resident of the complex, I feel very welcome relaxing on their benches and chairs as if it were at public park. But oh boy, that wind!
8:27 I think they mean the Sears Tower.
For comparison, what's the wind efficiency of the canceled Chicago Spire?
6:45 my guy wants so badly to sound smart that he forgot the word "vortex". (singular vortex, multiple vortices)
I always wonder why these new Chicago towers are not taller?!
Stewart, At the time of this comment entry, I was in Chicago. I hope to see some of the things you’ve shown on your channel while in town (June 13-18). I hope to rekindle the excitement I had when I found the Standard gas station during my San Francisco trip. Thanks for the enjoyment.
This discussion was fascinating. My late uncle was the head of the wind tunnel at Purdue University. I remember visiting his lab and seeing the model of Chicago that they kept because they did tests of so many big buildings in the city. I don't know how much computer work they had back then (late 60s/early 70s) but I do remember huge banks of tubes of colored liquid that had calibrated scales for taking readings off all surfaces of the building being tested.
That is really really cool!
These will be beautiful and only add to the perfection that Chicago is.
What about buildings that amplify or focus the wind, like towards turbines or some other wind capturing strategy?
10:00
thank you for letting these professionals explain their craft in such an unfiltered way
How do you sell this project to the neighboring buildings? Peoples' homes and company's businesses have premiere lakefront views from their East facing windows. This new building tower looks taller based on rendered drawings, so now the neighbors get to look at the side of your skyscraper instead of looking at Lake Michigan. Won't that piss them off and reduce their property values? What was once lakefront views now become partially obstructed views. I understand that's probably just typical city real estate life to be expected, but I was just curious how the neighboring residents react in situations like this. Do rental rates go down in those once lake view units which are now obstructed by a new skyscraper?
Is this the spot where the Calatrava Spire was being planned?
Is that the abandoned lot across from Navy Pier? Is that where the Spire was cancelled?
Yes
Gosh this channel is too good.
Great video! Question here; seems that the approximate height mentioned (almost 900ft/275m) is a good bit taller than the last figures the developer gave out (something in 850's ft), and the purported final design models likewise appear to be different than latest renderings. Did this get a height bump?
Credit to SOM's Bill Baker, who engineered the Burj Khalifa, for the technically incorrect yet metaphorically descriptive term "confuse the wind"?
Your mustache game is on point my friend. I can't grow a cool looking one so I just admire those of you who can. Well done.
👨👍
Planes pushing on buildings… too soon bro.
In the past we had people doing silly dances in the hopes that it would rain.
In the modern day we have architects acting silly and confusing, in the hopes that the wind gets confused and forgets to topple our high towers
😂 chuckled
7:52 Yeah... maybe use a different illustration than a bunch of planes going into a tower.
@@freetolook3727 Same for me. It's the weirdest thing. Every year in September, I feel the heartache when they show the videos. I was a 20 year old college kid when it happened, but I didn't have any classes on that particular day of the week.
Great work and insight.
I wouldn’t trust a bunch of engineers that have the city tilted at 90°. I’d worry about people falling out of the building windows if it was tilted like that. Yesterday I couldn’t even spell engineer today IR One.
With this, we now know that the CHICAGO SPIRE is no more. I wonder, is the GATEWAY TOWER still a proposed design?
The Regis Tower is 1,191 feet tall.... A Boeing 777 engine has a diamter just shy of 11 feet... It takes 108 engines stacked on top of each other to reach the height of the Regis Tower and you're telling me there is "the equivilant of 290" jets with two engines each...thats 580 turbines...pushing on this building at full throttle??? That is 5.5 engines every 11 feet of building stacked from bottom to top....and you want me to believe thats the force pushing on the building? Thats 66,874,000 foot pounds of thrust since each 777 engine is capable of 115,000 foot pounds on it's own.
So if I open a window on that building I might as well be staring into the back of a turbine with 175,000 horsepower at full throttle? What planet do you think Chicago exists on? Neptune with it's 1600 mph winds?
I mean I know they call Chicago the windy city and you are proving it wasn't for the actual wind but for the incapability of its people to shut up. This claim is such complete and utter nonsense I can't bring myself to take anything else you say seriously. Where did you honeslty come up with this scenario for your video???
For smoke stacks and other venting, its either have a spiral like metal sheet around it or make it like a hyperbeloid.
There is a 0% chance of affordable housing here.
For millionaires
GOOD
The term "affordable housing" is defined as "80% of the mean income of the area." So yeah... It's highly likely that there will be "affordable" housing in the building. Not designed for a millionaire, but an $800,000-aire.
"Low income" housing is an entirely different matter.
@@johnl5316 Housing should be unaffordable?
@@dearmas9068 And there’s not already enough unaffordable housing in the US? With entire skyscrapers standing nearly empty around Central Park?
Seems aerodynamics finally entered the minds of architecture. How long it took is BAFFELING.
I nominate this video for the Stewart Hicks award!
Thank you for calling it the sears tower 👍
My cousins like to say that the name of the building is spelled Willis, but it's pronounced Sears.
So excited for these buildings to finish. They're beautiful and I think they fit into the character of the skyline.
1:37 wait, wait, did you say affordable? HAHAHAHA
So do they wind tunnel test the glass and casement, or even test it under expansion and contraction! The widows seem to present most of the issues in high rise buildings!
Enjoyed the interview by the two disciplines for the wind design concept on the project.
Love these new towers.
No mention of Aqua? It's beautiful, and Gang Associates did a great deal of work on wind reduction.
I was living in Houston during the construction phase of the new St Regis Chicago, designed by Studio Gang. I wasn't aware of the decision to leave the 83rd and 84th floors open until I moved back last summer and saw what is now described as a "blow-through". While I understand that this feature has effectively reduced the building sway by 20%, to my eye, it looks like a flaw in the design. I would be curious to know what kind of wind studies were done during the design phase. I can think of another example, the Shanghai Financial Centre, designed by Kohn Peterson Fox, which has a hole cutout at the top of the building. This accomplishes the same thing, but was integrated into the overall design. Likewise, in New York, the Rafael Viñoly-designed supertail building known by its address, 432 Park Ave, has five screened sections throughout its overall height, which mitigate wind currents from other high-rises in Midtown Manhattan.
At 6:40, did an engineer really say "vorticee?" Dude, "vortices" is plural. The singular form is "vortex."
I'm guessing it will take a single of the mentioned aircraft to prove said assertions are hyperbole. WTC were designed to take a direct hit from a plane, per models and statements at the time of construction... much like the one which brought them down. So, which developer is overstating? One's already been put to the test and failed. And, meeting the Natrual word, that's open for profound debate within architecture. Going down solves many problems, from offering geothermal to mounting a rooftop manifold of lenses to filter natural light via optic cables, as well as many other things. We can dig a tunnel under an ocean, we can put a 20 story bldg subsurface, most likely already have.
Fascinating stuff, Ty
Have you considered making a textbook much like the Engineering in Plain Sight Hillhouse circa 2020?
So “affordable housing” price? Hoe much would a one bedroom be a month in one of these building’s affordable section be?
Man...don't ever call it the "W", word. All it ever will be is the Sears Tower.
Wow... I knew architects liked white lego pieces!
That pass through floor on the St Regis Tower wasn't planned it was added later when the building had so much movement that windows were breaking. Ah the benefits of having an in house wind tunnel and staff engineers.
They need to build the world’s tallest building! We need that title back!
At least these structures bring an overdue elegance to skyscraper design. It’s a nice change from the weirdo shapes and the “Hanging Gardens of Braylon” look that you often see in current high-rise design. Hopefully, the financial returns to the project’s investors won’t be invisible.
I wish you would offer some criticism once in a while. They shortened these buildings to 267 meters (not 275) and drastically minimized the step-backs of the balconies which now don't begin until 2/3rd's of the way up. They also removed the terra-cotta and bay windows. Everything isn't iconic and world class or "Masterful" as you say. David Childs' original design definitely was but these value- engineered versions are far from it.
Golden ratio fractal spiral
A masterful video!
Love your videos!
Great video, but small nitpick - there's no active aero in F1 (short of situational DRS). It's all passive, at least until 2026. Though aeroelasticity definitely bridges that gap a bit!
Affordable or workforce housing. Developers are using those interchangeably but they are quite different?
Very interesting Stew
Great video!
Monty Python: Confuse a Cat
Bewilder the Wind.
Is this being built on the old Spire site? If so will it use any of the foundations already built?
Stuart, completely unrelated, have you seen The Illinois in the Apple TV+ show "Dark Matter"? You get a really good shot of it from a few angles in episode 7
Super interesting!
Who will be occupying these newest towers ? Commercial office space is really suffering as more and more businesses are giving up office space to have their people work from home. The pandemic changed how we live and work . nearly a quarter of all commercial office space in the city of San Francisco is empty. 17% of New York City office towers are empty. I think we are saying the demise of the American skyscraper as it now stands.
I really like the new building designs but I wish it was in a different location and the Gateway Tower was built there instead.
Is that where the old Spire foundation is.
Looks like it is. Has the creepy perfect circle in the ground
Being shorter than the Willis Tower is a shame. I want someone to take the title from that terribly named tower.
3:03 I know those oscillations, but I don't recall what they're called. can someone help?
vortex shedding? lol idk
7:47 Great editing.😀
Another terrific video! Imagine if that building could capture the energy of just 1/3rd of those "290 Boeing 777s" pushing against it. Turned into electricity, with some battery banks the building wouldn't need to be connected to the grid -- unless it was to sell surplus generated electricity.
Another way of looking at the problem is what if you were standing in 60 mph winds. You'd have a hard time not being pushed backwards. But if you leaned into that wind you'd find an angle where forces would balance out. (There's still a lot of energy going into this otherwise static situation.) This makes me think we're just at the beginning of all of this engineering. There are reasons these things aren't already being being done... but no good reason they won't eventually be just part of the design. Whoever gets there first Is going to engineer/design a lot of buildings. The statement "computational dynamics aren't yet good enough to replace wind tunnel tests", should hasten the pulse of every young aerodynamic engineer -- that is the sound of limitless possibilities waiting to be discovered and invented. DIY a wind tunnel (not hard). Then try everything.
Who knows, one day young Chicagoans may need grandma to explain why it was called the Windy City before it was called the energy capital of the Midwest. Of course I'm watching this on my sailboat .
I already know how those buildings would smell.
Thats what it’s being under construction where it supposed to be the Chicago Spire?
Yes
Kind of a bummer they aren't much taller. The Spire slated for that site set expectations so high, literally.