The news has been abuzz the past couple of weeks with news of rotating towers, which will magically extract lots of energy from the wind, and with this abundance of energy, will be able to rotate their individual floors to face any aspect. There are some nice 3D rendered architects drawing on the internet at the moment, which seem to have captured everyone’s imagination. It's a lovely concept in the 3D playground of the conceptual architect, and whilst I can see that the idea might take off in a virtual world such as second life...I'm not sold on the idea.
There are a number of reasons. Gazing into my green ball, I think that the engineering challenge is... not insurmountable - but impractical.
I. I've had the pleasure to visit a few different countries in
II. Consider all the unexpected harmonics that will be set up in the central core, by a combination of rotating floors and wind turbines rotating. The Millenium Bridge in
III. Car lifts... The architect of one of these towers, envisages lifts in the central spine of the building, which you can drive your car into be whisked up to your respective floor, where you can park you car and get out onto your rotating room. This is a dumb idea for a number of reasons. I've been living in a block of flats with a car park out back with a pair of car lifts that move cars between two floors. Whilst it looks hi-tech, I am pleased that I have a ground floor parking space. I've had to call the fire brigade to get people out.
IV. The wind turbines. Sandwiched between two floors (which in themselves will likely induce turbulence?) how much wind energy are these turbines really likely to capture? Presumably in order to flow the wind needs to strike the building perfectly perpendicularly - the turbulence created by the adjacent floors - I am sure will disrupt any hint of laminar airflow.
It's a pretty idea, and I'm certainly not a luddite that dislikes big thinking, but what I do object to is fundamentally unsustainable ideas being jazzed up with a bit of EcoGeekery and palmed off on the open-jawed public who look on with wonder as sustainably sound.
There are some wider questions that we need to be asking in relation to tall buildings, and a bit of green window dressing doesn't go far enough to achieve the radical change required.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by d, July 08, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Todd, July 08, 2008
Good point about the laminar vs turbulent flow. The edged floor to 'wind tunnel' transition would definitely not promote laminar flow characteristics.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ken Roberts, July 08, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kyle, July 08, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bryn, July 08, 2008
re: the noisy rotation, I've been in the rotating restaurant at LAX airport, and a restaurant in Boston on top of hotel, neither of which did I notice noise from rotation (they rotate slowly)
re: tacoma narrows, from my memory, what caused the bridge to collapse was resonance developed from the wind so even more reason there might be resonance in this building (I can't imagine there'd ever be enough people walking around in it, like you have on the millenium bridge)
All that being said, I think it's a cool idea! If I had a bazillion dollars, I'd want to have my floor rotate. However, the energy used for that could used for powering the apartment sustainably.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Varek, July 08, 2008
Radical ideas are great to get people interested but there are many, many more mundane technologies that would be very effective if we were to put them to use -today-.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Clinch, July 08, 2008
1-This is not being built in Soviet Russia, the technology being used more advanced (because it's more modern, and have more money), but if there is still noise, they can simply get past that problem with noise insulation.
2-Unlike the bridge, the tower isn't built to resonate, it is built to absorb energy, so this shouldn't be a problem.
3-They are going to be using a lot more expensive (and therefore presumably reliable) car lifts than the ones they have in your block of flats
4-The tower seems to act like a VAWT, so wind can hit it from any direction. Even if the wind hits non-perpendicular to the building, it will still cause a slight pressure differential between the two sides of the building, so the air will just flow through it (i.e. through the turbines).
And I also think that the floors will not be constantly rotating, so most of the time, all of the wind will be going only to powering the turbines.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ethan, July 08, 2008
Even if it works, think about 20 years down the line when the parts start failing through age and wear. Who wants an apartment that can "break"?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Chriswaterguy, July 08, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bird, July 09, 2008
All over the world the building design community is breaking barriers of what is practical, that's the whole point of progressive architecture and engineering.
Your comments on the structural integrity being compromised due to ‘wind turbulence’ or ‘unexpected harmonics’ are nonsense and you compound your ridiculous argument by citing the Tacoma Narrows, a bridge built 58 years ago! Do you really think engineering has not changed for over 50 years?
Practically speaking, it is impractical to think that a progressive, functional building is going to fully cover all eco aspects out of the gate. This building is a stepping-stone that will be analysed and assessed and the lessons learnt will be used for future developments.
I have no doubt that this building will be built and will probably not reach the expectations of this forum. However, it will probably be a success in terms of architecture and engineering.
And Julia, plumbing would be fairly straightforward with the use of a central riser.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JUL 08
""less is more" Think like an artist! :)..."
View all Comments