Well yes I am, but seriously, this came over my LinkedIn feed today, and is pretty cool. Newly-developed, major commercial in Minneapolis. 7 stories,
238,000 Sq. Ft. Thought I'd share.
(..and lets just all agree to not talk about the fire insurance rates for t his thing... ok?)
Regardless, still cool. If anyone's out there in/around the Twin Cities, I' d be interested in your take.
S
"The foundation, core, and ground floor are concrete, but the rest of the s even-story structure is timber, making it the largest timber building in No rth America. Columns and beams are glue-laminated European spruce, while th e floor slabs?which also serve as ceilings for the floors below? ??are nail-laminated in a spruce-pine-fir mix. Much of the pine comes f rom trees that were downed by the mountain pine beetle."
is pretty cool. Newly-developed, major commercial in Minneapolis. 7 stories , 238,000 Sq. Ft. Thought I'd share.
this thing... ok?)
I'd be interested in your take.
seven-story structure is timber, making it the largest timber building in North America. Columns and beams are glue-laminated European spruce, while the floor slabs?which also serve as ceilings for the floors below ?are nail-laminated in a spruce-pine-fir mix. Much of the pine come s from trees that were downed by the mountain pine beetle."
I know what a foundation and a ground floor is, but what do you think they mean by "core"?
The "core" will have the staircases, elevators, and other services (wiring and plumbing) for each floor. Another way to think of it is the core is the common part of a building not rented to tennants.
Elijah
------ betting fire code required concrete stairwells
With a foundation, first floor slab and 7 story core made of concrete, is it proper to call it a "timber building"? Does it really deserve to be called the largest timber building in NA if such major parts of the building are concrete?
that's absolutely a fair question, let's have at it:
If I place concrete on site, whether foundation or slab, drop a sillplate on it and start framing vertically with SPF, we still call it a wood hous e, don't we?
A core is not a genuine structural element-- it HAS Structural elements, an d the timber is certainly tied into it, but it's not treated as a structura l element. The point of a core is to contain MEP systems, move people, etc, not to 'hold up the building.'
Why? Seven stories is pretty tall. Maybe not skyscraper material, but fai rly tall for a building. Since the early 1900s builders have been making t hese buildings using welded or riveted together steel beams. I'm pretty su re they have gotten this figured out and know how to make the best building . Why intentionally choose to use a method that is less strong, more costl y, more time consuming. If a house builder said he hand nailed ever stud, joist, rafter, sheathing, siding and never ever used a pneumatic nailer, wo uld you say that is good? I wouldn't. I think glue covered nails shot in with air makes a stronger, better, faster house in general. Or a blacksmit h (if there are any left) using his muscles and a hammer to forge, pound a piece of metal instead of a pneumatic or hydraulic hammer, press. I'd bet the modern pneumatic, hydraulic press/hammer is better.
I had recalled reading that somewhere, but after doing some research, it appears that the exterior diagonalized tube is is the structural system in most common use for tall buildings.
What I had earlier read was that some buildings have a concrete structural core, and the floors are cantilevered from the core.
Thumbs up! I appreciated your reply and I was quite curious myself. I had a little time last night, I did some research and found that Mid-rises may or may not have a core, and that in some instances, the cores ARE structur al components, and others not, just like you noted.
All buildings are unique, that's for sure. Thanks for the follow up!
airly tall for a building. Since the early 1900s builders have been making these buildings using welded or riveted together steel beams. I'm pretty sure they have gotten this figured out and know how to make the best buildi ng. Why intentionally choose to use a method that is less strong, more cos tly, more time consuming. If a house builder said he hand nailed ever stud , joist, rafter, sheathing, siding and never ever used a pneumatic nailer, would you say that is good? I wouldn't. I think glue covered nails shot i n with air makes a stronger, better, faster house in general. Or a blacksm ith (if there are any left) using his muscles and a hammer to forge, pound a piece of metal instead of a pneumatic or hydraulic hammer, press. I'd be t the modern pneumatic, hydraulic press/hammer is better.
Dunno, Russell, it's a good question and you're probably right. But from a Commercial Real Estate point of view, Developers, Managers and Owners are always looking for a way to create a unique product-- something that sets them apart from everyone else.
From an Engineering point of view, it's good to be the one to figure out ho w to rival the ability you described, but with more traditional methods.
From an architectural point of view, it's all of the above, compounded expo nentially. (Enter your favorite Contractor, Engineer & Architect joke here .)
At the end of the day, my own questions are those like this--
What is this building's marketing appeal? Does the wood envelope matter to people, or is it "just" the location or "a ny new building whatsoever" that matters to the tenants? Can I lease it for similar (or more) money and keep the same vacancy rate a s the other buildings in the area? Does the public like it? Are they willing to spend equal or more to have t heir office here? What is the CapEx on a building like this? Can we use wood and still retai n lower levels & cost of maintenance? (etc.)
It's all about the new millennials it seems..."feeling good" is more important than "making sense".
That said, I'm all about conservation of old timber, but to cover it up as they've done in most of this pretty-much defeats the purpose imo. The exterior is all in weathering steel which would be pretty much mandatory for maintenance but there's no wood to be seen.
The video is just drawings, no actual footage of finished building so can't really tell just how much visual impact there is, but _most_ of what it shows is just conventional finishings albeit there may be some ceiling beams and columns exposed. But, there surely is nothing in the presentation material that gives you a "wow! factor just looking.
Personally, I'd much rather see the reclaimed wood be used where it really has a much larger effect than it appears to there aesthetically.
Yes, often the core supports the building's static load and the bracing at the edges keeps it all "rigid". There was one building where I used to live where they put up piers (every 20'?) to support the building, poured each floor jacked them into position one at a time - top floor first (obviously). The floor slabs were hanging from the piers and everything else was just partitions.
Tall buildings are designed to flex, some more than others. SF codes, thus designs, are way different than NY codes.
That's why we have architects and civil engineers. ;-)
Remember, any old fool can build a building or bridge that'll stand up. It takes an engineer to design one that barely stands. ;-)
That's always been the case. If it weren't we'd still live in caves and there is certainly nothing wrong with feeling good. Function isn't everything. Form counts too.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.