当前位置:主页 > 国际热点翻译 > 正文

如果中国能在19天内建成一座摩天楼,为什么美国办不到呢?

作者:施索恩工作室 时间:2019-07-10 09:58 
孤叶工作室

If China can build a skyscraper in 19 days, why can't the United States do that as well?

如果中国能在19天内建成一座摩天大楼,为什么美国办不到呢?

20150316172405138.png

 以下是Quora读者的评论:

Matthew Lohden, 30+ years working in the design and construction of buildings.

A US company once built a house in 8 hours.

US teams could build a skyscraper in the same fashion as the Chinese one given good enough reason. The reality though is that the building wasn't built in that time. It was only erected. There is also all the time spent preparing and assembling all the components so that the erection could be so quick. There are certainly advantages to modular construction but there are also trade offs which make it unsuitable in many cases and of limited use in others.

The Chinese are still developing their infrastructure and it makes sense to explore ways to do it faster and with economies of scale. In the US our problems are more about repairing, updating, and reorganizing an otherwise pretty fully developed built environment. The applications for such full on modularization are much more limited here.

一家美国公司曾经在8小时内建起了一栋房子。

如果有足够的理由,美国团队也可以像中国团队一样建造摩天楼。但事实是,这座建筑不是在那时候才建造的。他们只是把房子搭起来而已。之前也花了很多时间来准备和装配所有的组件,才使得安装可以这么快进行。模块化结构当然有优势,但也需要有所舍弃,使其在许多情况下并不完美,在其他情况下也有所限制。

中国仍在发展基础设施,探索加快发展速度、实现规模经济是有意义的。在美国,我们的问题更多的在于修复、更新和重建一个相当发达的建筑环境。这种完全模块化的应用在这里非常有限。

 

Jerry To, lives in Hong Kong

The US COULD do that, if they invest into the prefab technologies and manufacturing facilities as much as the company behind this skyscraper did.

The US just didn't do it, because there's no need to erect skyscrapers in 19 days.

In fact, China didn't need to erect skyscrapers in 19 days either. The vast majority of China's buildings were not completed this way.

Even for this particular project, they still didn't HAVE to complete it in 19 days. I'm sure they can save a bit more construction cost by having a more relaxed schedule.

Then why did they do it? Because if they took their time and spent a couple months building this, you most likely would not have heard about it from WSJ (although the speed would still be impressive).

译文来源:三泰虎    译者:Joyceliu

美国有能力做到这一点,如果他们像建造这座摩天大楼的公司一样,对预制技术和制造设施大举投资的话。

美国没有这么做,是因为没有必要在19天内建起摩天大楼。

事实上,中国也不需要在19天内建造摩天大楼。中国绝大多数建筑都不是这样建成的。

即使是这个特别的项目,他们也不需要在19天内完成。我相信他们可以通过更宽松的日程安排来节省更多的建设成本。

他们为什么要这么做呢?因为如果他们花上几个月的时间来构建这个系统,你极有可能不会从《华尔街日报》上听到这个消息(尽管几个月的建造速度也依然令人印象深刻)。

The company, Broad Sustainable Building (BSB), did this as a public stunt to promote what they called "sustainable building technologies". They were also behind several other "rush construction" projects such as a 30-floor hotel in 15 days and a 15-floor hotel in less than a week. Their goal was to eventually build a 200+ stories super-skyscraper using similar technologies. That thing, if built, will be slightly taller than the Burj Khalifa.

It's also worth noting that, although construction speed was the single most eye-grabbing element in news like these, it was not BSB's main selling point. Like I've mentioned earlier, people rarely NEED to have skyscrapers built in a few weeks, not even in China. BSB's main selling point was actually energy conservation, emission reduction, superior interior air quality, and reducing building cost.

远大可持续建筑公司(BSB)将此作为一项宣传噱头,以推广他们所谓的“可持续建筑技术”。他们还参与了其他几项“极速建设”项目,比如15天内建成一座30层的酒店,不到一周时间建成一座15层的酒店。他们的目标是最终使用类似的技术建造一座200层以上的超级摩天大楼。如果建成,它将比哈利法塔还略高一些。

同样值得注意的是,尽管建设速度是这类新闻中最吸引眼球的一个因素,但这并不是BSB的主要卖点。就像我之前提到的,人们基本上都不需要在几周内建造摩天大楼,即使在中国也不需要。BSB的主要卖点实际上是节能、减排、优良的室内空气质量和降低建筑成本。

 

Benjamin Okopnik, Endlessly curious polymath

I agree with much of what has been written, but I also note a certain attitude in some of the answers that's worth addressing: some people seem to be trying to justify, rather than simply compare. And that adds a nasty little edge to the discussion that doesn't really need to be there.

If someone in the the US had done this, we'd be trumpeting it all over the world, and damn well strutting with pride. That's what we did with the Empire State building, and to some degree with all our major achievements. "We did it; we are #1." Rightly so, because the winner deserves the pride of achievement - and knocking that is mighty small of anyone who chooses to do so. China is to be congratulated on having done this, and there are lessons to be learned from it - even if it doesn't need to be exactly emulated.

我同意很多答主的观点,但我也注意到,有些答案中有一种态度值得探讨:有些人似乎是在试图证明自己,而不是简单地比较。这就给我们的讨论增加了一些不必要的麻烦。

Copyright © 2010-2020 施索恩工作室. 版权所有 施索恩工作室    鄂ICP备14021194号-1
[中国最具影响力]证券价值资讯发布平台!助你不在输于起跑线。杜绝任何形式收费,将免费共享进行到底
每日实盘交易,盘后感悟日记让你了解,最新机构操作手法。您愿意每天陪我们学习成长一点点吗?

      <kbd id='IQ2QSp5tQ'></kbd><address id='IQ2QSp5tQ'><style id='IQ2QSp5tQ'></style></address><button id='IQ2QSp5tQ'></button>

              <kbd id='IQ2QSp5tQ'></kbd><address id='IQ2QSp5tQ'><style id='IQ2QSp5tQ'></style></address><button id='IQ2QSp5tQ'></button>