Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

designtaxi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#91

Post by Volpe »

fl3tch wrote: post #54
ecaron wrote: post #28

It is hard to read this story without thinking about the massive scale of "we just built this building, but we're going to tear it down because it is a deathtrap" demolitions that are happening in Beijing and the other populous cities in China that are still growing at obscene rates: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-proudly-demolishing-b...

There are lots of videos about China's ghost cities, like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbDeS_mXMnM

Lots... yet everyone quotes that same australian one. That misrepresents a suburb as a 'city'.

How many places in the world have vacant property developments? Do you call them 'ghost cities'?

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#92

Post by yardie »

gbog wrote: post #70
Danieru wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has many large buildings. Of this very large set a few turned out to need demolition. The article accuses China of paying the morning crew to dig a ditch and the evening crew to fill it up. I dislike communist in-efficiencies just as much as any other capitalist, but I do not think the situation is occurring quite to the severity implied in the parent's article.

Meetoo. Moreover, it is deep in Asian culture to have to rebuild frequently their architecture. I have lived beside the Forbidden City and it is in continuous reworking. I bet not one part of it is older than a couple of decades. But its plan odds very old, predates the foundation of Beijing itself. So having to destroy and rebuild every now and then is quite normal here. Interested readers might want to check what S…

I read a book on the history of Burma. It was very common to move the capital, due to the humidity, wood gets old. The emporer's court would rather not have to deal with reconstruction so the solution: start a new palace in a new location, when ready move the population of the city. And they were doing this for hundreds of years.

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#93

Post by theorique »

yaix wrote: post #87
brudgers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe China has significantly more union members than the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_U...

There are no real unions in China, these organizations are all part of the Party. If you run any organized civil group in China with more than 100 members, you can be sure to be invited for a "talk" to the local Party headquarters, and depending on your willingness to cooperate, that visit may end very negativly for you. The one thing the Party is really afraid of are people organizing themselves.

"In America you go to party. In China, party come to you!"

(post Soviet and all)

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#94

Post by mayneack »

grecy wrote: post #14
mayneack wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's only 10 cm taller, that sounds like within the margin of error of where you measure. Not that I have any idea what the standard "building height" measurement entails.

IT will be 10 meters taller, not 10 centimeters.

oops

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#95

Post by netcan »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #16

My bias wants to make some remark about unions and/or regulations inhibiting construction innovation in the US, but I have no idea if that's actually true... is there progress being made in the US (faster construction? more prefab? etc) or does China's progress simply come with quality sacrifices that are pretty unacceptable in the US?

If you want some explanation that probably fits with your biases, this might be responsible for some part :)

Warren Buffet, 2009 http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2009ltr.pdf

The second reason that manufactured housing is troubled is specific to the industry: the punitive differential in mortgage rates between factory-built homes and site-built homes. Before you read further, let me underscore the obvious: Berkshire has a dog in this fight, and you should therefore assess the commentary that follows with special care. That warning made, however, let me explain why the rate differential causes problems for both large numbers of lower-income Americans and Clayton.

The residential mortgage market is shaped by government rules that are expressed by FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Their lending standards are all-powerful because the mortgages they insure can typically be securitized and turned into what, in effect, is an obligation of the U.S. government. Currently buyers of conventional site-built homes who qualify for these guarantees can obtain a 30-year loan at about 5 1⁄4%. In addition, these are mortgages that have recently been purchased in massive amounts by the Federal Reserve, an action that also helped to keep rates at bargain-basement levels.

In contrast, very few factory-built homes qualify for agency-insured mortgages. Therefore, a meritorious buyer of a factory-built home must pay about 9% on his loan. For the all-cash buyer, Clayton’s homes offer terrific value. If the buyer needs mortgage financing, however – and, of course, most buyers do – the difference in financing costs too often negates the attractive price of a factory-built home.

..

We have tried to qualify more of our customers’ loans for treatment similar to those available on the site-built product. So far we have had only token success

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#96

Post by kstenerud »

wtvanhest wrote: post #78
brudgers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not particularly abnormal during rapid real-estate development cycles. The scale is unusual, but then again, China is the first country with more than a billion people.

No tall building (above 3 floors wood frame) would get anywhere close to economic viability if the plan was to only leave it up for 10 years. Think about how many buildings that are within 20 years old that have been demolished in the united states. The number would be insanely low.

Insanely low, but not nonexistent. In a country with a fraction of the population of China.

Say you'd built a skyscraper, and a few years afterwards someone offered you enough money to make out with a hefty profit because real estate is booming and you're occupying a prime location. Would you sell?

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#97

Post by wtvanhest »

kstenerud wrote: post #96
wtvanhest wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No tall building (above 3 floors wood frame) would get anywhere close to economic viability if the plan was to only leave it up for 10 years. Think about how many buildings that are within 20 years old that have been demolished in the united states. The number would be insanely low.

Insanely low, but not nonexistent. In a country with a fraction of the population of China. Say you'd built a skyscraper, and a few years afterwards someone offered you enough money to make out with a hefty profit because real estate is booming and you're occupying a prime location. Would you sell?

Prior to my current role I worked in institutional multifamily brokerage. One of the assets I was selling was 50 years (mid rise) and it still wasn't worth bulldozing since it is less expensive to renovate and rent is highly coorelated to price/sf.

There are no examples of what you are talking about that I can think of. There are cases where short mid-rises are bulldozed for ultra high density, but the math makes it very rare circumstances and none that I know of would be 10 or 20 year old buildings. We are talking 50 year+ buildings.

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#98

Post by Someone »

wtvanhest wrote: post #78
brudgers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not particularly abnormal during rapid real-estate development cycles. The scale is unusual, but then again, China is the first country with more than a billion people.

No tall building (above 3 floors wood frame) would get anywhere close to economic viability if the plan was to only leave it up for 10 years. Think about how many buildings that are within 20 years old that have been demolished in the united states. The number would be insanely low.

I do not disagree with that claim, but I also think the economics would change a bit if you could destroy them in a month and build a new one in a week.

Re: China Plans To Build The World’s Tallest Building In 90 Days

#99

Post by Someone »

sophacles wrote: post #40
mayneack wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's only 10 cm taller, that sounds like within the margin of error of where you measure. Not that I have any idea what the standard "building height" measurement entails.

We can measure the distance to the moon accurately enough to determine it is getting 3.8 cm furhter from the earth each year, I'm pretty sure 10cm is well outside the margin of error for measurements of something as simple as a building.

Once you know what to measure, that is true. However, in 'tallest of the world' attempts, there typically is quite a bit of uncertainty about where spires (included in height measurement) end and antennae (not part of the building) begin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_s...).
Post reply on HN