Pyramids are the optimum design for large buildings – at least in theory – yet they are rare and unusual. Although there are some pyramid-shaped houses, the design is optimised for very large buildings or “mega-structures”, and the bigger the better.

It is therefore no accident that the only large “residential” pyramids are hotels, the most famous being the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas

In terms of structural strength, Pyramids are vastly superior

Conventional vertical-walled buildings are a constant challenge to gravity, the weight of the roof bearing down foreshadows eventual collapse.

Pyramids, which are roof-less by definition, are composed of triangular walls leaning against and supporting each other, which minimises the force of gravity. A large base area in proportion to height means less weight bearing down, thus less excavation and shallower foundations.  Thus the frame can also be lighter than that of a vertical-walled building.   Its a WIN-WIN..!

Slanted walls offer better resistance to wind and rain and – especially – EARTHQUAKES..!

Pyramids have many other advantages and qualities over vertical-sided tower blocks or “sky-scrapers”

Aesthetics – Pyramids appeal to the eye
shape is more natural, like steep hills or mountains
Rainfall collectors –
even better than mountains, as there is no loss through seepage
Solar collectors –
inclined walls are the optimal platform for PV solar exploitation
Minimises shadowing effect
unlike towers blocks
Privacy in your apartment
neighbours cannot peer in, as adjacent buildings are quite distant
Panoramic vistas
visual obstruction by adjacent buildings is minimised
Spacious patios
facilitated by the stepped-back design
Structurally safe
resistant to earthquakes, storms, floods, and FIRE (see below)
Fabulous Atriums
bathed in light and adorned with greenery

THE PYRAMID PARADOX

If pyramids are the optimum design for (large) buildings then why are they so rare?

Sadly it boils down to simple economics.

Although a few crazy people have built pyramidal houses, they are very impractical as a large proportion of their floor space (under the eaves) is almost unusable. That drawback is less of an issue with large pyramids but, unless it is a very steeply-angled one like the Trans-America “pyramid” in SF (1972) or the London “Shard” – both of which are spires rather than pyramids – such a building will have a very large footprint. Imagine how big a site would be required for the Pyramid of Giza? Existing road networks mean that cities only rarely have building sites that large. And, if or when such a site does become available, the developer wants to maximise the floor space by building vertically.

Out in the countryside large isolated buildings are very unwelcome and can rarely get planning permission. Certainly not in the UK – the archetypal Nimby Nation. And, on the very rare occasions when a large building is permitted, again the developer would want to maximise his return by building vertically.

City perimeter sites, especially those without an existing road network, would be the ideal compromise but it would require a bold and imaginative developer allied with a bold and imaginative local authority to get such a building approved. It simply hasn’t happened yet except in Las Vegas and a handful of other “almost pyramid” hotels, for example the Qatar Sheraton.