SMALL FOOTPRINT (normal house building site)
Pyramid houses are justifiably rare but cheap A-frame houses are common in some places. I haven’t been inside one but they must be like a larger version of a tent with the same rapidly diminishing headroom towards the sloping sides, with lots of awkward wedge-shaped “storage spaces” where the walls meet the ground But at least A-frames only have 2 sloping walls, whereas a pyramid has these rather useless difficult to utilize spaces on every side.
I did once spend a night at the “Pyramids Motel” at Van Reenen’s Pass (Natal, South Africa) which has pyramid-shaped chalets in a garden setting, and probably dates from the 1970’s “new age” fascination with “pyramid power”.
This esoteric explorer soon discovered that the Achilles Heel of a pyramid-shaped building is “Max Head-room”, or rather lack of except in the centre under the apex. As I recall the beds were placed alongside the walls, but horizontal bodies can cope with this. Headroom problems were magnified at the corners where bathroom and toilet were positioned, as one might expect. The corner shower was hopelessly uncomfortable for a tall person and the loo was most definitely a sit-down job.
MEDIUM FOOTPRINT (normal city block <100m)
San Francisco’s 2nd most famous city icon (after the Golden Gate Bridge) is the “Trans-America Pyramid” (1972) a very rare example of a downtown ‘pyramid”. But the TAP is so steep-sided it does not really qualify as a pyramid, and should be called the Trans-America Spire or Obelisk. Its upper floors are only a quarter or less the area of its lower floors.
LARGE FOOTPRINT
However, once scaled up to >100 metres per side, as in Las Vegas’ Luxor Hotel, the wasted floor-space problem is largely circumvented, although towards the apex it recurs. (partly the reason Deltapolis is a truncated pyramid) But the rentable floor space in a 45 deg profile pyramid is precisely half that of a box building with the same base area and height. Steeper profiles reduce the amount of lost floor space, but with any pyramid, even the TAP (not really a pyramid) it is always a significant factor.
Pyramid cities will not rise in established city centres where sub-divisions are small and land is very costly.
Likely sites are –
1) As “satellite cities” on the fringes of obecities, possibly linked by a subway branch or light-rail.
2) Former industrial “brownfield” or “greyfield” sites (eg, the O2 Arena site)
3) Shallow coastal waters where a group could enclose an artificial harbour
4) Tidal estuaries, like the Thames or Severn, where a chain could create a flood barrier and/or a tidal power station.
5) Land reclaimed from the sea
6) River or coastal mudflats
7) Remote stand-alone sites
8) Arid coastal sites (eg, Namaqualand, Chilean/Peruvian pacific coast, W.Australia)
Sea mist harvesting combined with water recycling technology has the potential to green these barren lands.
PANORAMIC VISTAS not occluded by adjacent buildings
STABILITY, STRENGTH, ENDURANCE & LONGEVITY
EARTHQUAKE SAFE
STORM AND FLOOD SAFE
FIRE SAFE
OVERSHADOW MINIMISED
WIND – FUNNELING EFFECT MINIMISED
RAINFALL COLLECTING
SEA MIST HARVESTING
SOLAR GATHERING
THE PYRAMID FORM IN MODERN BUILDINGS
“A Triangular structure is the most stable – the dome is the most difficult to build” –Dr Dante Bins (architect “Shimuzu Megacity Pyramid”)
The pyramid is the strongest and most stable of all structures, and theoretically – or intuitively – easier to build than conventional vertical-sided structures. Despite this, the only large residential pyramid ever built is the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas (1993). Being such a unique structure, the engineers of that building must have had a unique set of structural technology problems and they would have had to overcome some major engineering difficulties – not because a pyramid is an intrinsically complicated edifice, but because there were no precedents to fall back on.
No doubt these problems increased the square metre cost compared to a conventional box structure, but that is to be expected in such an unusual and unique building. The cost over-runs on the Sydney Opera House with its beautiful spinnaker sails spring to mind – but, unlike pyramids, that is a building that will forever remain unique.
LUXOR FACTS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_Hotel
ground broken 1991, opened Oct 1993
Height – 350 ft (106 m) (Great Pyramid of Giza = 137m)
Base length – 150m?
Angle = 39deg? (another source claims 49deg which I believe is more likely correct)
Atrium = 820,000m3 (29m ft3)
I confidently predict that, in due course, pyramid building technology will become as routine as rectangular box building technology is today and will become the conventional shape for future VLB’s (very large buildings).
Although I know little about construction or engineering, it just seems logical that, for VLB’s, the pyramid is a much more natural and intrinsically better form* than the conventional (and usually ugly) big box-long box-tall box. I would also venture that, once the initial technical problems are sorted out, and being such a natural and logical shape, pyramid-building costs per msq will be comparable or even more economical to build than conventional high-rise.
* Q – “why after 13 years does the Luxor remain unique, and why havent other large pyramids been built?” –
A – The pyramid form is only practical for VLB’s, Luxor Hotel sized or even larger, like the Pentagon with its 11hectare footprint, although only 5 floors. Pyramids are entirely impractical for single dwelling houses or even large apartment buildings. The problem will be familiar to anyone who has tried to create a loft inside a pitched roof, especially in situations where the sloping roof meets the floor – those inward sloping walls waste much of the internal space.
Pyramid Problem or Paradox
Imagine a pyramid-shaped holiday home with an 8×8 metre (64 msq) open-plan floor area and 45 deg sloping walls. For a normal box house this would be a very generously-sized room, but not for a pyramid because the floor area with a minimum 2m headroom is restricted to a 4×4 metre space in the center. You would be unable to stand much closer than 2 metres from the edge of the room without stooping, or even sit comfortably next to them as one does in a normal perpendicularly walled house. 50% of the floor space would be almost completely wasted and only 25% fully utilized compared to a box room. And you would certainly NEVER be able to later build another storey on top, as is the dubious fashion in many countries.
Q – “Yes, I can see your point about normal house sized buildings but why, with the sole exception of the unique “Luxor” Hotel in Las Vegas, dont we have any city office buildings, hotels etc built in pyramid form?
A – There are a number of reasons for this, although they all largely boil down to economics. The first is that normal building plots are far too small and an entire city block, which might accommodate something the size of the Luxor Hotel, rarely become available in any conventional city center. ‘Conventional’ being a label rarely if ever applied to Las Vegas. And if by chance, like the WTC site in NYC, a huge inner-city block did become available – it is highly improbable any developer would consider building a pyramid because 50% of its floor space would be ‘lost’ in its sharply tapering profile, as compared to a box construction of the same height. Aside from which a pyramid would be considerably more expensive to build, not because they are intrinsically problematic, but because only a tiny handful of construction companies has actually built one. Any tenderer would seek to protect themselves from unforeseen technical problems by adding a large contingency premium (maybe 20% or more) into their tender.
The “Trans America Pyramid” (completed 1972) is the San Francisco skyline’s most identifiable building, although strictly speaking it is a spire or obelisk and much too steep-sided (>80deg) to be a genuine pyramid. Despite its steepness, the top floor (the 48th) has only 10% the office space of the 5th, which is a major sacrifice. No doubt the owners considered that a price worth paying for its prestige value, and it has indeed become one of the worlds most recognizable modern buildings, and the “2nd most instantly recognizable San Francisco icon”.
Q – So at what minimum population size does a residential pyramid become a viable proposition..?
It should not be so populous that the great majority of residents remain forever strangers, and therefore too large and impersonal to form a genuine community. On the other hand, most urbanites prefer and enjoy a certain degree of anonymity and, although they may be happy to exchange friendly greetings “on the run” so to speak, they probably don’t wish to feel an obligation to stop and chat with almost every passer-by, as in a traditional small village.
I read a snippet recently which claimed that in the course of a lifetime most people only meet a few thousand others. And “meeting” is not the same as “knowing”. I would also imagine that most of those meetings were at school.
Of course some people are much more gregarious and convivial than others. One cant help thinking of those lotharios who claim to have bedded “thousands of women”. Imagine that in an arcology of 10,000, of which 5000 females, out of whom maybe 2000 sexual contenders of whom at most 1000 might pass the muster of “desirability”.
Imagine being able to boast…….!
Sexual fantasies aside, it might be useful to study the social interactions between cruise-ship passengers. My own experience of cruising is that after 2 weeks brushing shoulders with 1500 or so fellow passengers in a much more limited space than DP, the vast majority remain total strangers. As some of the newer superliners take 3000 or more passengers, and most cruises are of less than 2 weeks duration, I doubt that even the handsomest and most charming rascal would have had time or opportunity to get acquainted with more than a small proportion of fellow passengers. Of course, for an unattached attractive woman, matters might be very different..!