Originally Posted by jarvissimo

Donkey22

"As much as I’d be opposed to this completely unsuitable building for the Southport sky line. The argument about sand being unsuitable for tall buildings to be constructed on doesn’t really hold out. The 830 metre high Burj Khalifa in Dubai is famously built on sand"

Not quite on sand

"Over 45,000 m3 (58,900 cu yd) of concrete, weighing more than 110,000 tonnes (120,000 short tons; 110,000 long tons) were used to construct the concrete and steel foundation, which features 192 piles; each pile is 1.5 metre in diameter by 43 m in length, buried more than 50 m (164 ft) deep."

Yep, that’ll be the foundation’s. Most buildings have them, regardless where they’re being built.

Could I just point out again where this "building" is actually sited on the image.

Calm down it's tosh.

This building won’t be an eyesore, this will be good for our town which needs to be supported.

The problem with Southport is there seems to be a negative culture in our town, with people not getting behind stuff like this, instead of being a keyboard warrior moaning why don’t you help Southport move forward and help us grow as a town.

Originally Posted by donkey22

Yep, that’ll be the foundation’s. Most buildings have them, regardless where they’re being built.

So its not built on sand then is it.

Originally Posted by jarvissimo

So its not built on sand then is it.

The foundation’s are considered to be an integral part of the finished structure, so yes it is. Hardly rocket science to work out.

Originally Posted by donkey22

The foundation’s are considered to be an integral part of the finished structure, so yes it is. Hardly rocket science to work out.

So your telling me they put piles ioto sand?

Originally Posted by jarvissimo

So your telling me they put piles ioto sand?

I’m not an engineer. I’ve no idea how they construct the foundation’s. Try googling it. All I do know, is that skyscrapers can be built on sand. We seem to have done a full circle here.

Originally Posted by donkey22

I’m not an engineer. I’ve no idea how they construct the foundation’s. Try googling it. All I do know, is that skyscrapers can be built on sand. We seem to have done a full circle here.

No, it just means you cant answer the question without proving yourself wrong, so you cop out.
Piles go down to bedrock ... so built on rock.
Some donkeys are hard to educate.

Originally Posted by jarvissimo

No, it just means you cant answer the question without proving yourself wrong, so you cop out.
Piles go down to bedrock ... so built on rock.
Some donkeys are hard to educate.

Oh dear. You’ve let yourself down there a bit. As soon as an idiot loses an argument they have to resort to personal insults. You could have saved yourself looking stupid by looking at how the sky scrapers in Abu Dhabi are built. They DO NOT get built on piles. No reason why the proposed Southport skyscraper can’t be built this way.
My original post was in answer to in/darkside who stated sky scrapers can’t be built in Southport because they can’t be built on sand. My answer along with that of another poster was to reply that there are many examples of skyscrapers being built on sand. THE FOUNDATIONS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FINISHED STRUCTURE. I appreciate your obviously not the brightest of people, but surely this concept isn’t that difficult to grasp?

Originally Posted by donkey22

Oh dear. You’ve let yourself down there a bit. As soon as an idiot loses an argument they have to resort to personal insults. You could have saved yourself looking stupid by looking at how the sky scrapers in Abu Dhabi are built. They DO NOT get built on piles. No reason why the proposed Southport skyscraper can’t be built this way.
My original post was in answer to in/darkside who stated sky scrapers can’t be built in Southport because they can’t be built on sand. My answer along with that of another poster was to reply that there are many examples of skyscrapers being built on sand. THE FOUNDATIONS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FINISHED STRUCTURE. I appreciate your obviously not the brightest of people, but surely this concept isn’t that difficult to grasp?

PILED TO BEDROCK
end of story i refuse to waste my time on you .

Originally Posted by jarvissimo

PILED TO BEDROCK
end of story i refuse to waste my time on you .

So a skyscraper could in theory be built in Southport, which was my original argument?
Yes it could then. I rest my case.

Originally Posted by jarvissimo

PILED TO BEDROCK
end of story i refuse to waste my time on you .

Your YouTube education fails you.
Piling doesn’t have to go down to bedrock. Piling is designed based on the total loads imposed, ground conditions, resistance etc.
You think you know it all, and try to argue the toss, but instead just look and sound stupid. Well done.

This seems to have got polarised.

You are either a progressive or a reactionary.

Surely it's possible to say sure, let's have a development, but not one so prominent?

Even halved in size because of the terrain around here it would be visible for about twenty miles; which is not necessarily a good thing.

But I guess the business case for building it might fail in that case.

I lived in a village outside Basingstoke for about six years. That's a town which was swamped by business buildings and estates. Tallest was the Canada Life building, and even Basinsgstoke residents didn't like it. In an effort to placate, the company offered to top the building with something the community would like.

Somehow the community chose a digital clock.

So from there on, in the night sky from six or so miles away we could see in the sky what looked like an enormous cheap alarm clock.

Originally Posted by donkey22

As soon as an idiot loses an argument they have to resort to personal insults. ?

Originally Posted by donkey22

I appreciate your obviously not the brightest of people, but surely this concept isn’t that difficult to grasp?

Haven't you just resorted to personal insults?

Originally Posted by r4dent

Haven't you just resorted to personal insults?

More a statement of fact.