or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata - Page 120

post #1786 of 4031
No, what?
post #1787 of 4031
No to everything you just said. Structure is used to resist dead loads (mass) and live loads (people/wind/snow,etc.) . In a concrete structured high rise, the dead load of those levels vastly supersedes the live load, so the use of the buildings by either people or file cabinets or machinery is almost inconsequential. The live load requirements will really only change the structural design of a concrete building in the most extreme cases, such as a research library with 9 foot tall stacks of books spaced three feet off center.Real estate prices correlate to square footage, but there is considerably more to appeal, hence the reason design choices are made. They're not arbitrary, particularly in common residential towers that are often designed en mass for efficiency . You're almost always going to see a taller residential buildings use curtain facades with columns close to the facade. In the case of a structural facade for a taller building, it's usually on account of a strange site plan. When you see structural walls in 2-3 story buildings, it's usually because it's cheaper to frame with light gauge steel rather than a glass curtain facade and interior columns, but you can't use light gauge steel after more than a few storeys. When those those shorter buildings use structural walls from steel framing, they're usually clad with cheap shit, or else they would have gone for a glass curtain wall in the first place, because there's little reason to go cheap on framing and clad it in something more expensive because all things considered, the structural walls will reduce that natural light and negatively affect the real estate value.
post #1788 of 4031
The building I'm bang on about was/is made from prefab'ed concrete elements with yellow brick facades and is 5 floors, so we are not talking about a 40 story building here.

I have a feeling danish building codes are very different to american, as we don't metal clad buildings etc.

Regarding lofts/industrial buildings most of them are large open spaces, without load bearing walls, which is why they use pillars, a normal housing developments has load bearing walls and should therefor not need the pillars.
post #1789 of 4031
Finn, there is no mention of how tall Akatsuki's building is, which is the other building we were originally talking about in regard to the columns.
post #1790 of 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

Finn, there is no mention of how tall Akatsuki's building is, which is the other building we were originally talking about in regard to the columns.

I know.
post #1791 of 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post


Regarding lofts/industrial buildings most of them are large open spaces, without load bearing walls, which is why they use pillars, a normal housing developments has load bearing walls and should therefor not need the pillars.

They would not be using load-bearing brick construction in a five story condo in Denmark. The cost of labor would be astronomical relative to the real estate value. They're using concrete structural members with either pre-fabricated brick facade panels or non load-bearing facing bricks, both of which necessitate columns. If you had pictures of the exterior you could tell which one was used based on the geometry of the joints. If the walls were truly load bearing, they'd have built one story at a time. It's more likely they built the entire structure and then clad it, which reduces construction time significantly because they can outfit the interior HVAC while they construct the facade. When you build masonry one storey at a time, you've got to bring back those laborers each week to pick up their work again.



post #1792 of 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post

They would not be using load-bearing brick construction in a five story condo in Denmark. The cost of labor would be astronomical relative to the real estate value. They're using concrete structural members with either pre-fabricated brick facade panels or non load-bearing facing bricks, both of which necessitate columns. If you had pictures of the exterior you could tell which one was used based on the geometry of the joints. If the walls were truly load bearing, they'd have built one story at a time. It's more likely they built the entire structure and then clad it, which reduces construction time significantly because they can outfit the interior HVAC while they construct the facade. When you build masonry one storey at a time, you've got to bring back those laborers each week to pick up their work again.


I'm well aware of that, which is why I wrote facade, you misunderstood what I said, a normal apartment has internal load bearing walls, which takes some of the load of the exterior walls and pillars/columns in the middle of the room, are therefor not needed.

Like this.
post #1793 of 4031
Please stop. You are just completely wrong. Columns do not just show up in buildings for no reason. These middle market residential buildings are always structurally efficient because the developers who build them are penny-pinchers by nature and the architects who design them use very well established templates. Ugly and economical. That's what they do. If they didn't need to put a column there, they wouldn't. But to do that, you're talking about reinforcing a concrete slab for a cantilever of 12-16 feet multiplied times four storeys, which significantly increases the thickness of the slab and joists in the design, which is grossly inefficient and just stupid. Depending on the amount of steel they reinforced the slabs with, it's quite possible that eliminating those columns might triple the thickness of the floor design, which are also heavily stressed by the brick facade panels, which aren't exactly light. You could only really get away with a cantilever like that with steel. Concrete is far too weak in tension. You also don't want to use load-bearing interior walls to support a facade for two reasons: 1) because the irregular placement of interior partitions creates some really troublesome stresses throughout the floor slabs, which increases likelihood of damage (a structure is designed with a strength to accommodate its weakest point), and 2) because it's a waste of concrete in the interior walls. You need to start reconciling with that column, because it's doing its job.
post #1794 of 4031
My building is ~35 stories or so.
post #1795 of 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki View Post

My building is ~35 stories or so.

I get that they are needed in a building like that, although it doesn't change that I think they look like shit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Please stop. You are just completely wrong. Columns do not just show up in buildings for no reason. These middle market residential buildings are always structurally efficient because the developers who build them are penny-pinchers by nature and the architects who design them use very well established templates. Ugly and economical. That's what they do. If they didn't need to put a column there, they wouldn't. But to do that, you're talking about reinforcing a concrete slab for a cantilever of 12-16 feet multiplied times four storeys, which significantly increases the thickness of the slab and joists in the design, which is grossly inefficient and just stupid. Depending on the amount of steel they reinforced the slabs with, it's quite possible that eliminating those columns might triple the thickness of the floor design, which are also heavily stressed by the brick facade panels, which aren't exactly light. You could only really get away with a cantilever like that with steel. Concrete is far too weak in tension. You also don't want to use load-bearing interior walls to support a facade for two reasons: 1) because the irregular placement of interior partitions creates some really troublesome stresses throughout the floor slabs, which increases likelihood of damage (a structure is designed with a strength to accommodate its weakest point), and 2) because it's a waste of concrete in the interior walls. You need to start reconciling with that column, because it's doing its job.

I think we are talking past each other, so lets leave it here or move it to the arch thread.

Back I go to my blueprints I go. smile.gif
post #1796 of 4031
What are the best methods of getting designer furniture on sale? I am looking to get a Platner chair, but don't wanna pay full retail and would be willing to buy used. Are there any venues for buying second hand design furniture online other than the usual suspects (eBay, Craigslist)?
post #1797 of 4031
Platner is manufactured by Knoll, they run a sale twice a year. I personally wont buy used unless it's a vintage piece that is no longer in production since I feel the pitfalls often outweigh the upfront cost advantage.

Some of the pitfalls being the origin, which is sometimes questionable on the more notable pieces and the cost of refinishing and/or upholstering.
post #1798 of 4031
Can anyone recommend a poverty alternative to a Fritz Hansen PK31?

post #1799 of 4031
Why, are you building an airport on the cheap?
post #1800 of 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

Why, are you building an airport on the cheap?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata