Wait wait wait WAIT. I said skyscrapers can and ARE built out of wood. And your response was to IMMEDIATELY move the goal posts to bUt ThEy’Re nOT tHe TaLLeSt.
To that I say, not yet.
Taller “plyscapers” are being built. Oakwood Timber Tower is currently under development in London and will be 300m tall when it’s completed. A proposed 350m tall project is being designed for Tokyo. Just because something isn’t what we are used to doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try new and innovative things. Trees literally grow wood solely for the purpose of growing UP. They aren’t limited in size because the wood isn’t great at getting big, but because pushing water to the top gets harder and harder. Skyscrapers don’t have that issue. Why would a material that literally evolved to grow tall be a bad for building tall buildings. Concrete is fragile, heavy, and slow to dry, but we still make it work. Saying we can’t make skyscrapers out of wood is both factually untrue and unimaginative. Saying: “we’ve never done it this way and I refuse to consider any alternatives” is how we end up with stagnant outdated dull as dirt infrastructure.
I guess the Mjøstårnet isn’t a skyscraper.
Nor is Ascent MKE.
I’d rather live in a world where we try new things and architecture evolves and FACTS ARE FACTS.
I apologize for pointing out wooden skyscrapers exist, are being built, AND ARE REALLY FUCKING COOL.
Again, those 2 are smaller than half the size of the random steel skyscraper I’m comparing it against. I could make a 1m tall sandcastle and claim sand is great at building castles. IDK if skyscraper has a formal definition, but I think you’re missing the point.
Something being cool does not make it objectively better. Of course, we don’t have to do everything the same way. Maybe the builders of the buildings had unique constraints that made wood better than steel in their case. Or maybe they did so for artistic reasons, which they deemed worth the cost or not using steel. Or maybe they just put an arbitrary constraint of themselves of “we must use wood because we want to”.
Tall buildings made out of wood existing does not mean that it is a good default choice for building skyscrapers.
Sure, you claim that there are actual skyscrapers planned/being developed. But I wonder what sacrifices, if any, they had to make.
Maybe we have been using steel all this time because nobody ever thought of wood. But I find that unlikely.
I searched for “tallest wooden building” there actually is a list in wikipedia of the tallest buildings.
The tallest of the list is not even a building, it’s a radio tower. At ~110m.
The closest city to me that has a skyscraper has a single skyscraper, and it is >150m tall.
I would not build a skyscraper out of wood.
Wait wait wait WAIT. I said skyscrapers can and ARE built out of wood. And your response was to IMMEDIATELY move the goal posts to bUt ThEy’Re nOT tHe TaLLeSt.
To that I say, not yet.
Taller “plyscapers” are being built. Oakwood Timber Tower is currently under development in London and will be 300m tall when it’s completed. A proposed 350m tall project is being designed for Tokyo. Just because something isn’t what we are used to doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try new and innovative things. Trees literally grow wood solely for the purpose of growing UP. They aren’t limited in size because the wood isn’t great at getting big, but because pushing water to the top gets harder and harder. Skyscrapers don’t have that issue. Why would a material that literally evolved to grow tall be a bad for building tall buildings. Concrete is fragile, heavy, and slow to dry, but we still make it work. Saying we can’t make skyscrapers out of wood is both factually untrue and unimaginative. Saying: “we’ve never done it this way and I refuse to consider any alternatives” is how we end up with stagnant outdated dull as dirt infrastructure.
I guess the Mjøstårnet isn’t a skyscraper.
Nor is Ascent MKE.
I’d rather live in a world where we try new things and architecture evolves and FACTS ARE FACTS.
I apologize for pointing out wooden skyscrapers exist, are being built, AND ARE REALLY FUCKING COOL.
Again, those 2 are smaller than half the size of the random steel skyscraper I’m comparing it against. I could make a 1m tall sandcastle and claim sand is great at building castles. IDK if skyscraper has a formal definition, but I think you’re missing the point.
Something being cool does not make it objectively better. Of course, we don’t have to do everything the same way. Maybe the builders of the buildings had unique constraints that made wood better than steel in their case. Or maybe they did so for artistic reasons, which they deemed worth the cost or not using steel. Or maybe they just put an arbitrary constraint of themselves of “we must use wood because we want to”.
Tall buildings made out of wood existing does not mean that it is a good default choice for building skyscrapers.
Sure, you claim that there are actual skyscrapers planned/being developed. But I wonder what sacrifices, if any, they had to make.
Maybe we have been using steel all this time because nobody ever thought of wood. But I find that unlikely.