Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations The Obturator on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Taipei 101 9

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lutfi

Structural
Oct 20, 2002
1,035
All,

I read the news about the tallest building in the world, of course that is Taipei 101. The following is the link to the news article in Yahoo.


I am excited for the Taiwanese people and at same time I am full with envy since we are not the leaders of skyscrapers in America! These buildings were an American invention and were our signature for many years. I recall the words and advise of my structures professor, Go for the record if you can!

I hold hope for the WTC replacements to fill this void.

I like to hear my colleague's thoughts and opinions on why we are lacking in this arena. Why aren’t we going for the records? I think projects like that polish and elevate National Pride. We are definitely are not short of building designers, engineers and money. What is going on?

I like to hear from everyone.

Happy New Year to All.

Regards,



Lutfi
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

The WTC replacement is supposed to be a symbolic 1776 feet tall, which would beat the 101, but won't hold a candle to an 800-m project coming up in Dubai--worlds beyond everything else. That'll even knock the CN Tower off its pedestal, which makes me a little sad.

Hg
 
Lutfi
I often read your informative posts.
As you can see I am not of your discipline so speaking upon your post is only my opinion. I have no expertise in your field but have broad interests.
Why should we enter into a competition of we’re higher therefore we’re better. Let me say outright that I believe we, here in America can and often do create (read that “engineer”) the best buildings, equipment, instrumentation and etc in the world. We set the mark. It’s pretty easy for others to reverse engineer something then add on something. Who taught those engineers the basics in the first place? Most if not all went to school here in the USA.
In light of the World Trade Center devastation, I believe that some day, if not now. These tall towers no matter where they might be are viewed as targets by terrorists. These huge buildings take years to build; it only takes minutes for them to fall as we have all witnessed. We here in America still have vast quantities of land to develop and do not really need to go vertical. The countries you mention have zero land and must build upward. I say let them. Good for them.
From a philosophical point, I’d rather keep a low building profile.

IMO

Beast Regards For The New Year

pennpoint

 
Maybe the USA was more involved the structural engineering of Taipei 101 than meets the eye. Here is a link on some of the building statistics

Two structural engineers listed-
1. Evergreen Consulting Engineering, Taipei
2. Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers, Chicago Office

Clicking on the company links on the above page, Evergreen has work on two (2) buildings of this caliber, Thornton-Tomasetti has over fifty (50). Wonder who provided most of the "engineering know-how"?

As an aside, I had the opportunity to work on a difficult project one-on-one with Mr. Richard Tomasetti in 1991 - but that is another story.
 
I think it's the height of arrogance to say that America is the only land capable of great things, that others only copy and that American engineers are the only qualified ones in the world. Just my rant for this afternooon.
 
penpoint,

The USA sure has produced many excellent engineers, but it's a bit rich to paint the rest of the world's engineers as some sort of second-rate immitation.

Engineers from all sorts of counties have made wonderful engineering achievements, only a few of which are:
- Viduc de Millau, France
- Central International Airport, Japan
- Chunnel, UK and France
- Three Gorges Dam, China
- North-West Shelf Development, Australia
- Strait of Messina Bridge Project, Italy

dbuzz

 
I have traveled to many counties and have seen first hand the engineering marvels that were designed and built by other countries ancient and new. The intent is not to debate that America is the only country that can design and build.

Dbuzz named a few of such modern day marvels. I lived and visited some of the most marvelous and ancient structure that contemporary engineers, including your truly, have no clue how they were built. We can only theorize! The Great Pyramids of Egypt, the ancient Roman Cities, amphitheaters and highways that still stand today in many location, hidden city of Petra, Great wall of China, the Mayan Pyramids and the towers of Babylon to name a few.

My intent however, is that America and most of the world for that fact is not investing in monumental structures like they used to. It just seems to me that engineers and architects everywhere are not being commissioned to design such marvels frequently enough.


Lutfi
 
Of course for some countries there is also the concern of terrorist attacks on such large structures if they are to be occupied by people.
To some extent, the larger you build it the larger of a target it becomes.
 
Dbuzz,

Are they going ahead with the Messina Straits project? They have been talking about it a long time. Tourism industry in Italy will continue to predominate, and the Straits bridge will be a strong magnet.

I crossed on the straits ferry many years ago in the company of rail cars. It was strange having rail and auto passengers staring at each other.

The Straits are not more distant than the Michigan Mackinac Bridge project completed in 1957. The straits project is overdue.
 
It isn't the design community that is defecient in planning the mega projects, the technology exists. The mega-projects only get commissioned, designed and built when there is an economic need. Like it or not, it is the developers and accountants that decide what projects get built. When times get better or, like during the depression of the 30's, when during an economic crisis, the mega-project will come back.

I think the main advantage that the US has is that it's economy is so large and so diverse that it can foster more mega-projects over a longer time than many other countries. The engineers get more work, not necessarily because they are better, but because there is just more work.

That's my two cents. I hope you all thrive in '05!
 
In other words, someone has to pay for the Nth wonder of the modern world, and someone else has to buy or rent the real estate therein.

Hg
 
IFRs and Dbuzz - I think you have over-reacted a bit - Lutfi did NOT say that the USA has the best engineers, he did NOT say that the rest of the world's engineers are second rate, he did NOT say that America is the only land capable of great engineering feats.

Please re-read (carefully) his post and you will see that he was only lamenting that the USA no longer achieves these high tower records....this is IN FACT - a compliment to the "other" engineers out there.
 
JAE - you are quite correct - I did not mean to suggest that Lutfi's post deserved my reaction. I was however commenting on penpoint's post, which if you read again you may find it merits a response such as mine.
 
Dbuzz, IFRs, JAE
Sorry if it appears to you that I was painting with a broad brush that was not my intent. My post does suffer in its brevity.
My opinion remains; I do not think American engineers should get into this frame of mind.

Quoting Lutfi :

“I am excited for the Taiwanese people and at same time I am full with envy since we are not the leaders of skyscrapers in America! These buildings were an American invention and were our signature for many years. I recall the words and advise of my structures professor, Go for the record if you can!”

My narrative on foreign engineers was meant as a historical observation. We taught them they taught others and they build them bigger, higher etc. It was not my intent to infer that American engineers are better than foriegn engineers.
I was also attempting pointing out its far better to build the tallest building out of need (conservation of space) rather than out of competitive spirit.

If you feel this post or my previous post is inappropriate please feel free to red flag it.

Best Regards

pennpoint (with three n’s)[peace]



 
All,

Thanks for the responses. I think JAE read my mind right, at least what my intent was. I did not intend to invoke superior and inferior engineers. That is not my goal.

I have the most respect for all engineers worldwide. Any one who goes through engineering school and graduates earns my respect. We (engineers) are special breed and have an awesome responsibility on our shoulders. We consistently deliver projects that materialize under pressure, extreme demand for life safety and budgets. I also think we are not held in the stature that we deserve.

I also see some valuable input from my colleagues. That is good and that was the intent of my post. I tend to be a loud thinker, sometimes. I am most assuredly did not intend to offend any one, especially fellow engineers.

Regards to all


Lutfi
 
I've noticed here lately that several US professional sports teams have moved to better stadiums in smaller cities. It seems that the larger cities are more complacent about things, and don't care to invest as heavily in things like stadiums. It is the "up and coming" cities, out to make a name for themselves, that will pay for the stadiums to attract the teams.

It seems to me a similar attitude in regard to these buildings. Wasn't the Eiffel Tower for years the tallest structure around? But having once proved they could do it, the French didn't choose to keep building taller and taller towers. And then there was the Ulm cathedral long before that. Then for maybe 50 or 75 years, the US was the leader in building tall buildings, and now other nations have taken the lead. More power to them, but I sure don't feel like we should somehow feel obligated to have the "world's highest building" just for the sake of holding the record.
 
I know that right after 9/11 there was a bit of conversation in the architectural discipline about the need for and future of high-rise towers.

I don't believe that there was any consensus...in fact, I don't believe that any consensus would even be possible or preferable, but the concept of high-rise "skyscrapers" has always been driven by a combination of limited city space (land), the need to keep worker-bees located in close proximity to headquarters and city centers, available money, and just plain ego.

All four of these drivers still exist to an extent, with the need to keep the bees humming close to home a fading reality due to our cyberspace world.

I think the limited land situation, the money and the egos still exist everywhere - but the land availability may be less in non-US countries - but I'm not an expert here so I can't state this forcefully.
 
I might have been offended by Pennpoint's post as I am from one of those (so called) developing countries. But in any case, that may not be the reason for redflagging the post, if I do at all.

Reverse engineering a building is puzzling me. Perhaps this term is only appropriate in Language/Grammar Skills forum(PS: I wantedly omitted the term Engineering from that forum name)[wink]

I wish us all A Happy and Prosperous New Year
 
quark, et al.
That statement you refer to means less to me now than when I wrote the post. If I could edit the post, I would take that part out.
I shall try in any future posts to be more concise.
It was not my intent and I apologize if I offended anyone.

Best Wishes for The New Year

pennpoint



 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor