Europe and Canada have already built some really interesting large-scale mass timber buildings. It’s only a matter of time before a mass timber skyscraper is built, there are already a few timber high-rises completed, and even taller ones are proposed. NYC recently legalized mass timber construction to a height of six stories or 85 feet, which is a start. Unfortunately red tape still keeps a lot of American cities behind the curve with cutting-edge construction technology like this.
That surprised me: my assumption was we don’t build like that because it is not legal/approved in NYC. I believe the “red tape” factor will keep this new building method out of NYC for some time to come. I is obvious that the steel industry, iron workers, and concrete construction interests have a strong incentive to keep this new method from gaining popularity.
The only practical question - given the current state of affairs - will be about the existing methods of construction. I often wonder why some buildings get built with a structural steel superstructure, and others of the same size/type get made with reinforced concrete.
They both make for a strong building superstructure; but one is eventually chosen over the other for some unknown reason.
You think that looks weak you should see their electrical grid. The local wires running between poles looks like someone threw a ton of spaghetti into the air. I was in Acapulco a few years ago and there was a power pole standing 3 feet into a road at a curve! crazy stuff. Thankfully the taxi driver knew it was there!
Considering this is a thread of how buildings are built and not destroyed and topics involving the collapse of any of the towers at the WTC on 9/11 bring about jargon and a lot of unnecessary discussion, debate, and controversy, I won’t answer that question under discretion.