BSVBD
Structural
- Jul 23, 2015
- 462
JAE said:Seems like for tall buildings they'd have to solve the long-term wood creep issue.
... PLUS ...
KENAT said:Simplistically I'd think durability related issues given the likely longevity would be one of the biggest concerns along with fire risks as briefly mentioned in the article..
...PLUS ...
cranky108 said:Just because you can, does not mean you should.
All of the above and especially cranky's statement... I see engineering and life-safety protests.
Even if such structure would get approval, the general public DOES, (on occasion) have reasonable common sense, coupled with a built-in, intellectually reasonable fear factor.
(stay with me - I'll come back)
Occupancy related: There is an approximate 100-unit condominium complex in my city of residence, targeted for the upper-middle class resident, built in the lower-middle class neighborhood, overlooking a large convenience-store-gas station with a deserted gas-station across the street. Grand-opening over ten years ago, i believe about a half-dozen units have been occupied. Could this be termed situational or circumstantial occupancy - or lack thereof? It's been in the news that the developer is not financially well-pleased.
(wrapping up)
Likewise, all things considered, if the wood skyscraper were to get built, how many people would be willing to occupy it. Would any of us? Currently... Not I!!! It would be interesting... after my predicted "failure to financially-feasibly-occupy", would another like-structure be built?
KENAT said:If you can build high performance aircraft largely out of the stuff why not buildings?
Answer: Because, unlike aircraft, in typical structural engineering, our general goal is to prevent the building from flying.
MintJulep said:Wood timber framed. Work fine, last long time.
Mint, how tall is that structure? Does it compare to the OP?
msquared48 said:I still count five wood over masonry.
I don't understand. I missed something. Please elaborate.