World's Tallest Skyscraper Proposed for Houston?

[houstonmacbro]

This approach would on the one hand probably bring per square foot prices to a somewhat more reasonable level, but the very large floorplates would mean that not every unit would have a window to the outside world. ...and that defeats a huge part of the appeal of highrise living.

I know right ... if I'mma spend a grip, I better at least have a dang window!

[editor]

This approach would on the one hand probably bring per square foot prices to a somewhat more reasonable level, but the very large floorplates would mean that not every unit would have a window to the outside world. ...and that defeats a huge part of the appeal of highrise living. In Tokyo, it may very well fly because conditions are cramped and expensive anyway, but in a place like Houston, if someone is asked to endure all of the cost of highrise living with no discernable benefit to it, then it gets really hard to justify living there over a larger or less expensive home elsewhere. Office could support part of that, but the site would need to be better-located than Astroworld. Not that it'll ever happen in Houston, but Northwest Mall is probably the ideal site for such a development.

A larger floorplate would also mean more units could be built because the outer walls are longer. Longer walls means more windows which means more units. I don't think it would be necessary to bury some apartments in the center with no windows because the core is going to need to be quite large as you get higher with more elevator shafts, stairwells, pipes, etc...

Some of the wider floors of the John Hancock center are like this -- the hallways are arranged in a triple-H around two elevator (44-65, 66-92) and utility cores. The result is long, thin apartments that each still have a window.

[TheNiche]

A larger floorplate would also mean more units could be built because the outer walls are longer. Longer walls means more windows which means more units. I don't think it would be necessary to bury some apartments in the center with no windows because the core is going to need to be quite large as you get higher with more elevator shafts, stairwells, pipes, etc...

Some of the wider floors of the John Hancock center are like this -- the hallways are arranged in a triple-H around two elevator (44-65, 66-92) and utility cores. The result is long, thin apartments that each still have a window.

If the rendering is to scale, and the building is 217 pixels tall and the ground-level floorplate is 84 pixels wide, then the footprint of the building is 1,270 feet wide. If each floorplate is approximately circular in shape, then the building's footprint and first floor is 1.27 million square feet. The very top floor (35 pixels wide) is then 529 feet wide and the floorplate is about 220,000 square feet. Given that the core of the building tapers as it reaches the very top because fewer elevators, stairwells, and utilities need to service the top and also because there are no express shafts, then your theory doesn't hold very well.

Most major downtown office buildings, designed to suit tenants that desire relatively large floorplates, don't exceed about 30,000 square feet. The largest floorplate in downtown Houston, in the El Paso Energy Building, is about 45,000 square feet. The base of the Sears Tower is about 125,000 square feet (and it certainly isn't that much on the top floor). ...so unless a huge number of people with the kind of money that it'd take to live in such a highrise are willing to live in very large but ridiculously misproportioned units, it doesn't fly without there being interior units and plenty of them.

[Jax]

I wonder how many interior units Burj Dubai will have. Isn't it supposed to be mainly residential / hotel?

[GovernorAggie]

I'm not opposed to someone building a supertall skyscraper here in Houston, but a 3000 ft. straight-up office tower is just ridiculously stupid. Personally, I think if a supertall is built in Houston, they should build one like the proposed Sky City 1000 in Tokyo. It stands 1 km (about 3280 ft) tall, but doesn't look all that ridiculous. However, something like this would would have to stand on its own, outside any of the existing business districts here in Houston. The old Astroworld site would probably work though. Thoughts? Comments?

Extreme Engineering on Discovery Channel had this building on once. This thing has SO many challenges (including being in an active fault AND typhoon zone), but yet they seem to have factored a lot of features in--counterweights at the top to negate wind effects (the swaying would be so much otherwise that people could get sick!) for example.

Also, regarding the huge floorplates--the building is actually hollow. Those without windows to the outside have windows on the inside, much like many hotels. It's a massive structure that will take decades to build, IIRC. Given the CGI movies played on the show, it looks as if the place will actually be pretty neat on the inside as well.

Here's some links for some more info:

http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/techn..._sky/63_sky.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_1000

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engin...nteractive.html

This thing is bigger than I realized and is actually supposed to be a set of 3 towers connected together! I don't know if it will trully happen, but if anywhere is going to build anything radical, it's Asia.

The base is actually over 1300 feet across.

Given that there is even a chance that this thing is built someday in the next, say 40 years, maybe Mr. Younan won't be able to accomplish his dream--at least not at a "measly" 3,000 feet.

[marc]

, but Northwest Mall is probably the ideal site for such a development.

Niche- i tend to agree. I don't know about a supertall, but i have wanted NW Mall torn down for years now. In its place a two/three storey retail center with a 30 storey highrise residential/hotel on top. Personally, i think that area is an ideal location because of how much space there is to demolish and build brand new.

And TheNiche has me thinking now about how skyscrapers should be incorporated into and then enhance existing skylines. OF COURSE, we would all want a world renowned supertall to be built here (if taxpayers do not have to absorb any costs of construction).

BUT, as many of you pointed out- is it feasible? Here is what i would hate to happen. Build an awesome supertall, but then, to fill the floor space, other highrises wouldn't be needed for years or decades. I don't know about you all, but i rather like seeing a highrise or two go up every year. Then there is a matter of aesthetics. Many supertalls being built today (HK, Dubai, Shanghai, NY, and Chi-town) are being built either around other VERY tall scrapers OR are having VERY tall scapers being built along with them. i don't think Houston's market allows for a supertall AND other tall ones to be built within a few years.

(BUT THEN AGAIN, as i am saying this, all we need is for the alternative to fossil fuel market to really take off and once again, Houston is in the economic lead).

Build a supertall? Sure, why not? But personally, i would rather see three 1000 footers. One DT, one UT and maybe one either MT or within the Allen Parkway/Memorial Area. OR go really wild and build one around Westeimer and SH Tollway.

OR, and now i am just dreaming folks- Several 500-800 footers in various business clusters around the city.

Then again, that sort of defeats this developers vision, doesn't it. So sure. Build the darn thing. Just build in Houston!!!!!

m.

[editor]

If the rendering is to scale, and the building is 217 pixels tall and the ground-level floorplate is 84 pixels wide, then the footprint of the building is 1,270 feet wide. If each floorplate is approximately circular in shape, then the building's footprint and first floor is 1.27 million square feet. The very top floor (35 pixels wide) is then 529 feet wide and the floorplate is about 220,000 square feet. Given that the core of the building tapers as it reaches the very top because fewer elevators, stairwells, and utilities need to service the top and also because there are no express shafts, then your theory doesn't hold very well.

Most major downtown office buildings, designed to suit tenants that desire relatively large floorplates, don't exceed about 30,000 square feet. The largest floorplate in downtown Houston, in the El Paso Energy Building, is about 45,000 square feet. The base of the Sears Tower is about 125,000 square feet (and it certainly isn't that much on the top floor). ...so unless a huge number of people with the kind of money that it'd take to live in such a highrise are willing to live in very large but ridiculously misproportioned units, it doesn't fly without there being interior units and plenty of them.

I'm confused. Are you talking about the fantasy building in Tokyo, or the very preliminary proposal for Houston? I haven't seen any renderings for Houston, and I wasn't addressing the Tokyo building.

Also, trying infer anything from something just 35 pixels wide is an exercise in futility. No matter which building you're talking about we'd both have to see actual drawings to make any sense of it.

[Montrose1100]

I'd rather have two 1,500 or three 1,000 footers then one 3,000 foot tall builing. The race for the Tallest is getting old, Its only a matter of time before the tallest buildings get so ugly and blot out the sky.

[TheNiche]

I'm confused. Are you talking about the fantasy building in Tokyo, or the very preliminary proposal for Houston? I haven't seen any renderings for Houston, and I wasn't addressing the Tokyo building.

Also, trying infer anything from something just 35 pixels wide is an exercise in futility. No matter which building you're talking about we'd both have to see actual drawings to make any sense of it.

Timedrifter mentioned a preference for the Tokyo concept, so I responded to him/her. And perhaps the rendering was not exactly to scale, but my point stands. IF the building is a kilometer tall and IF it is to scale of the rendering, then that's how it would be configured. Maybe the numbers aren't going to be precise, but I think you can get the point.

[timedrifter]

Timedrifter mentioned a preference for the Tokyo concept, so I responded to him/her. And perhaps the rendering was not exactly to scale, but my point stands. IF the building is a kilometer tall and IF it is to scale of the rendering, then that's how it would be configured. Maybe the numbers aren't going to be precise, but I think you can get the point.

This might help to clarify some of the specs for Sky City (note: 800 hectares = 2000 acres):

Also. only the bottom 5 plateaus are circular. The remaindar are more or less hexagonal. In addition, as each plateau is completed, they can be inhabited immediately. Example: if they're constructing the 7th Plateau, that means Plateaus 1-6 can be open and functioning already.

[Guest Marty]

They cant build a skyscaper in Houston that tall because of the FAA restrictions.

[sevfiv]

They cant build a skyscaper in Houston that tall because of the FFA restrictions.

i know that the FAA has to approve building and crane height, but is there actually a fixed rule? i can't find anything - maybe it is a case-by-case basis?

btw - FFA = future farmers of america

[Guest Marty]

i know that the FAA has to approve building and crane height, but is there actually a fixed rule? i can't find anything - maybe it is a case-by-case basis?

btw - FFA = future farmers of america

I think I saw the zones on the IAH web site or FAA awhile back.

btw; I remember the purple jackets

[TheNiche]

Editor, please note that my initial estimate of 529 feet on the top floorplate was only off by four feet and two inches, or <1%.

The crux of the problem, now, is that without embracing giant floorplates, the costs of construction per square foot go up again.

[timedrifter]

i know that the FAA has to approve building and crane height, but is there actually a fixed rule? i can't find anything - maybe it is a case-by-case basis?

btw - FFA = future farmers of america

I suspect that's what the deal is. The only time I've ever heard them using it was when Chase Tower was built. FAA had them knock the top 5 floors off the original design due to concerns about the building affecting flight paths in and out of Hobby Airport.

[marc]

...yes, which goes back to the need for an essentially conical design. With less wind resistance at the top, the sway can be mitigated and the building becomes much more structurally sound. But it also needs a large base, which all but precludes a downtown location.

Hey Niche,

What about some of those empty parking lots in the East part of DT? How many blocks do you think it would have to incorporate for a solid base? (That is assuming it is to be a conical design) I mean, i know, talk about standing alone, not only vertically, but then away from the denser part of DT, but it seems to me that there still is a lot of space which can be developed.

m.

[TheNiche]

Hey Niche,

What about some of those empty parking lots in the East part of DT? How many blocks do you think it would have to incorporate for a solid base? (That is assuming it is to be a conical design) I mean, i know, talk about standing alone, not only vertically, but then away from the denser part of DT, but it seems to me that there still is a lot of space which can be developed.

m.

That, I do not know. It depends on the optimal slope of the outer walls, and that's something that a structural engineer would have to address.

I'd think that the post office site would be sufficient...but it would terribly mar our best skyline view.

[marc]

I'd think that the post office site would be sufficient...but it would terribly mar our best skyline view.

And on that we agree. Completely.

The only thing i would even add to the skyline view coming from the West would be to put an ultra-modern photovoltaic glassed scraper immediately North of One Shell Plaza. Maybe something in the 40-60 storey range. But NOT a supertall there.

m.

[VelvetJ]

Glad we're in agreement. I'm sorry, but the "Can-Do" spirit that was as much a Texan characteristic along with cattle, horses, cowboys, oil, and NASA has just about withered away and died. Nowadays, when someone proposes a radical idea, even controversial (Trans-Texas Corridor, Dallas Cowboys stadium, world's tallest building, a subway, and underground freeways in Houston, the Olympics, and so on), the main comments are always "why it won't work" or "what's wrong with it" or something of that vein. It's too bad because the old Texan bravado of "watch us do this no matter what you say" what made other states jealous but to me (as a native non-Texan) was the main draw of the state. I don't care about taxes and cost of living as much. I've lived in other places that were more expensive and would have been used to it. But the Texan can-do spirit and Texan pride ("Don't Mess with Texas"; "It's like a whole other country"; "Deep in the Heart of Texas"; "Everything's Bigger in Texas") is unlike any other state in the Union. There is no other state where you can see the shape of the state on almost everything you can think of--phone book ads, business logos, small-town police departments, rural county logos, restaurant signs, and so on.

Whether or not the building happens, I wouldn't mind if this discussion became more about where the "We can get it done like no other because we're Texans" has gone and whether or not it can it come back.

Despite its faults, Texas is the best state in the US, IMO. Not because of its size (it's #2) or its population (also #2) but because of the Texan pride that still exists at least in perception around the US.

Sorry for the tangential rant!

I'm late on this but AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN!!!!!!!

[GovernorAggie]

That, I do not know. It depends on the optimal slope of the outer walls, and that's something that a structural engineer would have to address.

I'd think that the post office site would be sufficient...but it would terribly mar our best skyline view.

Not to nitpick, but I think the best skyline view is from the Gulf Freeway inbound! The western view shows downtowns tallness, but the eastern view shows its fullness.

VelvetJ, thanks!

[wxman]

Not to nitpick, but I think the best skyline view is from the Gulf Freeway inbound! The western view shows downtowns tallness, but the eastern view shows its fullness.

VelvetJ, thanks!

45 North, inbound, is the best! It shows it's fullness and it's tallness...plus it shows 700 Louisiana, Texaco Heritage, and JPM.

[marc]

Not to nitpick, but I think the best skyline view is from the Gulf Freeway inbound! The western view shows downtowns tallness, but the eastern view shows its fullness.

VelvetJ, thanks!

REALLLLLLy? That is interesting. Growing up in West Houston i am most familiar with the West view toward DT. In fact, many popular pix. of Houston are of that angle. Last summer i had the painful duty of visiting my mother in a hospice during her last few weeks on this Earth. It was located just south of the MC near 288. SO, i got a view of DT from the above mentioned angle many times. Yes, it is more dense looking from that angle, but i must say, i still prefer it from the West side view. Maybe, i am just reacting to a certain past comfort zone. In years to come, if development continues on the East side of DT, then i think the view from that angle will become worth the pix.

By the by, GovernorA, i notice you do some post regarding Austin. Have you been there recently? I meant to get there during my recent trip, but it just didn't work out. How is construction these days? Is the 2010 vision shaping up?

m.

[Guest Marty]

45 North, inbound, is the best! It shows it's fullness and it's tallness...plus it shows 700 Louisiana, Texaco Heritage, and JPM.

I agree, I use this route everytime that I am going to downtown from Spring.

[marc]

Glad we're in agreement. I'm sorry, but the "Can-Do" spirit that was as much a Texan characteristic along with cattle, horses, cowboys, oil, and NASA has just about withered away and died. Nowadays, when someone proposes a radical idea, even controversial (Trans-Texas Corridor, Dallas Cowboys stadium, world's tallest building, a subway, and underground freeways in Houston, the Olympics, and so on), the main comments are always "why it won't work" or "what's wrong with it" or something of that vein. It's too bad because the old Texan bravado of "watch us do this no matter what you say" what made other states jealous but to me (as a native non-Texan) was the main draw of the state. I don't care about taxes and cost of living as much. I've lived in other places that were more expensive and would have been used to it. But the Texan can-do spirit and Texan pride ("Don't Mess with Texas"; "It's like a whole other country"; "Deep in the Heart of Texas"; "Everything's Bigger in Texas") is unlike any other state in the Union. There is no other state where you can see the shape of the state on almost everything you can think of--phone book ads, business logos, small-town police departments, rural county logos, restaurant signs, and so on. Whether or not the building happens, I wouldn't mind if this discussion became more about where the "We can get it done like no other because we're Texans" has gone and whether or not it can it come back. Despite its faults, Texas is the best state in the US, IMO. Not because of its size (it's #2) or its population (also #2) but because of the Texan pride that still exists at least in perception around the US. Sorry for the tangential rant!

You rock, Governor! Just a little tidbit. When i go on my European jaunts i do a little experimenting in London and Paris. (my two favorite overseas haunts) One year i claim LA (my present home) as my home. The next, i claim TX (my native TRUE home) as my home. You would all be amazed that i get MANY more inquiries about my TX heritage than i do when they think i am from LA. Believe it or not, the general population of Europe think we all wear cowboy hats and jeans, ride a horse, (at least on the weekends), have farm or ranch land, have stock in Exxon or can see an oil derrick from our window and endorse Halliburton Inc. Don't worry. I do set them straight from time to time.m.

I agree, I use this route everytime that I am going to downtown from Spring.

Uh oh, now i am confused. Are we talking DT coming from Galveston I-45 or coming from The Woodlands I-45?I do like the view coming southbound from The Woodlands.....WHICH, by the by, is similar to the view from West Houston.m.

[gwilson]

Is there a rendering of what this building was to look like?

[marc]

Maybe they should build it where the Astrodome now stands.

Get rid of the Astrodome? Bite your tongue! I know it is outdated and sort of antiquated these days, but come on!

It is a Houston landmark........... ( said softly) isn't it?

m.

[GovernorAggie]

By the by, GovernorA, i notice you do some post regarding Austin. Have you been there recently? I meant to get there during my recent trip, but it just didn't work out. How is construction these days? Is the 2010 vision shaping up?

m.

Nah I haven't been to Austin recently, but I keep up with what's going on over on SSP. They do a good juob of Austin updates there in the Texas/Southwest section. It's amazing what that place is doing right now in its downtown.

[Deut28Thirteen]

Get rid of the Astrodome? Bite your tongue! I know it is outdated and sort of antiquated these days, but come on!

It is a Houston landmark........... ( said softly) isn't it?

m.

My teacher was from Pittsburgh and said the 1st thing he did in Houston was go see the Astrodome, but that was over 20 years ago. It is a landmark but I doubt thats the first thing people would go see now days. If you were to ask people where is the Astrodome, I think most would know Houston. I like they are trying to restore the Dome but they should have made it a big nice museum. It would have some of Houston sports History, How and why the dome was built, Katrina and how it displaced some people to the Dome, and still have room for conventions. That would have been nice to go down and see.

[marc]

i definately think the Astrodome needs some revamping in terms of purpose and such. I just wouldn't want to see it torn down.

By the by, interesting name Deut2813. I looked it up. Very interesting to know your interpretation of that verse.

m.

[Deut28Thirteen]

Thanks. My mom gave it to me at birth. She said she saw me doing great things. I have to read it to myself sometimes to keep focused.