Toronto CN Tower: Entry Pavilion, Plaza, Renos | ?m | ?s | CLC | Arcadis

Bogtrotter said:
Yeh- our grandchildren will still be looking at this thing. By which time Toronto will have well moved on from this being a civic highlight- one only hopes. On the other hand TO may decide to go for the gusto and vie for another world's tallest!
Click to expand...

By then the patina on the concrete might make it seem even older...

St. Jamestown might be what Cabbagetown is now, a hip gentrified neighbourhood far removed from its original working-class grit. Maybe people will pay through the nose to live in an "authentic" 60s/70s apartment tower.

As an aside...
Maybe this is the last time in history when we seriously consider building up, waaaay up.

Apparently there are those who believe Taipei 101 has re-opened an ancient fault line. Could it be that in the future we consider Supertalls as not only ecologically unsustainable, but geologically unsustainable as well?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4493360.stm

Of course, you could turn the Taipei observation on it's head and suggest that perhaps instead of supertalls tearing the earth apart, there might be a secret combination of them that might stabilize seismically unstable regions - like nails in a creaking floor.

http://io9.com/356862/top-5-ways-to-hack-the-surface-of-the-earth
In 2005, scientists discovered that a new skyscraper in Taiwan might be causing earthquakes. Called Taipei 101, it was temporarily the tallest building in the world, before towers like the Al Burj were anything but rumors. "At more than 500 metres," we read back then, "Taipei 101 in Taiwan is the world's tallest building. But now geologists fear that its size and weight may have transformed a stable area into one susceptible to earthquake activity."

The building is so heavy, exerting such "exceptional downward stress" on the earth beneath it, that it might have "reopened" an ancient tectonic fault. If true, this discovery "may have far-reaching implications for the construction of other buildings and man-made megastructures."

At the very least, we should ask: What would happen if we built more of them? Could we build fourteen of these things in San Francisco, in an act of long-term tectonic warfare, and destroy the whole city within a decade?

Conversely, could we build just the right number of these, at just the right spots, throughout the greater Los Angeles basin and thus nail the tectonic plates in place -- weighing southern California down and zipping the San Andreas Fault up tight? It'd be seismic acupuncture, a new form of therapy against continental drift. Perhaps one gigantic tower exactly placed in outer Tokyo could make the whole Pacific Rim freeze up. That is, till a rogue group of German terrorists arrives and wreaks havoc... Directed by John McTiernan. It's geology as a military campaign, enacted through architectural design.
 
The building is so heavy, exerting such "exceptional downward stress" on the earth beneath it, that it might have "reopened" an ancient tectonic fault. If true, this discovery "may have far-reaching implications for the construction of other buildings and man-made megastructures."
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. When talking in geological terms, an object would have to be hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of tons in weight in order to even register.

The lifespan of the CN Tower, or any structure, is a function of the quality of materials, quality of construction, and quality of maintenance, particularly as the building ages. Under a proper maintenance program, there's no reason why the CN Tower shouldn't last even longer than 300 years. Just keep water infiltration under control, and you'll be 99% of the way there!
 
Chuck said:
I don't buy it. When talking in geological terms, an object would have to be hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of tons in weight in order to even register.
Click to expand...

I agree. Taipei 101 is tall, but its volume is still mostly air. The total mass of the Taipei 101, including both dead and live load, is about 700 thousand tonnes. A typical density of rock is about 3 tonnes per cubic metre, so its weight is equal to about 267 thousand cubic metres of rock, or a cone with a diameter of 160 metres and a height of 40 metres. This is a fairly small hill, and I very much doubt that it would have any measurable impact on the seismic stresses underneath it.
 
The 700,000 is likely just the building, not the contents. If the situation is a 'straw that broke the camel's back' kinda thing it hardly matters how much the tower weighs, only that it weighs more than it should.

Is it likely? Probably not in this case. Will this eventually become an issue in other buildings? Quite possibly. I still think the greater point is salient; that giant-scaled construction could (eventually) interfere with plate tectonics, or have other geologic consequences. The question is just how giant-scaled it needs to be, we'll probably not find that threshold until it's too late.
 
No, that would be the total weight. Total weights of other large buildings:

Empire State Building, NYC = 365,000 tonnes
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223,000 tonnes
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 174,500 tonnes

Here is a calculation of the dead load of a WTC tower, from this page:

I have certainly never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2; but there are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.

Now let’s add in reasonable “guesstimates” for plumbing fixtures (5,000,000, kg), air conditioning (5,000,000 kg), electrical and telecommunication wiring (5,000,000 kg) and we have an additional 15,000,000 kg of structural mass that civil engineers always include as part of the “dead load” of a building. Thus combining all these contributions, we arrive at a weight, or dead load, of 169,000,000 kg for one WTC Tower.
Click to expand...

Taipei 101 is larger than the WTC towers, but not THAT much larger. If the dead load is equal to both WTC towers put together, it would be about 338,000 tonnes. Add the same amount for the live load, and you have about 700,000 tonnes.
 
TKTKTK said:
I still think the greater point is salient; that giant-scaled construction could (eventually) interfere with plate tectonics, or have other geologic consequences.
Click to expand...
Now, I'm not geologist, and I'm all for minimal ecological footprint and all that, but the idea that man-made structures like "heavy" office towers are affecting plate tectonics seems like a ridiculously uninformed notion to me. I have a feeling the Taipei 101 and the land it's sitting on are unique.
 
grey said:
Now, I'm not geologist, and I'm all for minimal ecological footprint and all that, but the idea that man-made structures like "heavy" office towers are affecting plate tectonics seems like a ridiculously uninformed notion to me. I have a feeling the Taipei 101 and the land it's sitting on are unique.
Click to expand...

heheh, uninformed? Is that in your not-a-geologist uninformed opinion?

Relax, it's really only a skeletal idea. No one's suggesting that we're toeing up to this line right now, or if Taipei actually turns out to be doing something then we're certainly not toeing the line very often. But now is now, there's little way to account for the future.

i think the presumption that we CAN'T have an effect on a system so large is dangerous. As we've shown with our planet's atmosphere, the sky's the limit! Oh, I guess it's actually not...maybe it should be 'the sky's just the beginning!'
 
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_21190.aspx

If you have a fear of heights, don't look down. Of course, if you do suffer from acrophobia, chances are you won't be going to the top of the CN Tower anyway. But if you happen to venture to the top, you'll soon be able to see exactly where you've been.

Toronto's most famous symbol is getting set to launch the world's highest glass bottom elevator, in addition to the Tower's already well known clear side panel view to the heavens. It means those heading up to the top for a panoramic look will soon be able to not only see the city but glance down and take in - well, just how far they've come.

In case you're not certain the distance, try 346 metres or 1,136 feet. It's kind of a strange come-on for tourists and the locals - come and ride our elevator. But officials swear it will be a Towering achievement. "If you thought a ride aboard glass fronted elevators was special - wait until you experience this new elevator," boasts COO Jack Robinson in a statement.

It's made of the same thankfully unbreakable material as the glass floor and measures 2½ feet thick. So when can you ride this lift to the stars? It goes into operation April 9th at 11am and even if you're fighting the battle of the bulge, you can still get onboard.

Tower experts claim it can hold the weight of 14 hippos. But since they'd never be able to fit in the cage, there's plenty of room for everyone else.
 
Wow... seems like there are some dull people on these forums.

I think this is very exciting news!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top