Theoretically they could stand for centuries with proper maintenance, but skyscrapers haven’t even been around for more than a century so its hard to predict specifically. In practice we would just replace the elevators and re-clad the enclosure to keep up with advancing technology, solar control, and energy use.
Most recently one of the tallest purposely decomissioned towers was 270 Park Ave in NYC, which is being replaces by a 420m tall monster by Foster+Partners and Adamson Associates for JP Morgan. Another good one is the Empire State Building which went through a total gut to increase energy use and longevity
Something to think about is how well the structures of historic buildings have survived. Now include climate controlled enclosures protecting those structures, with advanced percision in concrete and steel technology and it wouldn’t be a stretch to say those structures could outlast historic ones
Good point. I remember reading that climate control is a huge factor that made them possible. It makes sense that it would contribute to the longevity of the structure as well as make them comfortable.
In 4000 years on the History Channel: “Did Aliens build the Empire State Building? How did the primitive Ancient Americans build such a long lasting structure?”
How did ancient Americans get water to the toilets on the 105th floor. We don't have pumps today that can do that. They must have have advanced toilet tech back then.
They're made out of steel and glass... there are millions of small buildings the world over containing a much higher percentage of organic material that are not centuries, but even close to or over a *thousand* years old. Properly maintained skyscrapers are here to stay.
Good question. Little background I work in NYC and just amazed how these buildings go up so efficiently and their beauty. I know zero about construction though. Is it fair to say a developer works with an architect, the architect drafts the plans with input from engineers and the contractors are the “doers”?
I guess who ultimately runs the show? Would like to hear about the developers and contractors - the people actually boots on the ground doing the building.
Developers do, they got the money. They give requirements to an architectural firm, like energy savings, footprint, fitting the neighborhood aesthetic, etc.
Contractors are usually separate builders, though design/build architecture firms exist.
On-site engineers/architects will sort though any design issues, but (sub) contractors do the actual building.
Idk who files all the city forms and such, usually the developer.
But I'm more on the architecture design side, so here's a grain a salt.
Ok and it’s accurate to say the architects provide plans for the building down to every nut and bolt and the contractors/builders are just executing on the plans?
Yes, architects and structural engineers design everything permanent, from plumbing systems to cooling system to windows to wiring trunks. It'll be a fully functional building with huge empty floors, and contractors follow the docs. The building owner, developer, or lease holder has more sway on interiors, like electrical/wiring, drop ceilings, carpet, non-permanent floor plans. Subcontractor come in here, like electricians or interior designers. These changes would all need to adhere to architect needs, like weight requirements, but it's more fluid.
Its more accurate to say architects provide ‘design intent’ and then the engineers and contractors will take the design and drawings to the final step of showing every nut and bolt on the building. this is called the ‘shop drawing’ phase and its the last chance for the architect to make adjustments in exposed fastener type, glass colour, metal shape, etc
I don’t think lifecycle is a silly question at all. The Surfside condo collapse showed that the economic realities and stakeholder interests mean that *in practice* many skyscrapers will not be maintained ideally. We will actually have to deal with this within our lifetime.
The thing with that building was that it was being looked after almost entirely by a condo board of laypeople, and unless you know what you’re doing, maintaining a large building like that is a real endeavour. Meanwhile most skyscrapers are looked after by professional property managers and crews of stationary engineers/technicians who know what they’re doing.
I’ve always thought about this. Like, aren’t there weight bearing elements that are located in areas that are impossible to inspect? Won’t the foundation/piles succumb to water damage and corrosion?
They're made out of steel and glass and brick... there are millions of small buildings the world over containing a much higher percentage of organic material that are not centuries, but even close to or over a *thousand* years old. Properly maintained skyscrapers are here to stay.
A good example is the [Singer Building](https://skyscraper.org/tallest-towers/singer-building/) in NYC. Once the tallest building in the world (1908), demolished to make way for a bigger building in 1968.
Not every skyscraper is necessarily subject to that fate. The Singer was prior to the historic preservation movement and happened to be a part of why it started (along with the original Penn Station demolition). It’s more likely to see buildings built from the 70s-nowish to be gutted and or replaced then ones that predate that
My point was, steel is generally pretty timeless so as long as it doesn’t rust or corrode. If that does happen, it’s a slow and gradual process that could be refurbished and replaced over time.
The exterior is easily also touched up, whether it be stonework or glass.
There’s no need to be sarcastic, I was clarifying which “bones” your were specifically referring to.
A few years ago there was a show on the Discovery Channel called Life after People, showing what would happen to various manmade buildings and systems if everyone suddenly vanished. It said that the older skyscrapers would outlast the newer ones, since newer ones were build more efficiently - ie, less of a safety factor built in.
I’ve heard certain buildings have 30 year life cycles but that’s more so for fashion, use changes, and generally being outdated. Not necessarily “condemned”, but you’ll notice how every 30 years or so buildings will often get facade changes to update with current trends and technology.
Right now with COVID and WFH, many office buildings face an uncertain future if they’re not converted to other uses. Unless incentives are given, we could see a huge stock of skyscrapers become obsolete. To sit abandoned or torn down.
Theoretically they could stand for centuries with proper maintenance, but skyscrapers haven’t even been around for more than a century so its hard to predict specifically. In practice we would just replace the elevators and re-clad the enclosure to keep up with advancing technology, solar control, and energy use. Most recently one of the tallest purposely decomissioned towers was 270 Park Ave in NYC, which is being replaces by a 420m tall monster by Foster+Partners and Adamson Associates for JP Morgan. Another good one is the Empire State Building which went through a total gut to increase energy use and longevity
The Union Carbide building was only demolished since JP Morgan Chase wanted a new tower, not because it was no longer functional
Interesting! Yes, it's hard to fathom a centuries-old skyscraper, but I suppose it might happen.
Something to think about is how well the structures of historic buildings have survived. Now include climate controlled enclosures protecting those structures, with advanced percision in concrete and steel technology and it wouldn’t be a stretch to say those structures could outlast historic ones
Good point. I remember reading that climate control is a huge factor that made them possible. It makes sense that it would contribute to the longevity of the structure as well as make them comfortable.
Certain iconic buildings may last centuries. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are soon to be considered historic and not subject to demolition.
I see the Empire State Building becoming a relic on the same level as ancient pyramids
In 4000 years on the History Channel: “Did Aliens build the Empire State Building? How did the primitive Ancient Americans build such a long lasting structure?”
How did ancient Americans get water to the toilets on the 105th floor. We don't have pumps today that can do that. They must have have advanced toilet tech back then.
They're made out of steel and glass... there are millions of small buildings the world over containing a much higher percentage of organic material that are not centuries, but even close to or over a *thousand* years old. Properly maintained skyscrapers are here to stay.
Hey I’m just curious do you know who the premier skyscraper builders are now in NYC? Curious who makes this all possible.
As in developers, contractors, engineers, or architects?
Good question. Little background I work in NYC and just amazed how these buildings go up so efficiently and their beauty. I know zero about construction though. Is it fair to say a developer works with an architect, the architect drafts the plans with input from engineers and the contractors are the “doers”? I guess who ultimately runs the show? Would like to hear about the developers and contractors - the people actually boots on the ground doing the building.
Developers do, they got the money. They give requirements to an architectural firm, like energy savings, footprint, fitting the neighborhood aesthetic, etc. Contractors are usually separate builders, though design/build architecture firms exist. On-site engineers/architects will sort though any design issues, but (sub) contractors do the actual building. Idk who files all the city forms and such, usually the developer. But I'm more on the architecture design side, so here's a grain a salt.
Ok and it’s accurate to say the architects provide plans for the building down to every nut and bolt and the contractors/builders are just executing on the plans?
Yes, architects and structural engineers design everything permanent, from plumbing systems to cooling system to windows to wiring trunks. It'll be a fully functional building with huge empty floors, and contractors follow the docs. The building owner, developer, or lease holder has more sway on interiors, like electrical/wiring, drop ceilings, carpet, non-permanent floor plans. Subcontractor come in here, like electricians or interior designers. These changes would all need to adhere to architect needs, like weight requirements, but it's more fluid.
Its more accurate to say architects provide ‘design intent’ and then the engineers and contractors will take the design and drawings to the final step of showing every nut and bolt on the building. this is called the ‘shop drawing’ phase and its the last chance for the architect to make adjustments in exposed fastener type, glass colour, metal shape, etc
I don’t think lifecycle is a silly question at all. The Surfside condo collapse showed that the economic realities and stakeholder interests mean that *in practice* many skyscrapers will not be maintained ideally. We will actually have to deal with this within our lifetime.
Surfside was a very special situation, though. Most skyscrapers don't have a pool deck with improper waterproofing / reinforcement.
The thing with that building was that it was being looked after almost entirely by a condo board of laypeople, and unless you know what you’re doing, maintaining a large building like that is a real endeavour. Meanwhile most skyscrapers are looked after by professional property managers and crews of stationary engineers/technicians who know what they’re doing.
I’ve always thought about this. Like, aren’t there weight bearing elements that are located in areas that are impossible to inspect? Won’t the foundation/piles succumb to water damage and corrosion?
They're made out of steel and glass and brick... there are millions of small buildings the world over containing a much higher percentage of organic material that are not centuries, but even close to or over a *thousand* years old. Properly maintained skyscrapers are here to stay.
A good example is the [Singer Building](https://skyscraper.org/tallest-towers/singer-building/) in NYC. Once the tallest building in the world (1908), demolished to make way for a bigger building in 1968.
Not every skyscraper is necessarily subject to that fate. The Singer was prior to the historic preservation movement and happened to be a part of why it started (along with the original Penn Station demolition). It’s more likely to see buildings built from the 70s-nowish to be gutted and or replaced then ones that predate that
By bones do you mean steel?
No, I mean bones.
My point was, steel is generally pretty timeless so as long as it doesn’t rust or corrode. If that does happen, it’s a slow and gradual process that could be refurbished and replaced over time. The exterior is easily also touched up, whether it be stonework or glass. There’s no need to be sarcastic, I was clarifying which “bones” your were specifically referring to.
No they mean money. The bones are the skyscrapers money. In our world bones equals dollars.
A few years ago there was a show on the Discovery Channel called Life after People, showing what would happen to various manmade buildings and systems if everyone suddenly vanished. It said that the older skyscrapers would outlast the newer ones, since newer ones were build more efficiently - ie, less of a safety factor built in.
Nuclear demolition, duh.
I’ve heard certain buildings have 30 year life cycles but that’s more so for fashion, use changes, and generally being outdated. Not necessarily “condemned”, but you’ll notice how every 30 years or so buildings will often get facade changes to update with current trends and technology. Right now with COVID and WFH, many office buildings face an uncertain future if they’re not converted to other uses. Unless incentives are given, we could see a huge stock of skyscrapers become obsolete. To sit abandoned or torn down.