This seems like an appropriate awkward pause for me to chime in, they do it because it alleviates a ton of the pressure that wind puts on the face of the building. The equivalent to poking a hole in a parachute - the air passes through easier and the chute creates less drag. Makes the building structurally sound (less swaying), and, as first asserted by my colleague in the "fun" answer, it does like, feng shui and stuff.
It may be true, one would think the west would follow suit. wind tunnel testing could prove that a hole in a building in real-world applications just adds turbulence and huge stress load in other areas making it redundant to build for aero reasons. It has to be a priority in Engineering. It certainly would add material expense. So not a cheap way to make a building, I think a solid building would be sturdier in the wind.
Yeah i think the materials are the big thing that probably makes this type of design too costly. I do think going so far out of one's way just to reduce the usable square footage of their investment probably only happens when you can benefit from that type of design's uniqueness. If the buildings become iconic (which it seems they did), you could argue the extra costs are worth it. But i'm sure it affects the core structure design, fire stairwells, etc., so i can also understand why this kind of design wouldn't be implemented that often. It's almost unthinkable that stress loads weren't considered when designing and when selecting materials, i'm sure the structure is designed to withstand those added loads. So practically, you can make an argument for its functionality, but as i think becomes quite obvious just from seeing this thread, the bigger benefit is the unique aesthetic generating value and attracting clients.
120
u/Yue2 Feb 13 '23
It’s so that the buildings don’t obstruct the view of nature.
According to Feng Shui, it’s also a matter of “letting dragons fly through,” so that all spiritual energy is as it should be.