Forums

ArchSociety :: Forum :: Design Process :: Bubble of Ideas..
 
« Previous topic | Next topic »
what are the dominant features in designing a highrise in tropics?
Moderator(s): Array, Array, Array, Array, Array, Array
Author Post
morsalin
Mon Jul 30 2007, 12:31pm Print
Registered Member #622 Joined: Mon Jun 18 2007, 05:25pm
: Dhaka
Posts: 13
what are the dominant features in designing a highrise in tropics?
what are the major issues in designing a highrise?
what are the good examples?
if anyone has any idea plz reply
Back to top
NEO
Wed Aug 01 2007, 05:50am
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
In contemporary thoughts designing high-rise is discouraged. The major issues are energy efficiency and sustainability. High-rise kills energy at a very high rate. We should avoid making high-rises.

Anyway, in studio projects you should consider basically these issues:
1. Try to make it energy efficient. How? Avoid unnecessary overwhelming structural elements, specially steel structure. Make the building with proper orientation to the sun and measure proper shading to reduce the electricity load of AC.
------
Oh I'm in a hurry... writing more later...
By the way a total presentation sheet of a report on high-rise is published in the download section. Please check in 'ArchSociety Publications', that report will come to a great help for you, I'm sure.
Back to top
moutushi
Wed Aug 01 2007, 08:43pm
Registered Member #493 Joined: Wed Feb 28 2007, 06:45pm
: Dhaka
Posts: 6
thanks neo......thats a nice report
Back to top
morsalin
Wed Aug 01 2007, 10:13pm
Registered Member #622 Joined: Mon Jun 18 2007, 05:25pm
: Dhaka
Posts: 13
thank u boss
Back to top
nirghum
Fri Aug 03 2007, 03:12pm
Registered Member #26 Joined: Mon Nov 28 2005, 05:52pm
: bits N bites
Posts: 503
can any one teach me a little about the phrase tropics. piramids were high rise. they are wonder. its not that flat high rise is not good. its good with its purpose. grave yard. make high rise grave yards. or make high rise of garden vegetable, fruites garde. not only corporate offices. Edited Fri Aug 03 2007, 03:13pm
Back to top
NEO
Fri Aug 03 2007, 08:33pm
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
Here 'Tropics' means the areas near 23.5' degree north or south latitude, the tropical belts of the earth. South Asian Tropical climate has some special significance like rainy monsoon, hot and heavily humid summer, short dry winter, and major wind flow in north-south direction, hot sunlight from south and specially west. These are the basic gross things to climatic considerations during architectural design in this region.

 In progressive architecture high-rise always deemed as a manifestation of overwhelming capitalism. Often high-rises are built just to show-off the economic progress of a country or region; high rises are often becoming the matter of prestige of a city or country. In my opinion why to spend this much money and energy for just showing off?
No, high-rise buildings are not a necessity. It is merely a manifestation of overwhelming ego and economy. Because in many times master architects and researchers have proved that after proper urban planning no city will be needing any high-rise building at all to achieve a certain population density. Charles Correa explained how only low rise building with proper planning can accommodate all the contemporary needs of a city in his 'The New Landscape' book (search in ArchSociety for the download link of this book or selected articles).

Air conditioning is an obligatory requirement of high-rise buildings. After a certain height air velocity increases up to intolerable level and after more height the amount of oxygen decreases significantly, that's why central-air-conditioning becomes mandatory in high-rise buildings. The energy consumption becomes extreme for this air-conditioning and other mechanical elements of tall buildings.

Many architects tried to avoid air conditioning and tried to implement natural ventilation systems in tall buildings, but still there's no good example standing on the ground of this kind. Kenneth Yeang (Malaysia) experimented a lot in this issue, the eco-friendliness of tall buildings. However, go through his books... how much of his so-called amazing concepts and innovations are at work? Only one or two of his built projects really show the presence of his so-called eco-friendly dialogues in tall buildings. Rests of his conceptual projects are still in the paper only as glamorous ideas. Anyway those were good try. I attended one of his seminars, read some recent interviews and seminar papers, he speaks the same thing everywhere 'we should design eco-friendly high-rises' but he never explain the technical details to achieve it. He shows trees in his drawings at gardens situated more 250' high from the ground, how comes? How the trees will survive in that height with tremendous air velocity and in lack of oxygen? So it better not to try even to make a high-rise eco-friendly. We should rather be keener on to planning of a city and should stop showing-off attitude of capitalism, so that the so-called necessity of high-rise disappears. Edited Fri Aug 03 2007, 08:41pm
Back to top
tessellar
Tue Aug 14 2007, 07:45am
Registered Member #693 Joined: Wed Jul 25 2007, 03:44am
: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 9
[quote] In progressive architecture high-rise always deemed as a manifestation of overwhelming capitalism. Often high-rises are built just to show-off the economic progress of a country or region; high rises are often becoming the matter of prestige of a city or country. In my opinion why to spend this much money and energy for just showing off?
No, high-rise buildings are not a necessity. It is merely a manifestation of overwhelming ego and economy. [/quote1187076826]

Don't heap too much blame on capitalism: the high-rise is often built against the strictly capitalist aims of just making money.

“….it is interesting to note that the completion of tall buildings almost always marks the top of the business cycle.

For example, the Empire State Building was completed in New York in 1929 just in time for the Wall Street Crash, and remained half-empty for a decade. Indeed, it was known as the Empty State Building for much of the 1930s.

Similarly, London's Post Office Tower 1966 (UK devaluation crisis); London's NatWest Tower 1974 (worst post-war stock market crash); World Trade Centre in New York 1974 (same stock market crash); Canada Tower in Canary Wharf 1990 (worst post-war UK recession); and even (Malaysia’s) Petronas Towers (1998 Asian crisis).

The message is simple. Tall buildings are conceived in booms, take some time to build and are completed just as the market tops out.
…… in the case of Dubai and Shanghai the announcement of plans to build the world's tallest building can be seen as a warning sign that a boom is happening that will not last forever.”

Source: http://www.ameinfo.com/16416.html
[/html]
Back to top
etipuf
Mon Aug 20 2007, 08:10am
Registered Member #430 Joined: Sat Jan 06 2007, 09:30pm
: istanbul
Posts: 101
odd, i dont see how you can be so sure of these neo
high rise is not necessarily inefficient or a manifestation of capitalism or whatever, it is the architects duty to use this technology well
a very simple example would be le corbusiers idea of providing space on ground by growing vertically, and in some parts of the world, it really is necessary. actually as long as i know it should be necessary in bangladesh too, i mean, your country is extremely densely populated too.
what the human ego does and what is worse than high rise is the american suburbs: everyone wants a pretty house and a garden of his own, everyone wants to occupy more of the earth than he needs to, they want larger properties to show off and every couple of hundred meter squares each house occupies is reduced from the agricultural land of the country or common recreational space. you cant keep agriculture on land once you build on it. this way the world is running out of resources
the problem i see in high rise is the psychological effect of living so far away from earth. it is especially not appropriate for families with children since children should have easier access to the ground and the outdoors to grow healthily. it would have been great if everyone could live in nice cottages in peace with nature and earth, but there are too many people on earth for that, so some have to sacrifice. especially people who dont spend much time home like working singles could choose to live in high rise, and offices and such buildings that dont use the outdoors as much could be high rise to let more of nature stay on ground.
as for efficiency check this out, it is interesting
http://www.dynamicarchitecture.net/
Back to top

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System