Compare and contrast buildings - Architecture Essay Example
The Empire State Building is a realization of 20th –century engineering by 57,000 tons of steel columns and beams, 62, 000 cubic yards of concrete, 6,400 windows, and 67 elevators in 7 miles of rays - Compare and contrast buildings introduction. The building is now 76 years old which was opened on May 1, 1931 that stands 1,252-foot and was built in 1 year and 45 days. The brilliant architects behind are Shreve, Lamb, and Harmon Associates and the genius contractors Starrett Brothers & Eken worked together as a team to come up with one of the famous skyscraper standing in New York City. The building was made from first class materials and from competition because that was the era of the skyscraper boom. They wanted to soar above the Chrysler Building, which was in construction at the same time, for which the building was supposed to be an 80-story. Its famous exterior was not even intended. In Paul Starrett’s autobiography he quoted that “the beauty of the Empire State Building rose out of strictly practical considerations,” (Goedken, 2006, p.65).
The “organizational genius,” (Goedken, 2006, p. 65) of building is the transportation of the materials that within that day the materials delivered should be used. The “workers utilized a railway system to push cars full of building materials around the site to transport the 10 million bricks needed,” (Goedken, 2006, p.65). Obviously, the contractors had done their job in a creative and innovative way. The “dump trucks dropped bricks down a chute leading to the basement upon delivery and from there, two brick hoppers, each able to house 20,000 bricks, fed bricks into railway cars for transportation to material hoist,” (Goedken, 2006, p.65). The constructing of the building had provided workforce of 4,000 men in the great impact of depression. The total cost of the project was nearly $41 million-$24.7 million (Goedken, 2006, p.65).
essay sample on "Compare and contrast buildings"? We will write a cheap essay sample on "Compare and contrast buildings" specifically for you for only $12.90/page
All the steel columns of the building are fireproofed with cinder concrete and it even has the fire-detection system that enables to distinguish on what floor is having fire. The building’s steel frame was secluded by iron oxide and linseed oil paint and was enclosed with an asphalt coat to stand firm in contact with cement. Its water tanks are inside the building and delivering water to the entire building thru fire-protection pipe system. The building is well-built and fireproof.
It was called before the “Empty State Building” because of unit vacancies but not until after the World War II. The war had brought the Empire State Building affluence, but also tragedy. On July 28, 1945, a B-25 bomber, lost in fog shattered into the 79th floor, “one of the plane’s engines killed an elevator girl; the other tore through the building and out the other side,” (Summer, 2006, p.11). It happened on Saturday for it just killed 14 people.
All through most of the 20th century, the skyscraper was considered a principally American sort increasing with the economy and sanguinity of cities. In the last decade of the century, though, the edge of the skyscraper has enthused transversely the Pacific Ocean to the Far East. Most of the tallest buildings are being proposed and being built in Tokyo, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, and Malaysia. In 1996, the Petronas Twin Towers was “topped out” becoming, for a time, the tallest building in the world. The building consists of two identical towers 452m in height and joined by a sky bridge at the 41st and 42nd stories. Named after the state oil company whose new headquarters occupy one half of the building, the Petronas Towers forms part of a larger development project-the so-called Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC)-which, at its unveiling in 1992, was described as being “among the largest real estate developments in the world (Clark, 1999, p.18).
The Petronas Towers was measured to be an efficiently amazing. The 88-storey Petronas Towers has no gettable space above the 84th floor and is crest by functionless spires which allowed the building to darken the preceding “world’s tallest” (Clark, 1999, p.19) record.
Like the Empire State Building of New York City, the Petronas Towers was erected for figurative as well as functional reasons. One of the key advocates of the Petronas Twin Towers is the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad. Mahathir had obtained a status for determined, “highly visible” national industrialization projects long before the unveiling of KLCC (Chowdhury, 1999, p.110).
Economic improvement from 1988 appeared to justify Mahathir’s privatizing policy directions. The Prime Minister has since been portraying as the “architect of developed Malaysia,” (Petroski, 1996, p. 322) the “master planner” (Chodhury, 1999, p. 111) who is “rebuilding Malaysia his own way,” (Clark, 1999, p.19). The Vision 2020 demands contextualization in historical debates on post-colonial Malaysian growth and national individuality. The Petronas Twin Towers are also known as intelligent buildings because of its structure just like the Empire State Building of New York City. Every floor has its own local area system for air conditioning and lighting, as well as a general rationale regulator for indeterminate future use. amongst the more long-range benefits of the Petronas Twin Towers to the Malaysian economy is the considerable amount of technology transfer that has accompanied their design and construction, with the direction and input of the Prime Minister.
It comprises a 50-acre park, which included a lake, much of which is accessible to the public, and a complex of 20 or so surrounding buildings that contain office space, apartments, hotel rooms, recreational facilities, restaurants, shops, banks, a convention center, a civic center, a mosque and a plant (Clark, 1999, p.19) to provide chilled water for cooling all these buildings in the subtropical climate. The first phase of the $2 billion (Clark, 1999, p.20) project includes the duo of buildings known as the Petronas Twin Towers, themselves estimate just about $800 million (Clark, 1999, p.20), most of which was to be provided by petroleum Nasional Berhad, Malaysia’s national oil company and the source of the tower’s name (Clark, 1999, p.18), and the government. The Petronas Twin Towers developed into the Kuala Lumpur’s most considerable landmark.
The building is at once a symbol of individual taste and the idiosyncrasies of its proponents as well as of broader social and cultural processes, existing practices and foremost ideas. It is also represented-discursively, pictorially, electronically-as a meaningful national site and series of signs. Official representations of the building, political and commercial, do powerful work in defining an appropriate version of the nation and an aspirational vision of national development. Cesar Pelli therefore designed the towers’ glass-and-stainless-steel exteriors as a kind of crenellated skin that would break up the sun. In cross section, each building takes the form of an eight-pointed star, one of the ancient symbols of Islam.
The Petronas Towers role in national development is not merely aesthetic, envisioning a state conception of Malaysian urbanity; the building also promotes new ‘ways of seeing’ among citizens. The skyscraper is a celebration of modern building technology, ‘a marker of modernity worldwide.’
The Petronas Towers’ architect, Cesar Pelli, who also designed Canary Wharf in London, compares apparent receptiveness in Kuala Lumpur with negative reactions to the first true skyscraper in England: Canary Wharf sits uneasily at the edge of a city which is very ambivalent about skyscrapers, whereas the Petronas Towers are for-city that is embracing them wholeheartedly. Skyscrapers were born in cold climates, so the walls were glassy and taut to maximize light but in the tropics the sun is less welcome. The Twin Towers required about a million and a half square feet of stainless steel cladding and glass, in the form of 32,000 windows (Clark, 1999, p.19), to form a so-called curtain wall. The Petronas Twin Towers project will leave a legacy that will serve the local economy and society long after taller buildings are erected elsewhere in the world.
The floor plan of the Petronas Towers is said to be “based on Islamic geometric traditions” (Petroski, 1996, p.323) and the building’s design features are intentional to express a specific sense of their topical locale. The size of Petronas Towers has gained world acknowledgment. Unlike the Empire State Building’s other successors, the Petronas Towers has meant that the tallest building record has left the “Western world” (Chowdhury, 1999, p.112) for the first time since for at least a century. Malaysia is an east whose defeat of America at its own architectural game is need as a sign of a broader threat to the Western world.
The Petronas Towers does powerful emblematic work in the production of definitions of Islam and Malayness which are proper for a modern multicultural nation. The Petronas Towers may thus read as representations of twin strands of vision 2020 nationalism: Malays taking their legal place in the national economy without menacing to shift national others, and a united Malaysia standing tall in the world of actions. Mahathir’s megadevelopment is thus seen a different as a fundamental factor in social and economic descent.
The Empire State Building of New York City has a big difference in Malaysia’s Petronas Twin Towers in different aspects, despite of their height. Indeed, they are built for economic development but has different outlook for each country. The Empire State Building is to compete with others, while the Twin Towers is to compete, too and show the world what they’ve got but inclined with politics. It was built of Prime Minister’s power. It has nothing to compare with each others physical attributes because they are built in very different soil and environment. However, each skyscrapers country have shown the world what they have and continuously soaring high from other countries.
Chowdhury, N. (1999). The power of towers. Fortune Vol. 139 No. 7,
Apr. 12, 1999, pp.110-112.
Clark, K. (1999). Sky twins. Entertainment Design Vol. 33 No. 18,
Nov. 1999, pp. 18-20.
Goedken, A.K. (2006). The empire state building: An innovative skyscraper.
Buildings Vol. 100 No. 7, July 2006, pp.64-66.
Petroski, H. (1996). The petronas twin towers. American Scientist Vol. 84
July/Aug. 1996, pp. 322-326.
75 years tall. (2006). The Wilson Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 3, Summer 2006, pp.11-12.