The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. At a height of 1250 feet [0], it was the world's tallest building, exceeding the recently completed Chrysler building by 202 feet. It would hold that title for the next 39 years, until 1970 when it was surpassed in height by another New York skyscraper, the under-construction World Trade Center, which would reach a height of 1368 feet on the North Tower. The World Trade Center would hold that title for just 3 years, after which it would be surpassed by the 1451 foot Sears (now Willis) Tower, already under construction when the World Trade Center was being built. [1]
Interesting reading. However, I think your units got mixed up somewhere. 1200 feet/sec is more appropriate to the speed of a bullet from a gun than any elevator that I would want to ride!
What a great example of the right design constraints driving projects forward successfully? Was all of this sourced from a book or is this all original research? I can't imagine the time it took to put all of this into a cohesive narrative!
As somebody that knows nothing about construction but is extremely curious and interested in architecture, I think this newsletter is brilliant and super informative!!!!!!
The Great Depression probably helped. When Rockefeller Center was built, they were able to hardball the steel manufacturers who had little other work available. By 1930 the economy was on a down swing. It was only their connections that let the Empire State Building team get funding. The building is a great business address. Even now, I do a double take when someone is renting space in the ESB or the Chrysler Building. It is not a great office building since it has very limited floor space on each floor. That was one of the things that the World Trade Center did right.
When comparing the construction of the old World Trade Center and its two towers to the construction of the Empire State Building, consider that the former had 13.4M square feet of office space while the latter had less than one quarter of that, 2.9M square feet.
Very interesting essay, and it's a fascinating subject. I'd looked a bit at the delta in seeming efficiency between the older buildings like Empire State, and modern buildings like the Shard, reaching a tentative conclusion that there's distilled knowledge meaning the time of construction remains still somewhat similar, even though planning processes is often quite delayed - https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/distilled-knowledge-is-the-key-to
The Empire State Building, and Central Park Zoo, plus almost everything else by Robert Moses highlights the biggest problem facing America--we can't get major projects done on time and on budget, and our conception on-time it should take has gone from 1-2 years to 10-20 years. We can't do minor projects either to the point of absurdity. To cite a personal example, my coop, which is located in a landmark district, but is not landmarked, has spend months unable to proceed with repairs, since we have been unable to get approval for the mortar color. People in New York wonder why sidewalk bridges remain in place forever--blame the building department and the evil dictators at landmarks more than landlords.
In contrast, Time Warner Center took from 2000, when the old Coliseum was demolished, to 2004 to open. It topped out in 2003. The World Trade Center coming down in 2001 almost certainly slowed things down as it necessitated a safety review and stopped a lot of construction projects for at least a year. In contrast to the Empire State Building TWC has two towers and includes commercial space, office space, a partly underground multi-level shopping mall, residential floors, a hotel and parts of a subway station. It has about the same square footage, 2.7 million square feet, as the Empire State Building.
P.S. Standardization can do some amazing things to one's construction schedule and budget. So can getting all the trades in one room and having them talk to each other. I know that in NYC, standard form high rises can go up two floors a day, a process largely limited by how fast concrete can set.
Nitpick: should "feet per second" be "feet per minute" in the elevator speed? I'm guessing the Empire State Building's elevators don't break the sound barrier...
A marvelous overview of a unique project that continues to attract the millions. I learned even more about my beloved Empire State Building. My language comment is to beware of the word "iconic". It's a tiresome and now kind of meaningless cliché - used differently than its original point of reference. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine a truly efficient skyscraper going up now without controversy, inflated costs, and great waste. Builders are still putting up giant towers with the idea that someday they will be occupied. I loved the historic image of the Empire State festooned with 100-watt bulbs in the empty offices to assure the public that the building was alive, in its early years.
Today the tallest 100 skyscrapers around the world are more than 300 meters tall. They must all cope with the same gravity. This means that every lower section must support all of the weight above. Where is the data on the distribution of steel down any skyscraper, especially the Twin Towers?
The supposed less than 30 seconds collapse of the North Tower because the top fell straight down onto the lower 85% is a ridiculous joke. Where is the analysis of the Conservation of Momentum which cannot be done without knowing the distribution of steel and the distribution of concrete?
The NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. I downloaded and searched it in 2007.
“There were some notable deviations from standard practice. In addition to the novel outboard spandrel beam, the building used a stronger structural steel than the code had previously allowed (18,000 vs 16,000 psi). The developers lobbied the mayor directly for the change (which was already common in most other American cities), who signed it into law in May of 1930, just as steel erection commenced.”
This factoid is intriguing. Building code prohibited a higher strength steel from being used? Why would they do that?
I can understand putting a floor on the strength of material used in construction, but not a ceiling. Did building code enumerate specific types of material that were allowable, and the list didn’t have the higher strength steel on it?
Also, 18,000 psi is a really low grade steel. A36 which has a yield strength of 36,000 psi is super common these days. I’m not a civil engineer, but I do machine design at work, and we use the stuff all the time. It’s very common and dirt cheap. I’m surprised steel metallurgy was that far behind as recently as 90 years ago.
Interesting reading. However, I think your units got mixed up somewhere. 1200 feet/sec is more appropriate to the speed of a bullet from a gun than any elevator that I would want to ride!
What a great example of the right design constraints driving projects forward successfully? Was all of this sourced from a book or is this all original research? I can't imagine the time it took to put all of this into a cohesive narrative!
Amazing work, you would have spend considerable amount of time in gathering so much of info. Thanks for sharing.
As somebody that knows nothing about construction but is extremely curious and interested in architecture, I think this newsletter is brilliant and super informative!!!!!!
The Great Depression probably helped. When Rockefeller Center was built, they were able to hardball the steel manufacturers who had little other work available. By 1930 the economy was on a down swing. It was only their connections that let the Empire State Building team get funding. The building is a great business address. Even now, I do a double take when someone is renting space in the ESB or the Chrysler Building. It is not a great office building since it has very limited floor space on each floor. That was one of the things that the World Trade Center did right.
When comparing the construction of the old World Trade Center and its two towers to the construction of the Empire State Building, consider that the former had 13.4M square feet of office space while the latter had less than one quarter of that, 2.9M square feet.
Very interesting essay, and it's a fascinating subject. I'd looked a bit at the delta in seeming efficiency between the older buildings like Empire State, and modern buildings like the Shard, reaching a tentative conclusion that there's distilled knowledge meaning the time of construction remains still somewhat similar, even though planning processes is often quite delayed - https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/distilled-knowledge-is-the-key-to
The Empire State Building, and Central Park Zoo, plus almost everything else by Robert Moses highlights the biggest problem facing America--we can't get major projects done on time and on budget, and our conception on-time it should take has gone from 1-2 years to 10-20 years. We can't do minor projects either to the point of absurdity. To cite a personal example, my coop, which is located in a landmark district, but is not landmarked, has spend months unable to proceed with repairs, since we have been unable to get approval for the mortar color. People in New York wonder why sidewalk bridges remain in place forever--blame the building department and the evil dictators at landmarks more than landlords.
Very good article! Empire has such a great design, I never would have thought it was so thoroughly simple from top to bottom.
Where do the isometric drawings and details come from? Where can I find them?
In contrast, Time Warner Center took from 2000, when the old Coliseum was demolished, to 2004 to open. It topped out in 2003. The World Trade Center coming down in 2001 almost certainly slowed things down as it necessitated a safety review and stopped a lot of construction projects for at least a year. In contrast to the Empire State Building TWC has two towers and includes commercial space, office space, a partly underground multi-level shopping mall, residential floors, a hotel and parts of a subway station. It has about the same square footage, 2.7 million square feet, as the Empire State Building.
P.S. Standardization can do some amazing things to one's construction schedule and budget. So can getting all the trades in one room and having them talk to each other. I know that in NYC, standard form high rises can go up two floors a day, a process largely limited by how fast concrete can set.
Nitpick: should "feet per second" be "feet per minute" in the elevator speed? I'm guessing the Empire State Building's elevators don't break the sound barrier...
A marvelous overview of a unique project that continues to attract the millions. I learned even more about my beloved Empire State Building. My language comment is to beware of the word "iconic". It's a tiresome and now kind of meaningless cliché - used differently than its original point of reference. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine a truly efficient skyscraper going up now without controversy, inflated costs, and great waste. Builders are still putting up giant towers with the idea that someday they will be occupied. I loved the historic image of the Empire State festooned with 100-watt bulbs in the empty offices to assure the public that the building was alive, in its early years.
Today the tallest 100 skyscrapers around the world are more than 300 meters tall. They must all cope with the same gravity. This means that every lower section must support all of the weight above. Where is the data on the distribution of steel down any skyscraper, especially the Twin Towers?
The supposed less than 30 seconds collapse of the North Tower because the top fell straight down onto the lower 85% is a ridiculous joke. Where is the analysis of the Conservation of Momentum which cannot be done without knowing the distribution of steel and the distribution of concrete?
The NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. I downloaded and searched it in 2007.
Really nice job... thank you.
“There were some notable deviations from standard practice. In addition to the novel outboard spandrel beam, the building used a stronger structural steel than the code had previously allowed (18,000 vs 16,000 psi). The developers lobbied the mayor directly for the change (which was already common in most other American cities), who signed it into law in May of 1930, just as steel erection commenced.”
This factoid is intriguing. Building code prohibited a higher strength steel from being used? Why would they do that?
I can understand putting a floor on the strength of material used in construction, but not a ceiling. Did building code enumerate specific types of material that were allowable, and the list didn’t have the higher strength steel on it?
Also, 18,000 psi is a really low grade steel. A36 which has a yield strength of 36,000 psi is super common these days. I’m not a civil engineer, but I do machine design at work, and we use the stuff all the time. It’s very common and dirt cheap. I’m surprised steel metallurgy was that far behind as recently as 90 years ago.