City March 8, 2012 11:20 AM

A Big Comparison

A Big Comparison
Sometimes you need to compare something you know against something else to truly understand the real nature of that something else.  One such 'something else' for me was a newly built giant of a building. As an architect I was naturally interested in the construction of the massive Burj Dubai now know as Burj Khalifa. At 2,723 feet it is currently the tallest man made structure in the world. It has 163 usable floors and 46 maintenance floors with a total of over 3.3 million square feet of space. It was the centerpiece of a $20 billion Dubai development and cost $1.5 billion to build. it came onto the market right as the world economy crashed (hence new investors and a new name).

Even with many pictures available and the stats that describe its massive size I could never wrap my mind around the true nature of such a super-sized building.  So, I decided to create a comparison of the building against some of little old Buffalo's largest buildings.  This montage was put together from a set of building elevation diagrams which are hosted on the skyscraper chat forum called Skyscraperpage.com. This forum was started as a place for skyscraper enthusiasts to share their knowledge and thoughts on high rise buildings form around the world.  Over the years it has evolved into a forum on cities and urbanism as well.  At its core however, it is still a skyscraper enthusiast's site.  

One of the web site's most interesting features is the section in which they invite members to create and submit diagrams and information on specific tall buildings. You can search the site for specific buildings, including by city.  They cover pretty much every major city with their buildings listed and diagramed online from tallest to shortest down to about 10 floors in height.  It is quite fascinating as you can see here in the caparison I put together with Photoshop. Of course Buffalo is not known as a city with a lot of tall buildings, but Buffalo's City Hall and HSBC tower are, by any measure, large buildings.  In this comparison they are dwarfed. This really gave me a clear sense of the gargantuan size of the Burj Khalifa.

Included in the comparison beside the Burj are four of Buffalo's buildings, which have held the title to the city's tallest building at one time or another - HSBC tower, City Hall, Rand Building, and the Guaranty Building.  Piled on top of each other they come to just under half the height of the Burj. It is interesting to note that the shortest building shown was one of the world's tallest and most structurally sophisticated buildings just over 100 years ago, Louis Sullivan's masterpiece Guaranty Building, weighing in at 13 floors.
View image

Comments

Leave a comment

A great website to show off your artistic abilities with paint or to just discuss urban issues. I've contributed about 43 Buffalo structures including most of our existing grain elevators. I've been wanting to draw St. Stanislaus, Bishop and Martyr & Corpus Christi but i've unable to locate a height for either. Anyone know?

Score: 6 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It strikes me as wasteful to build so tall. The amount of energy to pump the water, run the elevators and otherwise service the building must be astronomical. I generally like highrises and used to be really addicted to following skyscraper construction, but after a while I realized that a lot of these tall buildings were unnecessary and even counter-productive to good urbanism. Paris has almost no tall buildings and is denser than NYC. I now find myself more interested in towers that are 500 feet tall or less. My favorite highrise in Buffalo is Electric Tower at only 300 feet.

Score: 6 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes, you're right. Ultra tall buildings dehumanize cities. I prefer the European tendency to exile them to the margins. After 40 stories it's just repetition you can't even see.

Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There's a difference between overbuilding for the sake of showing off to the world and building to the full potential of the real estate market. A skyscraper like the Burj Khalifa, while an incredible feat of engineering, is wasteful because it is in a city where land is not that limited and other buildings do not come close to it. However, building skyscrapers in general is not wasteful. New York has many skyscrapers, but could stand to benefit from more, taller structures. Real estate prices are too high for many people on Manhattan because housing supply is below demand thanks to years of building restrictions. Chicago on the other hand is more affordable because it has always been much more building friendly. Paris, while it is the most beautiful city in the world, has extremely high real estate prices because of its height restrictions. High prices and low supply prevent people from being able to live in a city, inhibiting the city on a social and cultural level, and also perpetuating wasteful practices when these people are forced to live in the suburbs or at best the fringe of the city where their commutes are much longer.

Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You're talking about financial economics, I'm talking about resource economics. Lots of things that are financially expedient use more resources than more expensive options. For instance, building new versus rehabbing an existing building, or buying foreign versus domestic products. Also, I wouldn't pity the people who live outside the city of Paris. Paris' suburbs are as dense as San Francisco and full of cultural amenities and great urban environments, even if they don't carry the same social status.

Even in New York City, height limits may be welcome. After all, there's a substantial drop-off in density from Manhattan to even Brooklyn. It would probably be more efficient to build slightly taller buildings throughout the outer boroughs than to build substantially taller in comparatively few places in Manhattan. This would also make for more reverse commutes (or no commute at all), which would allow the Subway to carry more people without building new lines. Think off all the relatively empty trains wasting energy to drive out to the Bronx each morning to pick up commuters. Distributed, evenly dense cities like Paris are demonstrably more resource efficient in these regards.

This is actually a great thing about Buffalo's Metro Rail, it has major employment and educational destinations at both ends, which helps to cut down on dead mileage.

replied to Freddy Olms
Score: -1 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

that picture made me laugh

Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Eh, too tall. Almost unattractive really. But still quite a feat and surely it can't be a bad thing. Especially if we ever want to build a Coruscant. But really there had to be many things learned from building it that will contribute to civilization in some way.

I was in Chicago this past weekend and their buildings hit the nail on the head. Combination of height and architectural beauty, especially the Aon Center. I really like the new Roosevelt University building.

Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Aqua was amazing as well

replied to LouisTully
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wow, can't believe I missed it. I was on the other side of the park trying to find my way out of the cul de sac development. Looking at a pic of it it's hard to imagine I didn't notice it.

replied to Tim
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Trantor

replied to LouisTully
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

?

replied to RaChaCha
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Planet like Coruscant. Foundation trilogy.

replied to LouisTully
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think it is amazing what man can create besides our otherwise obvious destructive nature.
This building would have cost ten times more had it been built anywhere in the West.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Agreed. Good site and interesting comparison. On a larger scale its a bit depressing to see just how far the USA in general is falling off the map in terms of tall structures. It seems like the Pacific Rim and Mid East have clearly taken over the tall building race.

Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Ultra Talls are like sports cars, countries (owners) compensating for other short falls.

It is a good view for people to see how small but important buffalo is. Even the tallest skyscrapers are a dime a dozen and someone else will always build something taller and better. However, Buffalo has the Guaranty building and will alway have it. That is something to celebrate.

Score: 3 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Don't count on that. 20 years ago Buffalo came within weeks of making it into a parking lot

replied to Chris
Score: 6 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"20 years ago Buffalo came within weeks of making it into a parking lot"

No doubt there was once a real possibility of demo, but I wonder if other parts of that claim aren't mostly fiction.

It wasn't "Buffalo" who almost made it into anything, it was out-of-town owners (insurance co in Oklahoma says this from NYT). Also, nothing in that or this one implies a demo was only weeks away. And neither say a parking lot was intended.

Wasn't the late '70s when the Main St pedestrian mall was being planned? The Guaranty is directly on Main. Would anybody really want a parking lot on a street which soon wouldn't be allowing any car traffic? Isn't most parking downtown off north-south streets that allow cars (Washington, Frankiln, etc.)?

Adding a parking lot to the tale does make for a good villain.

replied to STEEL
Score: -2 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"The Guaranty is directly on Main."

Lol, what? The Guaranty Building is on the corner of Pearl and Church.

replied to whatever
Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

DTK, sorry, yes, my goof up about that part. No excuses, I should have known that.

Okay, so was my whole comment wrong - was it for sure intended to be a parking lot on Pearl, and was it only weeks away from "Buffalo" demoing it?

I'm willing to be totally corrected on all points and own up to full inaccuracy on all those points, if appropriate.

replied to DTK2OD
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The Guaranty is NOT directly on Main, it's at Church & Pearl. What else don't you know?

replied to whatever
Score: -2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sorry, Danger, my mistake.

Thanks for pointing it out politely. I'll return the favor if you ever write anything in error. (just kidding, I'll be nicer)

Was I also mistaken about no source ever referring to a parking lot being the intended use?

replied to Dagner
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Okay, it's time for you to finally admit that you have never been downtown.

replied to whatever
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

lol, Paul, I swear I've been downtown many times!
Less so since TITS moved to the waterfront, but as soon as Main Place Mall gives in and lets Trader Joe's or Wegmans open up in there, you won't be able to keep me away...

replied to PaulBuffalo
Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

In the meantime, you may want to read up on the story of The Guaranty building. You're on thin ice with your previous parking lot comments. (I'll cut you some slack, though, since I know that architecture and arts bores you. I may be wrong but it seems that only the quality of local roads and jails seems to spur your true passion.)

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Paul, in my reply to Steel, aside from my idiotic goof of street, I linked two things about Guaranty which I already read before clicking submit.

Interesting stuff, both… but zero mention in either of a parking lot being the intended post-demo use, or any weeks-away-from-demo drama. (Wouldn't they likely have mentioned such a hot button as parking lot, if that was so? Just asking. Thanks for slack - that's always welcomed.)

replied to PaulBuffalo
Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There was never a plan for a new building. So that means it was either going to be vacant land or a parking lot. The out of town owners were understanding of the historic importance of the building also did not want to own a money losing structure with several burned out floors. They proposed to tear it down if no new use or owner could be found. A Chicagoan, Jack Randal, moved to Buffalo to save the building. He convinced the owners to give him time to put together a plan for saving it. He had only weeks left before the owners were planning to initiate planning for demolition when Randal was successful in getting Senator Daniel Moynahan interested in the plight of the building. Moynahan's influence and connections enabled the plan which ultimately saved the building.

replied to whatever
Score: 4 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"only weeks left before the owners were planning to initiate planning for demolition "

Ok, that's different now.
"within weeks of making it into a parking lot"
vs.
"weeks left before … planning to initiate planning for demolition".
Now sounds less dramatic, like they didn't rush into anything, and they allowed some time for people to organize and step forward. All well and good.

steel>"So that means it was either going to be vacant land or a parking lot."

Not necessarily at all. There have been buildings constructed in downtown after the 70's.

Just because a new building wasn't right away planned/announced while the Oklahoma-based insurance co who owned it was still weeks away from "planning to initiate planning for demolition" as you put it, doesn't at all mean if that land became for sale that nobody else would have then wanted to build something other than parking on it.

Kettle, if they change their minds and want to be here, I'd welcome a TJ's and more Wegmans stores anywhere in WNY, including downtown - anywhere they want to spend their $ to be. Those aren't villains at all to me. The only people I can think of who might possibly consider them villains might be buy-local folks. Hopefully even they wouldn't either, but who knows.

replied to STEEL
Score: -3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your arguments are silly. The building came within weeks of demo and there was nothing more than a parking lot planned for it. If you can't see the stupidity and insanity of that there is nothing I can do for you. You have demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of this building and its history and cannot even place where it is in the city. Why do you even bother entering the conversation?

replied to whatever
Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Meh. Just like you're free to say my comment is silly and ask why I wrote it, I'm free to say your comment looked embellished for parking drama plus an untrue bashing-Buffalo claim and ask why you wrote that.

Credible sources wrote it was a distant owner in Oklahoma who for a time considered demo for this building, not "Buffalo" who almost made it into parking as you claimed in reply to Chris. There's no apparent reason to choose Buffalo as the scapegoat. And those sources make no mention at all of parking as an intended post-demo use, so that aspect looks either mistaken or added for dramatic effect.

Yes, I goofed by one whole block about location. I don't hesitate to admit mistakes. Btw, if you want to try that, you could admit your reply to Chris was mistaken to blame Buffalo for considering demo of Guaranty, and that a parking lot intention is a guess, not fact. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes - it's ok to own up.

replied to STEEL
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wha> "gives in and lets Trader Joe's or Wegmans open up in there, you won't be able to keep me away..."

Speaking of good villains...

replied to whatever
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Working in extremely tall buildings is a soulless experience. Multiple sets of elevators add to the time to enter, leave, and move about. Your opportunities to take advantage of the urban location are severely limited. It's almost as bad as working in a suburban office park.

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Couldn't agree with you more. I worked in the World Trade Center for a time and it literally took 20 minutes and multiple elevators to get to my floor. Going out for lunch really wasn't worth it because of all the lost time.

replied to Dagner
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Apparently the only way gargantuans are feasible is when building residential in NYC out of actual economic demand, massive amounts of misappropriated oil money, or futile Chinese attempt at some sort of visual dominance in a suburban office park setting. Or raising NYC tolls 400% for the new Wtc cost overruns. Other than that, they are pretty stunning.

I've heard that generally skyscrapers lose any economic sense past 60 floors or so. Which may be why downtown and midtown manhattan have pretty flat skylines.

replied to PaulBuffalo
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Exactly. I worked in the WTC, too.

replied to PaulBuffalo
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I could so top this in Buffalo. Just need the money and an architect that does preWWII designs.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment