Architecture (2)

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 10:47am

What are the constructural advantages/disadvantages of the buildings in the other architecture thread?

Sparkticus · Post by **Sparkticus** » 2002-11-09 12:16pm

Alderaan was my pick for that topic, and I cannot really find any disadvantages with the structures. They have good water run off, wide stable bases, low profiles for minimal wind resistance, all-aspect design that allows for full use of sunlight, the list goes on. There maybe a slight earthquake issue but something tells me that will not be a problem with durasteel...

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 12:46pm

Coruscant

Corellia

Alderaan

Nar Shadda

Cloud City

Naboo

Modern Earth

Star Trek Earth

Chro'Nos

Romulas

Cardassia

Which one has the best structural architecture (ie practicality, resistance, etc...)?

Sparkticus · Post by **Sparkticus** » 2002-11-09 12:49pm

[EDIT]
Read narrow profiles regarding wind resistance

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-09 12:53pm

Star Trek Earth. All the architecture is designed for decoration. I can see some of those buildings as being very unstable.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-11-09 07:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:Star Trek Earth. All the architecture is designed for decoration. I can see some of those buildings as being very unstable.

What about that big honkin' Senate building on Coruscant?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-09 07:52pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Star Trek Earth. All the architecture is designed for decoration. I can see some of those buildings as being very unstable.
What about that big honkin' Senate building on Coruscant?

Darth Wong wrote:Durasteel starship frames can withstand hundreds of times the stress needed to destroy structural steel members. I'd say we're looking at a material with at least two orders of magnitude greater strength than steel.

With that kind of strength a building like that is very practical if fancy. Look at the towers of Coruscant for a good idea what's easily possible.

Star Trek on the other hand has materials only a little better than those used today. And the design of those buildings is going to put a whole lot of stress on their structures. For example, look at the design of the mushroom-ish building. An example of a building designed for form rather than function. The top layers will have a lot of stress on their structural members because they are extended so far out over the main collum of the building.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-11-09 08:26pm

Stormbringer wrote:Star Trek on the other hand has materials only a little better than those used today. And the design of those buildings is going to put a whole lot of stress on their structures. For example, look at the design of the mushroom-ish building. An example of a building designed for form rather than function. The top layers will have a lot of stress on their structural members because they are extended so far out over the main collum of the building.

Well, judging by the scale of the people in that picture, as well as the window size, I'd say that the mushroom building is about a maximum of 10 stories, about 3 of which are the "mushroom". It's also somewhat possible that the Federation architects used antigrav devices on the outer edge of the building.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-09 10:08pm

Coruscant is supposedly a tectonically dead plaent. IOW, no moving tectonic plates, no eathquakes, no volcanoes, so architacture wouldn't need to stand up to quakes.

My vote goes to Alderaan, for (supposedly) finding safe ways to live in the rough areas of their planet (canyons, oceans, etc)

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-09 10:08pm

Any regard sto the pyramidal structure of Chro'Nos?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-11-10 02:15am

verilon wrote:Any regard sto the pyramidal structure of Chro'Nos?

A pyramid is one of the most stable building designs. All of its mass is spread out over a large surface.

I don't think that's a problem.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 03:42am

Crayz9000 wrote:
verilon wrote:Any regard sto the pyramidal structure of Chro'Nos?
A pyramid is one of the most stable building designs. All of its mass is spread out over a large surface.

I don't think that's a problem.

Okay, I was just wondering. After all, the point was to discuss the structyural dis/advantages of them all.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-10 04:01am

verilon wrote: Okay, I was just wondering. After all, the point was to discuss the structyural dis/advantages of them all.

Pyamids have a serious problem but it is with regard to ground area utilization rather than structural stability. Pyramids are a very inefficient way to pack Stuff (be it offices, apartments, multistory warehousing, or what have you) into a given square area of surface. In an environment with limited land availability and/or high land prices pyramids do not make sense specifically because they don't make efficient use of land. Boxes are much better in this regard.

Given the pyramid problem and the look of Klingon architecture, we can probably assume that the Klingon vikings

have no understanding of land utilization or land on Chro'Nos is dirt cheap.

Alderaan is somewhat similar in this regard, too. Conic spires are quite inefficient users of ground area.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-10 04:05am

Enlightenment wrote:
verilon wrote: Okay, I was just wondering. After all, the point was to discuss the structyural dis/advantages of them all.
Pyamids have a serious problem but it is with regard to ground area utilization rather than structural stability. Pyramids are a very inefficient way to pack Stuff (be it offices, apartments, multistory warehousing, or what have you) into a given square area of surface. In an environment with limited land availability and/or high land prices pyramids do not make sense specifically because they don't make efficient use of land. Boxes are much better in this regard.

Given the pyramid problem and the look of Klingon architecture, we can probably assume that the Klingon vikings have no understanding of land utilization or land on Chro'Nos is dirt cheap.

Alderaan is somewhat similar in this regard, too. Conic spires are quite inefficient users of ground area.

As far as the squarish offices and rooms and such....well, we COULD always have Mayan-like pyramids, with the "steps," yes?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-11-10 12:22pm

ll leave this topic to Mr. Wright since he's the arcitect

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-10 12:28pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Star Trek on the other hand has materials only a little better than those used today. And the design of those buildings is going to put a whole lot of stress on their structures. For example, look at the design of the mushroom-ish building. An example of a building designed for form rather than function. The top layers will have a lot of stress on their structural members because they are extended so far out over the main collum of the building.
Well, judging by the scale of the people in that picture, as well as the window size, I'd say that the mushroom building is about a maximum of 10 stories, about 3 of which are the "mushroom". It's also somewhat possible that the Federation architects used antigrav devices on the outer edge of the building.

Still, it's rather stupid to have powered devices holding up a building. As any good architect can tell you, a building should always be able to stand on it's one. Of course the federation has never been smart enough to do things right anyway.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-11-10 12:32pm

verilon wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:
verilon wrote: Okay, I was just wondering. After all, the point was to discuss the structyural dis/advantages of them all.
Pyamids have a serious problem but it is with regard to ground area utilization rather than structural stability. Pyramids are a very inefficient way to pack Stuff (be it offices, apartments, multistory warehousing, or what have you) into a given square area of surface. In an environment with limited land availability and/or high land prices pyramids do not make sense specifically because they don't make efficient use of land. Boxes are much better in this regard.

Given the pyramid problem and the look of Klingon architecture, we can probably assume that the Klingon vikings have no understanding of land utilization or land on Chro'Nos is dirt cheap.

Alderaan is somewhat similar in this regard, too. Conic spires are quite inefficient users of ground area.
As far as the squarish offices and rooms and such....well, we COULD always have Mayan-like pyramids, with the "steps," yes?

what's wrong with a pyrimid/ The Luxor is a piramid. So it the Trans-america tower.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-10 12:36pm

Isolder74 wrote:
verilon wrote:
Enlightenment wrote: Pyamids have a serious problem but it is with regard to ground area utilization rather than structural stability. Pyramids are a very inefficient way to pack Stuff (be it offices, apartments, multistory warehousing, or what have you) into a given square area of surface. In an environment with limited land availability and/or high land prices pyramids do not make sense specifically because they don't make efficient use of land. Boxes are much better in this regard.

Given the pyramid problem and the look of Klingon architecture, we can probably assume that the Klingon vikings have no understanding of land utilization or land on Chro'Nos is dirt cheap.

Alderaan is somewhat similar in this regard, too. Conic spires are quite inefficient users of ground area.
As far as the squarish offices and rooms and such....well, we COULD always have Mayan-like pyramids, with the "steps," yes?
what's wrong with a pyrimid/ The Luxor is a piramid. So it the Trans-america tower.

Because in a pyramid you get a large footprint for less useable volume than a recta-linear box.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-10 03:00pm

verilon wrote: As far as the squarish offices and rooms and such....well, we COULD always have Mayan-like pyramids, with the "steps," yes?

That'd just remove the unusable space from the interior of the pyramid. It won't buy back all the space that's wasted by building a pyramid rather than a box (cube) on a given size lot.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-11-10 05:05pm

Enlightenment wrote:
verilon wrote: As far as the squarish offices and rooms and such....well, we COULD always have Mayan-like pyramids, with the "steps," yes?
That'd just remove the unusable space from the interior of the pyramid. It won't buy back all the space that's wasted by building a pyramid rather than a box (cube) on a given size lot.

But it looks better than the simple box and is much more stable so requires less materials to build and reinforce.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-11-10 08:27pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote: Well, judging by the scale of the people in that picture, as well as the window size, I'd say that the mushroom building is about a maximum of 10 stories, about 3 of which are the "mushroom". It's also somewhat possible that the Federation architects used antigrav devices on the outer edge of the building.
Still, it's rather stupid to have powered devices holding up a building. As any good architect can tell you, a building should always be able to stand on it's one. Of course the federation has never been smart enough to do things right anyway.

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't stupid. I'm just saying that it certainly is possible in the context of Star Trek.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-10 11:47pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote: Well, judging by the scale of the people in that picture, as well as the window size, I'd say that the mushroom building is about a maximum of 10 stories, about 3 of which are the "mushroom". It's also somewhat possible that the Federation architects used antigrav devices on the outer edge of the building.
Still, it's rather stupid to have powered devices holding up a building. As any good architect can tell you, a building should always be able to stand on it's one. Of course the federation has never been smart enough to do things right anyway.
Oh, I'm not saying it isn't stupid. I'm just saying that it certainly is possible in the context of Star Trek.

Possible: yes
Sane: no

It's no more than I would expect from the people who build their starships out of paper machete. But goddamnit it's a fucking stupid idea to try.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-11-11 01:30am

Stormbringer wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote: Oh, I'm not saying it isn't stupid. I'm just saying that it certainly is possible in the context of Star Trek.
Possible: yes
Sane: no

It's no more than I would expect from the people who build their starships out of paper machete. But goddamnit it's a fucking stupid idea to try.

::imagines a starship made out of paper machetes::
::laughs::