http://www.e-a-a.com/portfolios/Ideas-For-The-Future/Turbinomics/6.jpg
Reference: Oklahoman, Business, May 15, 2009


Would it work?

Elliott insists the building design, for which he has a patent pending, can work, though construc-
tion and operation costs have yet to be broken down.

He said the design already has been reviewed by T. Boone Pickens, who has won national recogni-
tion for his efforts to promote alternative energy sources, and Ray Harris, president of Mesa Power. Both men, Elliott said, were impressed with what they saw.

Those attending the presentation were unsure whether it could ever become a reality.

Could Elliott's design be incorporated into the buildings of the future?

http://archive.newsok.com/Olive/APA/Oklahoman/get/pdf.ashx?pdf=MHslgEeViLPG3dPKWkCBTWM%3D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MjgJE0Jv-o

i'll just leave this here...
http://www.playle.com/KDL/94002.jpg

ill bet the engineers are all having a good laugh at this one.

ill bet the engineers are all having a good laugh at this one.Why is that? I think it could be done. Look at the Khalifa Tower. What do you think engineers said when the Empire State building was proposed? I mean part of what made this country bold is doing things that no one thought was possible like the Interstate System, Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, and we built all of those things and they still stand today.

This building sure would be a hassle and probably wouldn't be practical to incorporate in a lot of building designs, but it sure would be cool to see this build in Core2Shore somewhere! :)

Did I miss something here? Are they still thinking about building this? Did anyone really ever think about building this? Maybe they could build it in the new park and attach swings to it and charge for rides like the old swing ride at Springlake?

Rand Elliott's work is well established. Now would OKC be ready for something of this magnitude, probably not--because we are more frugal with investments.

We will continue to be that community that tears down historic places; replaces them with generic type projects that are bland rather than impressive. Our Riversport Rapids will add to the quality of projects stemming from MAPS.

I've seen some potentially impressive projects like the OG&E north & south towers suddenly get put on the self for now.

OG&E Springs replaced the Stage Center. Many posters on this forum want OKC to cosmetically reflect the beautiful people (Oklahoma Strong) who live within our community. We've improved the core (downtown-bricktown), there's more work to be done. Our city use to be the pits (The Big Dusty); since MAPS, NBA, Devon Tower, new crosstown & Skydance Bridge; there has been a great transition--we look more like a city.

Streets, planters and overall improvements have made our city much better than what you saw in the 70s-80s when OKC remained stagnant.

Let's not compare apples to oranges here. Building something really tall, really big, with a big cantilever, or really wide is one thing. Building a 20 story ninja blender that sits on a pad the size of a dime is another. Architect students and competition participants come up with ideas like this all the time. It doesn't mean they would ever work/be built. Well that's to say, they COULDNT work. It would just cost an incomprehensible amount of money. We sent men to the moon and back in 1969 and it took hundreds of the greatest minds and billions of 60's dollars. Anything is "possible." Just not this ninja blender skyscraper.

Uptowner; truly understand what you are saying:


It would just cost an incomprehensible amount of money.

My question in post #1 was:
Could Elliott's design be incorporated into the buildings of the future?
Should have made it more 'design' clear about the use of the turbines to power the future buildings.

MY BADD!

Should have caught that when Martin showed Oral Roberts' Prayer Tower. It doesn't have look like spinning top.

I will agree that it is a fanciful design but realistically any structure that rotates is doomed. Look at the former Eagle's Nest at Founders Tower and the derelict Space Needle at the state fairgounds.

Looks cool on paper. If it were feasible, any savings in energy costs would be canceled out by being a maintenance headache .

Why is that? I think it could be done. Look at the Khalifa Tower. What do you think engineers said when the Empire State building was proposed? I mean part of what made this country bold is doing things that no one thought was possible like the Interstate System, Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, and we built all of those things and they still stand today.

This building sure would be a hassle and probably wouldn't be practical to incorporate in a lot of building designs, but it sure would be cool to see this build in Core2Shore somewhere! :)

I didn'tknow Wiz has his own tower... That's cool!

I will agree that it is a fanciful design but realistically any structure that rotates is doomed. Look at the former Eagle's Nest at Founders Tower and the derelict Space Needle at the state fairgounds.
Dallas has a spinning building that works just fine. I guess standards are higher over there? I don't know. It's called the Reunion Towers. They slowly spin while you eat and give you a 360 of the city.

Eagle's Nest wasn't an instance of the building itself rotating but rather a low platform inside of a single room. It ran fine for something like 50 years. But for recent deferred maintenance and a restauranteur who thought he didn't need to maximize the viewing experience that had served the place well for decades, it would still be running today. Little of which is relevant to Rand's design.

Dallas has a spinning building that works just fine. I guess standards are higher over there? I don't know. It's called the Reunion Towers. They slowly spin while you eat and give you a 360 of the city.

This structure does not turn, it has a rotating platform like the Eagles nest. Towers of the Americas in San Antonio does the same thing.

I'm not acquainted with the engineering structure of a building using turbines as presented here.

Elliott's turbines would probably save a lot on energy; however, the bigger question would be how much capital investment would have to go into building those wind turbines to make it economically feasible to build, along with how many years would it take to recoup that investment.

Could Elliott's design be incorporated into the buildings of the future?

I could see where integrating power generation into vertical building designs would make sense, in an ultra dense environment (Singapore, London, etc). I don't see it making sense in any area where there is plenty of available land for solar and wind generation. In that case, it's very much a forced marriage in space use, IMO, and would be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. However, I could see a say, in many cities, where concepts such at this could become a necessity.

Invisible Solar Cells That Could Power Skyscrapers - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-23/invisible-solar-cells-that-could-power-skyscrapers)

This structure does not turn, it has a rotating platform like the Eagles nest. Towers of the Americas in San Antonio does the same thing.
I understand. But neither did the Eagles Nest. That was what I responding to.

Invisible Solar Cells That Could Power Skyscrapers - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-23/invisible-solar-cells-that-could-power-skyscrapers)

You could reduce energy bills by at least 30%-40%. Many building like the FNC could retrofit these panels into their renovation plans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TkgtddQalQ

December 3, 2012
Oklahoma State University alum and principal of Elliott + Associates Architects Rand Elliott shares his
futuristic idea for sustainable buildings: Turbinomics. Revealed as part of his talk, Elliott explains the
details of turbinomoics and its potentials to change architecture.

This would be a nice unique landmark.

Go for it Rand !

^^^^^^^^^^^^
That was 12 years ago.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
That was 12 years ago.

I know.

Not every reader will know to make that distinction without it being called to their attention, which can lead to misinformation being reposted online, hence my follow-up to your post.

Not every reader will know to make that distinction without it being called to their attention, which can lead to misinformation being reposted online, hence my follow-up to your post.


Highlighted December 3, 2012. That's why I posted it in the Nostalgia & Memories thread.

IIRC the video states that Rand Elliott has a patent on this skyscraper. It could be used today.

just imagine this AND Legends Tower. .....