Tour Centreville ~ 58 étages

[Malek]

There's the off topic subforum: http://www.mtlurb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16

 

Go wild!

[Cataclaw]

Sorry, Malek. Of course I've been through Laval (to get to Oka Beach) and to the south shore (to get to Chambly).

 

I also grew up in a suburb of another city.

 

But I don't want to talk about myself in an on-topic thread.

 

Is there a venue on this forum for more personal commentary?

 

And if so, feel free to move this post there since I don't want to dilute this thread with my own personal story.

 

Ahahaha.

 

All you've done since you started posting yesterday is dilute every single thread with absolutely ridiculous ramblings.

 

Suddenly you care about staying relevant?

 

If this isn't proof that this guy is a troll, i don't know what is.

 

[qatzelok]

Cataclaw, if it's all the same to you, do you mind calling me a troll in an off-topic forum?

[Cataclaw]

Cataclaw, if it's all the same to you, do you mind calling me a troll in an off-topic forum?

 

Qatzelok, if it's all the same to you, do you mind posting your inane ramblings in an off-topic forum?

 

[Newbie]

I apologize for adding to the discussion and for the long message. This is my first and probably my last comment on this thread. Just for fun, I read the paper posted by qatzelok, and as a scientist I have to say, even ignoring all the grammar mistakes (I will not criticize this so please don't come back at me with my grammar mistakes, as my mother language is not English), it does not seem as if this publication was responsibly peer reviewed. These are just some of my observations:

 

1) It claims that the following is an unfounded statement:

 

Accommodating the same number of people in a tall building of 50 storeys as in a large building of 5 storeys requires roughly one tenth of the land

 

Do you need a mathematical proof for this? I don't see how this statement "lacks a solid research base." Stating that this is unfounded is enough for the author to lose any scientific credibility, but I kept reading anyway...

 

2) The best way I can think of to accurately compare land use among cities around the world is by use of the statistic "population density * living space per person." For example people in New York City have much more personal living space than those in Cairo, which explains New York's lower density, and makes a simple density comparison between the two cities completely useless.

 

4) The only scientific part of the paper is about weight and energy consumption of buildings versus height. This data seems to be correct. The "trends" part and the conclusions concerning these trends are plagued with assumptions, the most important of which is that tall buildings are the cause for inefficient use of land in existing cities. The other scientific bits are admissions of lack of data or serious research. The advantages mentioned here for tall buildings are not professionally discussed in the paper.

 

5) Most of the conclusion is not based on the body on the paper but rather seems to be an unfounded extension of it.

[qatzelok]

Sorry for posting that paper. But the books on the subject from which I have deduced the ecological/economic superiority of 3 and 4 story attached buildings are not available on the Internet.

 

But "science" is not why we build tall towers in the first place. They are the products of pride and vanity - not biology or physics. LEED high rises are probably an example of blowing green smoke up our ass.

 

A few rich people want to build monuments to their own vanity, but they want their legacy to be a green one. So they hire a LEED consultant - along with a feng shui specialist - so that their vanity can be of the green variety.

 

And then they can get all their green employees to commute every day from their green suburbs in hybrid SUVS with recycled cup holders.

 

This kind of green will kill us all.

[Cataclaw]

Sorry for posting that paper. But the books on the subject from which I have deduced the ecological/economic superiority of 3 and 4 story attached buildings are not available on the Internet.

 

But "science" is not why we build tall towers in the first place. They are the products of pride and vanity - not biology or physics. LEED high rises are probably an example of blowing green smoke up our ass.

 

A few rich people want to build monuments to their own vanity, but they want their legacy to be a green one. So they hire a LEED consultant - along with a feng shui specialist - so that their vanity can be of the green variety.

 

And then they can get all their green employees to commute every day from their green suburbs in hybrid SUVS with recycled cup holders.

 

This kind of green will kill us all.

 

Economics is a big reason why people build tall towers. If a plot of land costs a lot of money, it's more worthwhile to build high than to buy lots of land and build low. This is a rather simple concept.

 

Tall towers also increase density, which in turn makes public transportation economically feasible.

 

These are really simple concepts... and they are mathematically irrefutable.

[monctezuma]

Je crois qu'on devrait l'ignorer à partir de maintenant.

 

Il n'y a pas qu'ici qu'il fait le troll :

 

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179014&page=4

 

Il visite des forums islamistes conservateurs pour y promouvoir la nudité en publique!

 

[qatzelok]

Economics is a big reason why people build tall towers. If a plot of land costs a lot of money, it's more worthwhile to build high than to buy lots of land and build low. This is a rather simple concept.

This concept is a bit too simple, and it allows for the assigned value of things to dominate over their real value, which would resemble not just mathematics, but also biology and anthropology - something that tall modern slabs of glass and ventilation tubes don't really do.

[Cataclaw]

This concept is a bit too simple, and it allows for the assigned value of things to dominate over their real value, which would resemble not just mathematics, but also biology and anthropology - something that tall modern slabs of glass and ventilation tubes don't really do.

 

What?

 

"It allows for the assigned value of things to dominate over their real value" ? ... isn't their real value their assigned value? What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense.

 

I'll try to explain it once more:

 

Land costs money; it has value. To build a low-rise building on a high-cost plot of land is not viable. The costlier a piece of land, the greater the incentive to build high and make it a worthwhile investment.

 

But anyway.. i think monctezuma is right. I believe i will add you to my ignore list. This is going nowhere.