Panic as 300-metre-high skyscraper wobbles in China (SEG Weebles Plaza in Shenzhen)

[RollLeft 5039]

13 hours ago, Lobo said:

There’s a style of humor in surly where a poster will make a post about waiting for another poster to chime in with an off color remark about a story or photo. Invariably somebody else with chime in with the off color remark.  There is also a surly tradition of purposely misspelling words to illicit posters to read them in a stereotype accent/mispronunciation.  This is a woefully off—color site with lots of posters working blue at all hours of the day.  Not saying my post was that funny, but if I have to break down why certain kinda jokes are frequently made on surly, that defeats the purpose.  The one about the building wobbling because it was turning into a robot, although more harmless, Is also not funny if it needs three layers of explanation.  

[washparkhorn 9931]

Looks like a broomstick in a barrel problem. 

Adjust the counterbalance. 

Look for something that looks like this. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by washparkhorn

[LABEVO 928]

[Hmbre97 6297]

It turns into a giant pile of rubble and debris and dead chinamen.

[Bill Lumbergh 7168]

What I ordered from Wish:


What I received:

[atomheartbevo 89362]

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/steinway-tower-intl-scli/index.html

Quote

The world's skinniest skyscraper has been completed, adding a new landmark to Manhattan's famous skyline.  Steinway Tower, or 111 West 57th Street, has a height-to-width ratio of 24:1, making it "the most slender skyscraper in the world," according to the developers. 

At 1,428 feet, it is also one of the tallest buildings in the Western hemisphere, falling short of two others in New York City: One World Trade Center at 1,776 feet and Central Park Tower at 1,550 feet.

[staboner 4955]

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Maybe the Surly engineers can explain it better, but I'm looking at photos of it, and trying to wrap my mind behind the size (or lack thereof) combined with the height, and looking at the base of it, and it's like "how can a good windstorm not fuck with it?"

They've said it will sway up to 5 feet during storms.....there has to be some kind of massive base going deep underground to keep it anchored, etc.

 

[Blotto 23418]

This is a pretty baller view. 

[dimyh 1874]

1 hour ago, staboner said:

[My Inner Surl/] Because it's harder for the planes to hit? [/My Inner Surl]

[atomheartbevo 89362]

24 minutes ago, dimyh said:

[My Inner Surl/] Because it's harder for the planes to hit? [/My Inner Surl]

[Redneck Mutha 7923]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe the Surly engineers can explain it better, but I'm looking at photos of it, and trying to wrap my mind behind the size (or lack thereof) combined with the height, and looking at the base of it, and it's like "how can a good windstorm not fuck with it?"

They've said it will sway up to 5 feet during storms.....there has to be some kind of massive base going deep underground to keep it anchored, etc.

[elfenix 34168]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

This is a pretty baller view. 

gonna suck when someone buys that block north of it and builds a 1,429' building

[UT_OB1 2200]

39 minutes ago, dimyh said:

[My Inner Surl/] Because it's harder for the planes to hit? [/My Inner Surl]

[dcbc 14388]

Old thread, but [CSB]

Back in the 90s, I was home from school and working at a company on the top floor (25 I think) of 2-Post Oak Central in Houston.  What was described as a tornado touched down on or near 610 by the Galleria.  There was a discernible sway in the building that went on for about 30 seconds.  The poors down on 4 probably didn't even notice.

[/CSB]

[Macanudo 12922]

8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Old thread, but [CSB]

Back in the 90s, I was home from school and working at a company on the top floor (25 I think) of 2-Post Oak Central in Houston.  What was described as a tornado touched down on or near 610 by the Galleria.  There was a discernible sway in the building that went on for about 30 seconds.  The poors down on 4 probably didn't even notice.

[/CSB]

If that was around 97 or 98, I was working in the Williams Tower up on the 45th floor.   We had gone to lunch in the Galleria and were watching shit fly back and forth over the Westin sundeck skylight that covers the skating rink.   People still on the floor said that they could feel building sway and the water in the toilets was sloshing.

Fuck that.

[dcbc 14388]

4 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

If that was around 97 or 98, I was working in the Williams Tower up on the 45th floor.   We had gone to lunch in the Galleria and were watching shit fly back and forth over the Westin sundeck skylight that covers the skating rink.   People still on the floor said that they could feel building sway and the water in the toilets was sloshing.

Fuck that.

That's about right, which means I wasn't home from school, but in law school.  Pucker factor either way, but thankfully, it's not my story for the I shit My Pants thread.

Edited April 8, 2022 by dcbc

[Parliament 14112]

2 hours ago, Blotto said:

This is a pretty baller view. 

Eh.  I got tired of it.

[Deej 76511]

"Lacks girth." - South Austin's Mom

 

[choripan 790]

So I believe the point of this thread was for the OP to demonstrate the first use case ever for taking video in portrait mode on a phone. Actually makes sense for a skyscraper.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez 1669]

14 hours ago, Blotto said:

This is a pretty baller view. 

It’s even more baller when winds gust above 12 mph. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

If the tower's rockin', don't bother knockin'.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe the Surly engineers can explain it better, but I'm looking at photos of it, and trying to wrap my mind behind the size (or lack thereof) combined with the height, and looking at the base of it, and it's like "how can a good windstorm not fuck with it?"

They've said it will sway up to 5 feet during storms.....there has to be some kind of massive base going deep underground to keep it anchored, etc.

 

Massive hydraulic, damping systems in the tower counteract sway. They probably have a few floors blocked off for several of them.

[crash_davis 23078]

18 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe the Surly engineers can explain it better, but I'm looking at photos of it, and trying to wrap my mind behind the size (or lack thereof) combined with the height, and looking at the base of it, and it's like "how can a good windstorm not fuck with it?"

They've said it will sway up to 5 feet during storms.....there has to be some kind of massive base going deep underground to keep it anchored, etc.

 

NYC skyscraper architects: what if i design a skyscraper so thin that only actual pilots can hit it?

Edited April 8, 2022 by crash_davis

[Brisketexan 104465]

My old man worked in some tall downtown Houston building back in 86, when the big Mexico City quake happened.  They sure as shit felt it there -- building swayed, toilets sloshed, etc., a jillion miles away.

NOPE.

[South Austin 52037]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

My old man worked in some tall downtown Houston building back in 86, when the big Mexico City quake happened.  They sure as shit felt it there -- building swayed, toilets sloshed, etc., a jillion miles away.

Are you sure that wasn't just him coming back to work after lunch?

[crash_davis 23078]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

My old man worked in some tall downtown Houston building back in 86, when the big Mexico City quake happened.  They sure as shit felt it there -- building swayed, toilets sloshed, etc., a jillion miles away.

NOPE.

is he sure it wasn't an explosion from one of the 200 chemical plants nearby?

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Massive hydraulic, damping systems in the tower counteract sway. They probably have a few floors blocked off for several of them.

 

I'm gonna dig way back into my physics here, please correct if I'm wrong:

Damping systems don't reduce the amplitude of the sway, they just keep it from continuing to sway (resonating) when the wind gusts, or the ground shakes?

Also, basement levels below ground lower the center of mass to a height where even when the building sways with max amplitude, the COM won't extend beyond the base, and the building won't topple? For something that tall and slender, it must be one hell of a basement.

Finally, they are built to sway. Better to sway than to break, amirite?

 

We used to notice water rippling in the toilets up on the 18th (IIRC) floor of Dobie. Period of the sway was so long that you wouldn't be able to feel it, but you could see it in the toilet bowls.

[Ag with kids 581]

23 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'm gonna dig way back into my physics here, please correct if I'm wrong:

Damping systems don't reduce the amplitude of the sway, they just keep it from continuing to sway (resonating) when the wind gusts, or the ground shakes?

Also, basement levels below ground lower the center of mass to a height where even when the building sways with max amplitude, the COM won't extend beyond the base, and the building won't topple? For something that tall and slender, it must be one hell of a basement.

Finally, they are built to sway. Better to sway than to break, amirite?

 

We used to notice water rippling in the toilets up on the 18th (IIRC) floor of Dobie. Period of the sway was so long that you wouldn't be able to feel it, but you could see it in the toilet bowls.

The idea of a tuned mass damper is that it DOES reduce the amplitude of the sway.

The bottom part of the graph (m12,k2,c2) is the TMD...when it moves, it effectively dampens out the motion of the mass m1.

Here's a good video showing the principle.  The smaller orange mass vibrates at a frequency that cause the frequency of the larger mass (the structure) to damp out and stop swaying.

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Ag with kids

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

47 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'm gonna dig way back into my physics here, please correct if I'm wrong:

Damping systems don't reduce the amplitude of the sway, they just keep it from continuing to sway (resonating) when the wind gusts, or the ground shakes?

Also, basement levels below ground lower the center of mass to a height where even when the building sways with max amplitude, the COM won't extend beyond the base, and the building won't topple? For something that tall and slender, it must be one hell of a basement.

Finally, they are built to sway. Better to sway than to break, amirite?

 

We used to notice water rippling in the toilets up on the 18th (IIRC) floor of Dobie. Period of the sway was so long that you wouldn't be able to feel it, but you could see it in the toilet bowls.

The mass dampening systems counteract lateral force, wind related, sway in a high rise. 

That whole equal and opposite reaction thingy I believe.  It reduces the maximum amount of sway to keep it in the acceptable range for people.  Women are more acutely aware of building sway for some reason. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

[TexasEd 8062]

22 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe the Surly engineers can explain it better, but I'm looking at photos of it, and trying to wrap my mind behind the size (or lack thereof) combined with the height, and looking at the base of it, and it's like "how can a good windstorm not fuck with it?"

They've said it will sway up to 5 feet during storms.....there has to be some kind of massive base going deep underground to keep it anchored, etc.

 

 

21 hours ago, elfenix said:

gonna suck when someone buys that block north of it and builds a 1,429' building

 

7 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Massive hydraulic, damping systems in the tower counteract sway. They probably have a few floors blocked off for several of them.

PBS had a series on it called Skinny Skyscraper.  It was pretty interesting.  They built it into behind an Historic building so they had to go under that building (I think it was a Steinway museum or something) and anchor it in that building's foundation.  The foundation concrete pour was a very choreographed event.

They left a few floors as pass-throughs for wind.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

53 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

 

PBS had a series on it called Skinny Skyscraper.  It was pretty interesting.  They built it into behind an Historic building so they had to go under that building (I think it was a Steinway museum or something) and anchor it in that building's foundation.  The foundation concrete pour was a very choreographed event.

They left a few floors as pass-throughs for wind.  

Oh yeah, I remember seeing that one. The footprint, and prep was incredibly tedious because of the sliver of a building footprint.  

They had a blow out of a form or concrete feed tube.  You gotta have your balls screwed on tight to run that job as a superintendent.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

24 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh yeah, I remember seeing that one. The footprint, and prep was incredibly tedious because of the sliver of a building footprint.  

They had a blow out of a form or concrete feed tube.  You gotta have your balls screwed on tight to run that job as a superintendent.

If that thing had been poorly designed and fell during a storm, I can't imagine how many people it would kill in surrounding buildings, and what it would take out.  I'm guessing the legal battles with the insurance companies would be legendary.

[TexasEd 8062]

28 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If that thing had been poorly designed and fell during a storm, I can't imagine how many people it would kill in surrounding buildings, and what it would take out.  I'm guessing the legal battles with the insurance companies would be legendary.

Rig it to fall towards the park like a lumberjack notching a tree

 

[Deej 76511]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

My old man worked in some tall downtown Houston building back in 86, when the big Mexico City quake happened.  They sure as shit felt it there -- building swayed, toilets sloshed, etc., a jillion miles away.

NOPE.

Nothing worse than sitting on a public toilet when it starts to slosh.

[Fudge Nuggets 19118]

I knew a guy that was one of the main cement contractors for the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I’m surprised they’re still standing. 

[HRSchenker 2257]

Residence 69 is available

https://111w57.com/content/uploads/2020/04/Residence_69_111W57_2022.pdf

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19074]

Penthouse 72 is available for 66M.

https://streeteasy.com/building/111-west-57-street-new_york/ph72?context[controller]=%23<BuildingController%3A0x0000555bb49130d8>&context[current_user]=&hide_if_empty=true&section=sales&separate_sponsors=true

[C-Man 26992]

42 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Penthouse 72 is available for 66M.

https://streeteasy.com/building/111-west-57-street-new_york/ph72?context[controller]=%23<BuildingController%3A0x0000555bb49130d8>&context[current_user]=&hide_if_empty=true&section=sales&separate_sponsors=true

Estimated monthly nut is $308,335

[NeverMarryAStripper 21780]

It’s nice to know that for $66 million a dishwasher and washer and and dryer in unit are included as amenities

[HornOnTheBayou 8877]

17 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

It’s nice to know that for $66 million a dishwasher and washer and and dryer in unit are included as amenities

It is a nice amenity. However, it looks like cable and utilities are not included in the price and that's a deal-breaker for me. 

[Trey3216 15325]

3 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

It is a nice amenity. However, it looks like cable and utilities are not included in the price and that's a deal-breaker for me. 

and because of that...

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

thanks to @Ag with kids and @Onboard 2.0 for the engineering lesson.

 

Anyway, I heard a story on the radio where a reporter pretended to be an interested buyer in one of those multi million dollar apartments in manhattan. As the various real estate agents were showing her around a handful of different apts in different buildings, she realized that the buildings seemed practically empty. She asked about it, and the agents said that practically all the owners don't live there, and rarely, if ever, even stay a night. The apts are basically a way for uber rich people, including a lot of foreigners, to park money in the US.

 

So we have thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) of empty apartments sitting unused in a city where finding an affordable apt is impossible. And more sky scrapers being built that will end up being nothing more than a collection of savings bonds for billionaires. 

 

Something ain't right.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

43 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

thanks to @Ag with kids and @Onboard 2.0 for the engineering lesson.

 

Anyway, I heard a story on the radio where a reporter pretended to be an interested buyer in one of those multi million dollar apartments in manhattan. As the various real estate agents were showing her around a handful of different apts in different buildings, she realized that the buildings seemed practically empty. She asked about it, and the agents said that practically all the owners don't live there, and rarely, if ever, even stay a night. The apts are basically a way for uber rich people, including a lot of foreigners, to park money in the US.

 

So we have thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) of empty apartments sitting unused in a city where finding an affordable apt is impossible. And more sky scrapers being built that will end up being nothing more than a collection of savings bonds for billionaires. 

 

Something ain't right.

 

Yep, speculating on residential real estate shouldn't be going on. It's pricing people out of home ownership artificially. Seems like unless you personally don't live in the domicile you shouldn't be able to make more than a token profit from the sale.

[Ag with kids 581]

26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, speculating on residential real estate shouldn't be going on. It's pricing people out of home ownership artificially. Seems like unless you personally don't live in the domicile you shouldn't be able to make more than a token profit from the sale.

This could be ripe for HUGE abuse.

Buy for $300K...don't live there.  Market price goes up to $500K.  Restricted to 10% profit, you sell for $330K.  I buy for $330K, live there for required period then sell for $500K and make a $170K profit even though the market price didn't increase AND I needed $170K less for investment.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

31 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

This could be ripe for HUGE abuse.

Buy for $300K...don't live there.  Market price goes up to $500K.  Restricted to 10% profit, you sell for $330K.  I buy for $330K, live there for required period then sell for $500K and make a $170K profit even though the market price didn't increase AND I needed $170K less for investment.

Sure there's always an angle.  Housing costs should have some kind of formula tied to the cost of living, wages, and how they rise, and fall as an at least regional  average.  

Of course it's above my pay grade to figure out a way it could work, but the same kind of smart  people who could figure out how to scam it could figure out how to make is more scam proof.  And should housing maybe not be tied to market value ? I'd say there are other indicators prices could be tied to.. maybe ?

[Ag with kids 581]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sure there's always an angle.  Housing costs should have some kind of formula tied to the cost of living, wages, and how they rise, and fall as an at least regional  average.  

Of course it's above my pay grade to figure out a way it could work, but the same kind of smart  people who could figure out how to scam it could figure out how to make is more scam proof.  And should housing maybe not be tied to market value ? I'd say there are other indicators prices could be tied to.. maybe ?

I think this is a subject that could go CR REALLY quickly...

But...not trying to do that, basically what you're proposing is some kind of price controls on housing, which opens up a huge can of worms that WILL go CR if the discussion gets too much into them.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Ag with kids

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

I think the aggy is right (what are 6 words I never thought I'd type?). Too CRish, I withdraw the post.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I think this is a subject that could go CR REALLY quickly...

But...not trying to do that, basically what you're proposing is some kind of price controls on housing, which opens up a huge can of worms that WILL go CR if the discussion gets too much into them.

Yeah, but it shouldn't but money always ends to politics in someway.  I know, and I'm not a fan of price controls typically.  First time, potential home buyers are being priced out of just but every market.  Seems like that needs to be addressed somehow.

[Parliament 14112]

Oh I thing it'll be "addressed" by the impending crash.