I was bored so I decided to take all of Clevelands buildings and spread out the skyline by height...

 

Drawings of the buildings are from skyscraperpage

 

 

So many buildings in Cleveland are so similar in height. I wish we'd get a couple to pass up the 400 plus feet range, in the spirit of adding a little more distinction.

So many buildings in Cleveland are so similar in height. I wish we'd get a couple to pass up the 400 plus feet range, in the spirit of adding a little more distinction.

 

Yeah me too, but I didnt say that.....  (what can I say, I like tall buildings!)

On the lot on public square i hope we get something at least the height of erieview

So many buildings in Cleveland are so similar in height. I wish we'd get a couple to pass up the 400 plus feet range, in the spirit of adding a little more distinction.

 

Some may already know this - you can thank Lake Erie for that; well, the glaciers that formed it. Their movement and retreat which left us with the Great Lakes also left the downtown Cleveland area with a 200' thick layer of glacial shale deposited on top of the bedrock. I know gotribe can offer a lot more geotechnical insight but our area's soil is some of the worst to work with when it comes to constructing skyscrapers - in places like NYC, bedrock is just below street level - here, we have to excavate 200 feet below street level (at least) before construction (actual built construction) can even start. Any building well over 400ish feet needs to be anchored to bedrock for structural stability; the only other option is "floating pad" where the building rests on a thick concrete "pad" that's about 7 to 8 feet thick. But - that limits the height of the building that the pad can support to around 400 feet. Key, Terminal, 200 Public Sq., Erieview and a few others all rest on caissons that reach 200ish feet down to bedrock. I've always wondered how our skyline would look if the soil conditions weren't a factor.

^just curious, do you know if the US courthouse had to dig that far down, or by being in the valley did the river do the work for them?

^The Courthouse tower is on a floating pad - that's part of the reason they reduced the floor count from the initial plans.

Some of the concrete caissons that support Terminal Tower are ten feet in diameter. Imagine what a challenge that must have been, excavating and pouring those with 1920s technology.

So many buildings in Cleveland are so similar in height. I wish we'd get a couple to pass up the 400 plus feet range, in the spirit of adding a little more distinction.

 

Some may already know this - you can thank Lake Erie for that; well, the glaciers that formed it. Their movement and retreat which left us with the Great Lakes also left the downtown Cleveland area with a 200' thick layer of glacial shale deposited on top of the bedrock. I know gotribe can offer a lot more geotechnical insight but our area's soil is some of the worst to work with when it comes to constructing skyscrapers - in places like NYC, bedrock is just below street level - here, we have to excavate 200 feet below street level (at least) before construction (actual built construction) can even start. Any building well over 400ish feet needs to be anchored to bedrock for structural stability; the only other option is "floating pad" where the building rests on a thick concrete "pad" that's about 7 to 8 feet thick. But - that limits the height of the building that the pad can support to around 400 feet. Key, Terminal, 200 Public Sq., Erieview and a few others all rest on caissons that reach 200ish feet down to bedrock. I've always wondered how our skyline would look if the soil conditions weren't a factor.

 

I was wondering what other cities if any have this problem. Why doesnt Chicago have it? or do they but not as bad...

^For the (stalled) Spire, caissons were drilled 120 feet deep into the bedrock.  Willis (Sears) Tower 100 ft.

I believe Chicago, geologically speaking, sits over the top of that solid limestone base that starts near western Ohio and moves further west...  Something like that. But for now, I would be happy to see the lots filled with something ample and dense.... Just maybe at least Erieview height.

 

^^^ Yes, and weren't they dug by hand?

There were over 1,000 rail cars filled with the dirt of the excavation for CUT. Those cars were taken on a line along old river road, and around the bluff... It was the terminal tower soil that was the primary foundation of what is now our "lakefront" where the port sits.

I was wondering what other cities if any have this problem. Why doesnt Chicago have it? or do they but not as bad...

 

As metrocity pointed out, Chicago has this to a lesser extent; look at where they're sited on their shoreline (aka the path of the glacier).

wow thats cool -- nice work!  :clap:

 

sure that skyline lineup is informative and fun, but i don't mind the lower sizes one bit. i take it as remarkable cle has tall buildings at all given it's distinct disadvantage for tall buildings vs ny schist and chicago limestone. not to mention places like portland, dc and paris are pretty sweet too and are perhaps better models. more than very tall structures the cleve needs replacements for what has been lost over the years -- eventually it'll happen. so i'll take 20 more shorty's over a new tall one!

 

So many buildings in Cleveland are so similar in height. I wish we'd get a couple to pass up the 400 plus feet range, in the spirit of adding a little more distinction.

 

Some may already know this - you can thank Lake Erie for that; well, the glaciers that formed it. Their movement and retreat which left us with the Great Lakes also left the downtown Cleveland area with a 200' thick layer of glacial shale deposited on top of the bedrock. I know gotribe can offer a lot more geotechnical insight but our area's soil is some of the worst to work with when it comes to constructing skyscrapers - in places like NYC, bedrock is just below street level - here, we have to excavate 200 feet below street level (at least) before construction (actual built construction) can even start. Any building well over 400ish feet needs to be anchored to bedrock for structural stability; the only other option is "floating pad" where the building rests on a thick concrete "pad" that's about 7 to 8 feet thick. But - that limits the height of the building that the pad can support to around 400 feet. Key, Terminal, 200 Public Sq., Erieview and a few others all rest on caissons that reach 200ish feet down to bedrock. I've always wondered how our skyline would look if the soil conditions weren't a factor.

 

even in manhattan it varies. my understanding is that the bedrock is closest around midtown and in the middle of downtown, thats why historically most of the tall buildings cluster there and why buildings tend to be shorter in between and elsewhere.

 

downtown manhattan is a lot thinner than most people realize, much of it is fill and tough to build on, which is apparant via this eye catching overlay from gothamist blog:

 

 

^ Good points....And in somewhat contrast to my first post....I also think that by having more shorts and fewer talls, the Cleveland skyline has its own kind of personality in that you can distinctively tell the buildings apart...(the "less is more" effect)as opposed to the kind of density that is so cluttered that you cannot tell one structure from another. Also, a 400 plus foot tower standing with less clutter appears much taller than it really is. The towers look more like monuments. Glad you also pointed out the limestone factor in Chicago.

 

Another point... I would take a lot of shorts to fill in the seas of surface pavement near the square and in the "Parking Lot District" any day over the choice of getting more high towers. At street level, even low structures as long as its dense, offers a "bigger" feel of the city scape.

Nice job with the panorama!

Great idea for a thread!

 

Nice job with the panorama!

 

Thanks! I can post the much larger version of it if you want.

Sure! Thanks

thanks, nice idea. I remember when the Erieview Plaza was built. It was such a big deal back then, with its Top of the Town restaurant.