
Tall Buildings of the Last Fifty Years - wjSgoWPm5bWAhXB
https://ctbuh2019.com/other-info/50-influential-buildings/
======
ruytlm
CTBUH have an interesting set of skyscraper data[0] that's worth perusing, if
you are willing to register (or block certain elements..)

Also, interesting piece of trivia: the voluntary demolition of buildings
taller than 200m is unprecedented.[1][2] The first of these buildings to be
built was the Metropolitan Life Tower,[3] completed in 1909, which is still
standing today.

[0]: [https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/](https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/)

[1]: 9/11 and the destruction of the WTC towers being the implied involuntary
demolition.

[2]: [https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/praising-
squareness-...](https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/praising-squareness-
the-heritage-of-skyscrapers)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Life_Insurance_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Life_Insurance_Company_Tower)

~~~
BerislavLopac
> voluntary demolition of buildings taller than 200m is unprecedented

Any insight into why is it so?

~~~
brianwawok
Do you normally destroy things worth millions of dollars that still can do
their basic function (house offices)?

~~~
BerislavLopac
Well office buildings get torn down routinely; I would expect there to be a
separate reason why 200m+ ones are not.

~~~
pas
The higher/bigger the building, the bigger you need to replace it with, thus
it's a much bigger investment, than finding a lot with a smaller building on
it.

As a sibling post a bit up mentioned JP Morgan's 270 Park Av. building 215m
and it's getting replaced, because in this case it wasn't easier to "just find
a lot with a smaller building", which is probably very rare and rather recent
(though once there were multi-storey buildings in place of every skyscraper in
Manhattan) solution.

------
twic
> The design strategy of the Leadenhall Building centers around its lobby’s
> elevation above the ground plane, creating a

... three storey climb up the fire escape from the basement if you arrive by
bicycle!

Architects love this building, but there are too many little facepalms that
come with actually working in it.

~~~
Narretz
Shouldn't there be an elevator?

~~~
twic
The main lifts don't reach the basement because of the elevated lobby
nonsense. There is one small lift which does go down there, but it's a service
lift for the whole building, so it could be busy elsewhere when you want it.

My pass won't operate it anyway; you have to be specially authorized, and when
I asked, our office manager didn't know how to do that.

------
mirimir
> At the time of their completion [1973], the Twin Towers —the original 1
> World Trade Center, at 1,368 feet (417 m); and 2 World Trade Center, at
> 1,362 feet (415.1 m)—were the tallest buildings in the world.

It seems odd that there's no overt mention.

~~~
Symbiote
The ones listed seem to have something novel about them, like a new method of
construction or a unique design.

Was there anything like that for the WTC, or was it "just" tallest?

~~~
furgooswft13
The framed-tube structure of the original Twin Towers was pretty novel at the
time. It allowed the building to have wide open floor plans without the need
to have a grid of support beams everywhere like most other skyscrapers up
until then. It also likely would not have collapsed if built the traditional
way. Then again most modern skyscrapers are built more like the original WTC
and less like the Empire State Building, so it's not really a design flaw.

The visual design of the towers was also striking in it's minimalism, and
quite controversial too. I think people got used to them but after they were
first opened many saw them as a blight on the skyline. IMO, I prefer the old
towers to the new, not that the new one is particularly ugly or anything. They
were kinda like the Pyramids of skyscrapers; just build a shape, as big and
tall as you can. Maybe if 9/11 never happened a future civilization would have
called them "The Rectangles".

~~~
Merrill
The 208' square floorplan resulted in a slender monolith. With other
construction methods, they may have toppled, rather than collapsed within the
tube. That may have resulted in even more death and destruction.

The development of the World Trade Center destroyed "Radio Row". Possibly more
of the electronics industry would have stayed in the New York area had than
not happened. "The Death of New York's Radio Row" [https://www.qcwa.org/radio-
row.htm](https://www.qcwa.org/radio-row.htm)

~~~
furgooswft13
> The 208' square floorplan resulted in a slender monolith. With other
> construction methods, they may have toppled, rather than collapsed within
> the tube. That may have resulted in even more death and destruction.

I guess we'll never know, so I'm just theory crafting, but the structure above
impact on the South Tower did topple to a pretty extreme angle before falling
straight down:

[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3d/04/073d041d28159fc6f376...](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3d/04/073d041d28159fc6f376aae70d6eded3.jpg)

I suppose for a concrete grid structure like Empire State Building, it might
have slid off and fell to the ground without collapsing the structure below.
Not really sure if that would be any worse, or better.

The only way to get it to topple like you'd expect a tree would when chopped
down is for the airplane impact to be much lower on the structure. That would
not have been possible of course because of all the other buildings in the
way, but it was I believe the intention of the 1993 WTC bombing.

~~~
Merrill
Interesting photo, thanks. I was thinking that the top would buckle at the
point of impact and fall sideways.

Compared with the B-25 collision with the Empire State Building, the B-767s
are over 10 times heavier, were moving more than twice as fast, and the WTC
has half the cross section of the Empire State. Plus, the fuel load of the
767s is comparably greater and causes a greater fire.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash)

------
gautamcgoel
Really enjoyed this. Another interesting building is this hotel in North
Korea:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryugyong_Hotel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryugyong_Hotel)

I guess it doesn't get much attention due to its location...

~~~
PopeDotNinja
I suspect the author(s) limited the selections to completed, occupied
buildings, as that hotel is "the tallest unoccupied building in the world". If
buildings in progress were on the list, I would have also expected to see
Jedda Tower. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeddah_Tower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeddah_Tower)

------
dwd
Great to see 1 Bligh St, Sydney in the list. It's a fantastic building on the
inside with the central attrium going right to the roof.

While a lot of people seem to hate it, I actually like 1 William St in
Brisbane.

------
forgotmypw1
The cookie notice obscures the page and cannot be made to go away without JS.

~~~
ruuda
I have js disabled, and the page shows no notices and the article renders
fine.

