Viktorkrum77 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 *Edit* I've actually discovered that this building would be around 13,000 feet high (4,000m) So a looo...ooong time ago, I came up with this idea to build a 777 (lit. 780) story building. It wasn't until recently that i actually decided to put my plans to action. So now I've come up with plans, and I have several questions for anyone who knows science, math, or physics. But first let me introduce you to the tentative named building, the AM Army Building (Tenanting building/goverment building). Yes, I know, my imagination is crazy. This building has about 2.8 billion + sq footage. At about 3,200 ft (1,067m) x 1,280 ft (427) wide at the base and up until the 465th floor. It gets smaller there, where it becomes 1280 ft (427) x 640 ft (214m) wide from the 565th floor to the 745th floor. This makes 4,096,000 sq ft (455,609 sq m) of floor space per floor, excluding lobbies and air condition equipment areas, this makes about 2,211,840,000 sq footage worth of space from the first floor to the 465th floor. Add to that the rest of the building and you get a total of 2,867,200,000 of total sq feet, not including the towers. ^Info above is no longer valid. I've edited the building, it's now a cone. So my questions are, that I know that under 10,000 ft you don't need oxygen, and this building is 6,280 ft high, but I know from experience that traveling in a building that is just 100 stories high can pop your ears, so what kind of stress would befall a person traveling up an elevator in this building? And also, is this kind of building possible, bear in mind the width, and how would this heavily effect or be effected by wind? Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushrock Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Erm...I-I don't know, but damn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andufusthebronze Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Erm...I-I don't know, but damn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dragon_Reborn Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 =; Stop. Why? Just, why? ~~Let The Dragon ride again, on the winds of time~~I've always felt as if I'm the only person who can understand the concept of sarcasm on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuziAngel Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Ummm....maybe you could put boiled sweets or mints in the elevator to help with the ear-popping thing. The Poison Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermonk Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 How many houses are you gonna clear to build a building the size of Chicago? How many years will it take to build? And how many years will it take for it to be taken down by terrorists after it's built? Sorry, but this thing will take so long to build it won't even be finished in your lifetime. Supermonk, proving you wrong since 1992. Supermonk rocks, I want to have his children.Music is like candy. You always get rid of the rapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ape Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Firstly, why? Secondly, why? Thirdly, why? Lastly, WHY?! ... I'll refrain from asking again. And why waste your time on plans for a building NOBODY can afford to produce? -Mitch New sig to come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 How many houses are you gonna clear to build a building the size of Chicago? How many years will it take to build? And how many years will it take for it to be taken down by terrorists after it's built? Sorry, but this thing will take so long to build it won't even be finished in your lifetime. Good point, I also may have to make the building a cone, because it would otherwise act as a giant wall blocking wind. I wonder how much it would cost. :-k And I wasn't planning on building it, I just wanted to figure stuff out about it. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andufusthebronze Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 more than you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermonk Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 After 9/11, I'm all against pointlessly tall buildings. Their just sitting targets for terrorists. Building a ton of smaller buildings that equal up to that much space would be a much better idea if you ask me. Supermonk, proving you wrong since 1992. Supermonk rocks, I want to have his children.Music is like candy. You always get rid of the rapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 After 9/11, I'm all against pointlessly tall buildings. Their just sitting targets for terrorists. Building a ton of smaller buildings that equal up to that much space would be a much better idea if you ask me. But not as cool. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ape Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 After 9/11, I'm all against pointlessly tall buildings. Their just sitting targets for terrorists. Building a ton of smaller buildings that equal up to that much space would be a much better idea if you ask me. But not as cool. I agree, neither is it more efficient. Also, planes can still crash into small, important buildings. Like the White House, Pentagon.. etc. -Mitch New sig to come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Too Far Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 After 9/11, I'm all against pointlessly tall buildings. Their just sitting targets for terrorists. Building a ton of smaller buildings that equal up to that much space would be a much better idea if you ask me. But not as cool. +1 =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryp0tt3rules Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The wind resistance would be huge, it would cost too much, take too long to build, take way too much money, and how are ya gonna clear out chicago when people dont event want to sell 100 houses for the Ohare expansion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufoman Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I would think the sheer wait would cause its foundations to crack and break. at the very least it will sink sevrall storys into the ground so be prepared to have it sitting on a hundred plus foot high block of solid stone like the perimids. that said the cement would never cure needing to be so thick, youd need to honey comb every floor with some form of air exchange or wait hundreds of years for the concreet to cure. also its sheer size almost meens its going to be a target for every terrorist attack imaginable. oh and its base isent reely the size of chicogo I dont know who thought that one up, its not even a mile wide. any how like I said its one of those things that even if you started construction on it now you would probaly die long before it was ever finished. its a nice idea, a tribute to the humans ability to reach for the stars. but we toads know better than to try. Clan Moderator from December 15th 2006- August 20th 2007Founder of: Terran Gamers, formerly known as Militos Deci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 The wind resistance would be huge, it would cost too much, take too long to build, take way too much money, and how are ya gonna clear out chicago when people dont event want to sell 100 houses for the Ohare expansion? I was only using it as a comparison. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCHughes Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 1.) You wouldn't have to worry about ears popping if you pressurize the air inside the building, like in airplanes. 2.) No, it couldn't be possible, see #3. 3.) 6,000 feet is really close to the jet stream, in regions where the winds blow at about 100 miles per hour. It would be next to impossible to construct something with the winds around you blowing at 100 mph. the russians are the best! Hands down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punc Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Do we have materials that can support such buildings? Because I saw a docu on National Geographic where they had this whole fuss if they steel bars could support all the weight, and they had to put in extra bars to compromise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Despaxes Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 3.) 6,000 feet is really close to the jet stream, in regions where the winds blow at about 100 miles per hour. It would be next to impossible to construct something with the winds around you blowing at 100 mph. unless of course you had aeordynamic wind holes in it. Like the building wouldnt be just a wall like have about 4 foot spaces in it with a hallway connecting the two areas. (i hope you understand what i mean) Gum on every floor =) pressurized air and recycled air can be a big problem. And have warnings on the elevators haha. Fiber optic cables (about a millimeter or so in size) are about as strong as steel cables, so if we took the same material and strung it together.......support? chyea the money problem. What does the average house cost to make? (not buy mind you) about 20-40 thousand. *large houses* so say we used about 10 trillion dollars. (less than what is spent in the war against terrorism in 6 months.) How much could we build? Maybe wed still need more but it could be done. (dont feel like doing any research math as of now...im tired =] ) as for land. tear down some place in africa =). Gobi desert?. Build platforms from off the sea floor and call it atlantis. are there miles of uninhabited land, even in the US? chyea. Terrorist attacks. This was meant to be a military building, im sure they will have top notch dopplar and radar and sonar. and some defense mechanisms if something does come within range. But the only question not answered is....what would be the point? what would th ebuilding be for? thanks everyone for the sigs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuziAngel Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 what would be the point? what would the building be for? A great big chocolate factory? The Poison Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 what would be the point? what would the building be for? A great big chocolate factory? Money, think about how many offices you can fit in that building. How many floors you could lease. The number is huge. :shock: Besides, that's why most skyscrapers are built in the first place, as tenanting buildings, ever wonder why half of them are named by their street address? Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCHughes Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 what would be the point? what would the building be for? A great big chocolate factory? Money, think about how many offices you can fit in that building. How many floors you could lease. The number is huge. :shock: Besides, that's why most skyscrapers are built in the first place, as tenanting buildings, ever wonder why half of them are named by their street address? No human would want to work in a building that high, unless each employee had a parachute they could use instead of the elevator. I'd work there for that. the russians are the best! Hands down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Despaxes Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 what would be the point? what would the building be for? A great big chocolate factory? Money, think about how many offices you can fit in that building. How many floors you could lease. The number is huge. :shock: Besides, that's why most skyscrapers are built in the first place, as tenanting buildings, ever wonder why half of them are named by their street address? no it wouldnt make sense to do that. They are usually built for one business and their offices...there arent any companies that need that much office space though. And i doubt anyone is gonna help make this plausible if the idea behind it isnt feasible. thanks everyone for the sigs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 1) The money issue. It would cost a rediculous amount of money and to concentrate this kind of economy shift in the one area it would really have to be in the middle of tokyo or something. (for the masses of jobs) 2) The height. What your proposing is an incredibly tall object and as someone stated once this building could be in the jet stream if you put it in the wrong geographical area. 3) Altitude. If you dont pressurise the entire building with it's own atmosphere, you would almost definately get something like altitude sickness if you took 10 mins (?) to go from the bottom to the top in an elevator. 4) Weight. An object of this size would most likely collapse on itself as gravity would be definately against you. If you want to make it as tall as you propose, it would almost have to take the shape of a pyramid/mountain type structure. But hey, cool idea. :thumbsup: \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 what would be the point? what would the building be for? A great big chocolate factory? Money, think about how many offices you can fit in that building. How many floors you could lease. The number is huge. :shock: Besides, that's why most skyscrapers are built in the first place, as tenanting buildings, ever wonder why half of them are named by their street address? no it wouldnt make sense to do that. They are usually built for one business and their offices...there arent any companies that need that much office space though. And i doubt anyone is gonna help make this plausible if the idea behind it isnt feasible. No, most every skyscraper is a tenant building. Look, you can even lease at the Sears Tower. And the World Trade Center was full of tenants. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now