The first time I saw the Turbinomics concept my thought were that while it would be an iconic building reality says it is not likely to be built. At that point I pretty much dismissed the idea.

But when it was brought up again last weekend on the mystery tower thread I decided to take another look at the concept. After viewing the video clip again and reading a couple of on-line articles, my thinking changed to this needs to built. No doubt that it would become an instant landmark, perhaps even a tourist attraction, and would expand the concept of Oklahoma City being known as an energy center.

So the question I posed to myself and to you, is could this somehow work?

In business the old adage is location, location, location. With an idea the key is timing.

When the Turbinomics concept was first proposed, GE wasn’t planning to build their North American Energy Research Center in the metro area. While it is true that GE is one of the top ten wind turbine manufactures in the world, it mainly builds horizontal axis wind turbines. Will any of their research center be used for wind energy? I don’t know, but one thing is known GE has a history of growing their centers.

There two types of wind turbine the vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT) and the horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT). Horizontal axis wind turbine are the type seen at numerous wind farms scattered throughout Oklahoma.

Vertical axis wind turbines are typically smaller and are commonly seen on the rooftops of buildings. An example of a vertical axis wind turbines can been seen on the roof of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. Interestingly it is considered to be the largest roof top wind farm in the US. {1}

The Turbinomic building would be of the vertical axis wind turbine type and would probably the largest application of VAWT technology in the country. The Turbinomic building in itself would be a VAWT research center and it’s technology could propel an explosion of growth for that side of the industry. It could attract VAWT companies to town.

We have the wind, Oklahoma City’s average annual wind speed is 12.2 mph. making it the second windiest city in America. The state of Oklahoma currently ranks seventh on the list of top wind power generating states on the production side. What is our potential on the research side? {2}

The Turbinomic Bldg would be 795 ft tall, 53 stories (including spire) and have a
Total building area of: 570,186 sq ft. {3}

I don't know if there is room for an observation deck in the building. Personal experience tells me that in 2004 a visit to the observatory atop the Empire State Bldg cost $12 and a view from the O Deck at the Space Needle ran $8. And I don’t think there would be any doubt that the Turbinomics Bldg would instantly become an iconic Oklahoma City landmark and though not designed as a tourist attraction it would become one.

The figure given for total building square footing doesn’t mean much to me, nor do I propose to know what would be the best use for the building or where it should be located. One of the sites visited gave a estimate building cost of $300 million and as you can probably guess I haven’t a clue if that is feasible or not. It just appears that there is a lot of potential.

What do you think?



{1} http://www.vengerwind.com/projects/omrf.html

{2} http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp

{3} http://www.arthitectural.com/elliott-associates-architects-turbinomics/

The first time I saw the Turbinomics concept my thought were that while it would be an iconic building reality says it is not likely to be built. At that point I pretty much dismissed the idea.

But when it was brought up again last weekend on the mystery tower thread I decided to take another look at the concept. After viewing the video clip again and reading a couple of on-line articles, my thinking changed to this needs to built. No doubt that it would become an instant landmark, perhaps even a tourist attraction, and would expand the concept of Oklahoma City being known as an energy center.

So the question I posed to myself and to you, is could this somehow work?

In business the old adage is location, location, location. With an idea the key is timing.

When the Turbinomics concept was first proposed, GE wasn’t planning to build their North American Energy Research Center in the metro area. While it is true that GE is one of the top ten wind turbine manufactures in the world, it mainly builds horizontal axis wind turbines. Will any of their research center be used for wind energy? I don’t know, but one thing is known GE has a history of growing their centers.

There two types of wind turbine the vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT) and the horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT). Horizontal axis wind turbine are the type seen at numerous wind farms scattered throughout Oklahoma.

Vertical axis wind turbines are typically smaller and are commonly seen on the rooftops of buildings. An example of a vertical axis wind turbines can been seen on the roof of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. Interestingly it is considered to be the largest roof top wind farm in the US. {1}

The Turbinomic building would be of the vertical axis wind turbine type and would probably the largest application of VAWT technology in the country. The Turbinomic building in itself would be a VAWT research center and it’s technology could propel an explosion of growth for that side of the industry. It could attract VAWT companies to town.

We have the wind, Oklahoma City’s average annual wind speed is 12.2 mph. making it the second windiest city in America. The state of Oklahoma currently ranks seventh on the list of top wind power generating states on the production side. What is our potential on the research side? {2}

The Turbinomic Bldg would be 795 ft tall, 53 stories (including spire) and have a
Total building area of: 570,186 sq ft. {3}

I don't know if there is room for an observation deck in the building. Personal experience tells me that in 2004 a visit to the observatory atop the Empire State Bldg cost $12 and a view from the O Deck at the Space Needle ran $8. And I don’t think there would be any doubt that the Turbinomics Bldg would instantly become an iconic Oklahoma City landmark and though not designed as a tourist attraction it would become one.

The figure given for total building square footing doesn’t mean much to me, nor do I propose to know what would be the best use for the building or where it should be located. One of the sites visited gave a estimate building cost of $300 million and as you can probably guess I haven’t a clue if that is feasible or not. It just appears that there is a lot of potential.

What do you think?



{1} Venger Wind - Detail Projects (http://www.vengerwind.com/projects/omrf.html)

{2} Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp)

{3} Elliott + Associates Architects | Turbinomics | arthitectural.com (http://www.arthitectural.com/elliott-associates-architects-turbinomics/)

So the question I posed to myself and to you, could this somehow work?

1st) The diameter of the majority of the floors seems to end up being too small to be practical as rendered, they can all still vary but unless the top 1/3 of the renderings I saw were not intended to have floor space for people; it needs to curve more gradually. What I saw would barely have room for elevators, stares and other mechanical spaces to the higher levels.

2nd) I am not big of the flare at the base coming to such a narrow diameter (maybe if it had a sort of pedestal for street interaction or started re-flaring back out to the property line at some point). As rendered it seems to abandon any chance of mixed used at ground level, it needlessly increase the perceived distance to walk to it and unless it is tied into The Underground I do not see all the depicted underground component as something that should be made into a/the primary entrance. I could even go with having smaller buildings around the base similar to the buildings connected to the rotunda of Devon's complex but part of the same complex if keeping the lines was desired.

3rd) The turbines them-self, being on a building in the middle of a city brings up some issues you do not get with them in the middle of a field. There had better be some way of keeping the turbines quiet or the sound from entering the building. If hail is thrown at them or something else causes failures, they need to break in a way that does not endanger the building or throw shards down to the ground. Do we have any idea if much research would need to be done for implement the blades? That could make the building uneconomical if you have to do a ton of research for a one off project. What is average wind speed between like 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM will be the most important if it is an office (which seems the most likely to get built), it should be higher than average speed since winds are generally calmer at night, I hope it is several mph because only getting around 10% of the buildings power on average just does not seem like enough to be worth the hassle.

I kind of think the idea would be better as a type of scenic aerial attraction rather than a place for people to work all day. I also agree there is so much studying to be done and practical issues to address.

Sorry for being a wet towel, but Turbinomics belongs in Popular Mechanics magazine, not OKC... It's a wonderful looking thing, and would definitely become a unique attraction, but functionally it’s dead on arrival. Buildings are buildings, and generators are generators. Blending these two disparate things into one is illogical, and would be a never-ending maintenance nightmare (ask anyone who maintains any kind of generator). Ask OMRF if their “DNA” generators are worth the headache… or if they're sustainable. The only purpose is public relations.

Buckminster Fuller’s idea to dome-over NYC, and Paolo Solari’s designs for the Hypercity are tantalizing concepts, and wonderful things to behold… but economically stupid designs that will only exist in Popular Mechanics.

Sorry for being a wet towel, but Turbinomics belongs in Popular Mechanics magazine, not OKC... It's a wonderful looking thing, and would definitely become a unique attraction, but functionally it’s dead on arrival. Buildings are buildings, and generators are generators. Blending these two disparate things into one is illogical, and would be a never-ending maintenance nightmare (ask anyone who maintains any kind of generator). Ask OMRF if their “DNA” generators are worth the headache… or if they're sustainable. The only purpose is public relations.

Buckminster Fuller’s idea to dome-over NYC, and Paolo Solari’s designs for the Hypercity are tantalizing concepts, and wonderful things to behold… but economically stupid designs that will only exist in Popular Mechanics.

I tend to agree with this.

One could only imagine the costs and time that the building would require in maintenance. Build a normal yet efficient tower and then build some wind turbines out in the country that are dedicated to that building...that would be most feasible.

...perhaps a better idea would be to use the tower as a vertical garden experiment. An urban farm powered and serviced by wind power and mechanics. Is there significant water supply downtown for a well? ...Just thinking out loud. I'd support the council hiring a firm to explore the option.

See my comment below. Farms are farms, and buildings are buildings. Why marry them?! This isn't a topic for the Council... it's a topic for the editors of PM.

Ask OMRF if their “DNA” generators are worth the headache… or if they're sustainable. The only purpose is public relations. .

It would be interesting to know how this project is performing energy generation wise and if there is any issues with vibration and noise pollution. Maybe we’ll get lucky and one of the forums reader who works there can give us some insight or one of the Oklahoman’s energy writers will do an update story.

As for functionality the one paper I found is on Aerospace Research Central and is behind a paid wall. Again maybe another forum reader has access and could enlighten us. The first page of that paper can be viewed here. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-1190

The Turbinomics Building concept might work if it were adapted to a more conventional design. The highly stylized spire is impractical and probably unworkable simply due to the small floor sizes as mentioned previously. But if a circular tower with the "turbine blades" between floors was built above a base that extended to the sidewalk it mught work. The "base" would need to provide enough setback for the tower section to have constant exposure to steady wind and the "blades" would likely need to be set within some sort of framing. It would be interesting to see a team of architects and engineers work on a more feasible plan. There are hundreds of technical issues but I think the idea is possible even if the first attempt is likely to be extremely costly.

People are people. We used to live in caves. I'm kind of confused by your desire to over-simplify the function of certain things.

You do know that buildings serve a massive amount of functions, including farming? Vertical farms simply take an existing method (greenhouses for example) and go vertical with them...just like we've done with so many other functions.

Not really passionate enough to debate the merits of vertical farms. Just was throwing out my ideas for such a structure. Thanks for reiterating your position but I guess I just don't understand it enough to discuss it much.

30+ years practicing architecture has given me some insight into what buildings are, and where they do and don’t belong… I don’t desire to over-simplify. I do desire to avoid over-complication; and that’s exactly what happens when you have a shotgun wedding between two things that aren’t meant to coexist in the same space!

Why would you put a vertical farm in a CBD when there’s PLEANTY of farmland for miles around? You wouldn’t, unless you have too much money and a desire to over-complicate. Vertical farms might make sense in Singapore or Dubai, but not downtown OKC.

Why would you marry a building with a generator when there abundant, affordable energy options? “Building should be buildings” isn’t an anti-progressive statement; it’s practical.

I don't mean any disrespect to anybody, but I don't think 30 years in the architectural field is the litmus test for determining whether someone's knowledge base is adequate to determine if this is a good or a bad idea. Rand Elliott has 30+ years as an architect, too.

I assumed the purpose of the building was to test limits. To see what can be done. Not simply to build a building.

And that's not an entirely wasteful proposition. It can be inspiring, and educational and spur a lot of new, innovative engineering/architecture.

I do understand your point though. I think when a concept like this is proposed it is important to hear from both sides.

Just tossing this out there but do you think 30+ years of experience in the industry may be making you a little anti-progressive (if resisting such a building indeed was)?

Yes you’re probably right; 30+ years of experience does make me an anti-progressive old fart who thinks the old ways are superior to the new-fangled, flash-in-the-pan, gee whiz, “architecture.”

I think your assumption (that “the purpose of Turbionimics was to test limits”) might be right. There’s nothing wrong with exploring the possibilities (see my original comment about Fuller and Soleri), but some in this forum seem to be exploring feasibility. Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. I do agree with you regarding an exciting concept's role in practical innovation.

Regardless of my degree of progressivism, I think I’m safe in saying this “building” will never leave the pages of Popular Mechanics.

Yes you’re probably right; 30+ years of experience does make me an anti-progressive old fart who thinks the old ways are superior to the new-fangled, flash-in-the-pan, gee whiz, “architecture.”

I think your assumption (that “the purpose of Turbionimics was to test limits”) might be right. There’s nothing wrong with exploring the possibilities (see my original comment about Fuller and Soleri), but some in this forum seem to be exploring feasibility. Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. I do agree with you regarding an exciting concept's role in practical innovation.

Regardless of my degree of progressivism, I think I’m safe in saying this “building” will never leave the pages of Popular Mechanics.

I applaud you for your honesty and except for a couple of sentences, I liked the rest of your comment.

"Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done."
This is a pretty conservative approach to architecture!
Why the pyramids? The hanging gardens? A mile high building in the middle of the desert and a manmade island to boot!
Because we do! want to test the limits. What will we know for the future after it is built is a scientific approach to this concept. Even withe current LEED construction concepts, there is plenty of room for improvement for an energy independent building.
20 years ago someone probably said "why even worry about what the wind speed of a tornado is? No one needs to know anything other than it destroys things, get out of the path." But fortunately thanks to the weather technology pioneers, we know alot more than wind speed, even pedicting with high efficiency when conditions will produce one.
How important will enegy be for the future and who will be the pioneers?
I for one want it to be an Oklahoman in OKC with its "Energy Hub" development, with a dynamic concept like this.
It may well be limited in the usibility and functionality, but i do think it should be done. If Rand is right, and it is built in Dubai or Singapore or S. Korea by someone that is willing to spend/explore, and it turns out Rands concept is right, the innovative approach would have been worth reaching for. OKC has pioneered an innovative, unorthodox approach in its renaissance. Promoting this construction would only fit its innovative trend. Ok was reaching for it with IM PEI.
Innovation, exploration, energy and architecture! Its what OKC wants to be!

Structure-borne sound transmission...yikes.

ThunderCit,
While i personally am a bit too excited about Turbinomics, and I realize the reality is it may never be built...
I dont see noise being as much an issue as you might think. (If i understand your fears)
You likely realize that the moving fiber blades are as a result of wind, not the thing generating wind. We get noise from the outward flow of wind generated by axial fans which disturb/move it in the direction we want. But, the inward absorbtion of air to generate the energy would not be comparable. Im not saying pinwheel quite by any means, but hardly more noticable than the movement of downtown traffic, less the wind itself that blows past your ears. In the quiet of nighttime i could see a bit of a humm.
I understand any movement and friction and contact generation will cause some noise, but i wouldnt think that outstanding.

ThunderCit,
While i personally am a bit too excited about Turbinomics, and I realize the reality is it may never be built...
I dont see noise being as much an issue as you might think. (If i understand your fears)
You likely realize that the moving fiber blades are as a result of wind, not the thing generating wind. We get noise from the outward flow of wind generated by axial fans which disturb/move it in the direction we want. But, the inward absorbtion of air to generate the energy would not be comparable. Im not saying pinwheel quite by any means, but hardly more noticable than the movement of downtown traffic, less the wind itself that blows past your ears. In the quiet of nighttime i could see a bit of a humm.
I understand any movement and friction and contact generation will cause some noise, but i wouldnt think that outstanding.



Remember the old swing ride at Springlake Park? Lets build this and put the Big Old ferris wheel in the same area and "whamo". People would pay big money to swing from the Turbonomics building and then move to the more gentler wheel.

Seriously,the thing looks like some kind of overblown amusement ride.

Remember the old swing ride at Springlake Park? Lets build this and put the Big Old ferris wheel in the same area and "whamo". People would pay big money to swing from the Turbonomics building and then move to the more gentler wheel.

Seriously,the thing looks like some kind of overblown amusement ride.


Would you convert the old ferris wheel into a wind turbine as well, and would that be a horizontal axis type? Are you planning other rides and would they incorporate power generation as well? Would think that the loading and unloading of passengers on the big swing would interrupt the power generation process.
Would your amusement park only be open when the wind was blowing?

:Smiley122

...and I realize the reality is it may never be built...

It's funny that a lot of science fiction novelty items seen in TV shows in the past are now a practical application to every day life. Seems to me that human ingenuity comes up with some crazy designs on a computer and human minds down the road will find a way to make it truly exist. Never say never, because it may not be built here, but it will eventually be built somewhere. It's yet to be seen though if they're to be built within our lifetimes.

We just need to get the right company or combinations of companies interested in the project. Perhaps Google would be a good candidate as they already have a presence in Oklahoma (server farm - NE OK) and they are not shy about making commitments to sustainable projects.

The building is unique enough and the sustainable aspect interesting enough that perhaps it would entice Google to locate a project office here.

:artist:

Google Green link http://www.google.com/green/

This is for you, Sid: Urban Agriculture Grows Up | | | techfeatures | Architectural Record (http://archrecord.construction.com/tech/techFeatures/2013/1307-Urban-Agriculture-Grows-Up.asp)
(check the slide show on the headline pic...)

I love it and wish they would build it

Agreed!!!!!! This would be a major landmark for this city!!!!! There is nothing quite like this anywhere. You have the Space Needle for Seattle, Hancock Tower for Chicago, Reunion Tower in Dallas, Capitol in D.C., Arch in St. Louis, and those are fine in all, but this would truly be something remarkable and original!!!! I would love for this to get built, but I'm not getting hopes up. :/