如果中国能用19天建成一栋摩天楼，为什么美国不行？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：klqw-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



Are we just incompetent? San Francisco needs at least 20 for more housing.

难道仅仅是因为我们无能吗？旧金山至少还需要20栋的住房。






-------------译者：messiah168-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

nonymous
upxed Apr 11 2015
I see a lot of things going on in this video. 

我从这个视频我学到不少。

Is the building complete or is only the core and shell simply completed? Either way it is an impressive feat but they are not the same thing.

是建筑完全修建好了还是仅仅完成了建筑的外壳和内核呢？不过无论是哪一种方式这都是一个令人印象深刻的壮举。

There is clearly major offsite prefabrication going on which presumably started long before the 19 day counter started ticking. In the US there is also work done in advance of construction but not to this scale. There is nothing wrong with prefabrication but it is little disingenuous to look only at the time spent on site if there were perhaps weeks or months spent working in large scale factories off site.

显然主体元件的预制不包含在计时开始的19天内。在美国也有做过一些建设前的工作，但从未有过如此大的规模。预制没有什么错，但是如果现场施工之前就已经提前在大型工厂里进行了几周或者几个月的预制，那如果再拿现场的时间来进行比较，那就有点虚伪了。

From the video it appears that the building is being built in a low density area which makes sense for China which has massive growth and need for new development. In the US most skyscrapers are built in areas of existing high density making the shipping staging and placement of these massive pre fabricated constructions potentially impractical or impossible.

从视频上看到出现的建筑是建在一个低密度建筑区，在中国需要最新的发展和高速的增长的情况下这件事情就显得很合理了。在美国大多数摩天大楼都建在现有的高密度建筑区，使得这些大规模预制建筑的分期运输和布局显得不切实际或几乎不可能做到。

The building uses 7 simultaneous tower cranes. That is a massive investment of resources and unheard of in the US(buildings typically have 1 crane). I don't believe the US has ever found it necessary to provide construction this fast. Like many things if you throw enough resources at them you can do them faster but you may lose efficiency. This is a matter of priorities.

该建筑采用了7座塔吊同时建设。在美国这是一个闻所未闻的巨大的资源投入（建筑物通常只有1个塔吊）。我不相信美国有必要建设得如此之快。像许多这样东西，也许你投入足够的资源，你可以做得更快，但你可能会失去效率而得不到好的质量。质量才是应该优先的选项。

-------------译者：卡思-审核者：bs1747------------

Ken Carson Civil/Geotechnical Engineer
upxed Mar 28 2015

Ken Carson 土木/岩土工程师
2015年3月28日

The United States does not build sky scrapers. Developers choose to build what they believe will be profitable with considerations of revenue liability and a host of other factors.

美国不修建摩天大楼。开发商选择构建在考虑收入债务和许多其他因素的情况下他们认为依然有利可图的项目。

Engineering and construction are not Olympic events. They are business ventures. To frx this as some sort of US vs China contest is totally pointless.

工程建设不是奥运会项目。他们是商业冒险。把这个作为某种形式的美国vs中国比赛是毫无意义的。

Where exactly would 20 such buildings be built in San Francisco? The city is nearly built out. If the profit margins were there developers would be building them today. Also if there is more housing the prices will drop and your landlord wouldn't be able to suck all your money out of your bank account any more. ;^)

在旧金山哪里可以建造20座这样的建筑物？这座城市几乎已经建成了。如果利润尚存，那么开发商今天就会开发它们。此外，如果建更多的房屋，房价就会下降，你的房东将不再能从你的银行帐户吸走你所有的钱了。 ; ^）

As far as the question about incompetence that doesn't even deserve to be addressed.

至于关于是不是无能为力这个问题，这压根不值得费心思去思考解决。

-------------译者：fdv-审核者：bs1747------------

Matthew Lohden 30+ years working in the design and construction of buildings.
Written Nov 27
A US company once built a house in 8 hours.

曾经有一家美国公司在8小时内建造一幢房屋

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.

如果必要的的话，美国公司也可以用和中国一样的方式建造一幢摩天大楼。但现实情况是建筑不是当时建造的，只是当时树立起来的而已。这个建筑能如此快的建立起来是因为提前花费了大量的时间在准备和部件组装上。可以肯定的是模块化结构是有优势的，但是也应该权衡模块化结构在很多情况下不能使用或只能有限使用。

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.

中国目前还在发展基建，所以探索新的快的建造方式还是很有意义的。放在在美国的话，我们应更多的关注修复保养和重组目前的建筑，因而对于模块化结构的应用有更多的限制。

-------------译者：dr_jessie-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Jerry To lives in Hong Kong
Written Mar 19 2015
The US CAN do that if they invest into the prefab technologies and manufacturing facilities as much as the company behind this skyscraper did. 

美国可以做到，如果他们像建造这个摩天大楼一样投资组装房屋技术和制造设备。

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

美国不这么做仅仅是因为根本没有必要在19天竖起一座摩天大楼。

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.

实际上中国也不需要在19天之内建造一座摩天大楼。大部分中国的建筑也不是这样完成的。

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. 

即使是这一栋大楼其实也并不必须要在19天内建完。我确信他们可以制定一个更轻松的计划而且能省下更多的工程费用。

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). 

那他们为什么要这样做呢？因为如果他们慢慢花几个月时间完成，你很有可能不会在华尔街日报上看到这篇报道（即使几个月时间也已经很令人印象深刻了）。

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. 

远大可建科技有限公司（BSB）利用这个噱头来宣传他们的“可持续建造科技”。他们也参与了其他“快速工程”比如15天建造30层酒店，一周内建成15层楼酒店。他们的目标是利用这一技术建成高达200层楼的超级摩天大楼，这栋大楼如果建成，会比迪拜塔还高一点。

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. 

还有一点值得注意的是，虽然这些工程的建造速度成为了唯一最吸引眼球的元素，但是这并不是远大可建科技有限公司的主要卖点。像我刚刚提到的一样，人们并不需要在几周内建成一栋摩天大厦，即使是在中国。他们的主要卖点实际上是节能减排，改善空气质量以及减少工程费用。

To learn more about what's the point of these buildings here are some readings.

以下链接和文章可以了解更多这栋大楼的意义。
BSB's claims on their technology and their vision of a vertical city (similar to the 57-floor building in question):
http://en.broad.com/uploads/pdf/...
Some critique:
http://www.businessinsider.com/w...
What was it like to stay in one (or two) of BSB's prefab buildings:
http://www.treehugger.com/green-...


-------------译者：卡思-审核者：BXHin1995------------

Nick White Trade Quantity Surveying and Construction Management professional.
Written Mar 16 2015

Nick White 贸易数量测量与施工管理专业。
写于2015年3月16日

China has laid down the gauntlet and shown off what's possible with prefabricated construction methods.

中国已经下了战书，展示了预施工方法的可能性。

Some questions remain unanswered from the video such as build quality (is everything plumb level and watertight?) fire compartmentalism (will a fire on level 2 be contained to level 2?) and worksite safety (how many workers were injured in that great rush?).

视频中还有一些问题没有得到回答，例如建筑质量（一切都能保证垂直水平和水密吗？）防火分隔（第2级的防火级别是否控制在第2级？）和工地安全（在这样的极速活动中有多少工人受伤？ ）。

A US construction company is likely to adopt the construction method for the purpose of improving worksite safety and program length and hence money. I also wouldn't put it past a U.S. Company to have a crack at the record but it would be for competitive reasons rather than economic reasons.

美国建筑公司可能采用的施工方法是以提高工地安全，项目时长和资金投入为目的。我也不会因为一家美国公司尝试去创造记录而说什么，但这会是出于竞争原因，而不是经济原因。

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：------------

Darryl Snow Lived in China for 10 years
Written Mar 29 2015
Isaac Gaetz's answer covers all the bases. To add to his 4th point about resources labour and transport costs are much lower in China. Labourers get paid insanely little (often only 1 annual pay cheque) and construction companies aren't always required to cover healthcare and insurance costs. Bringing in several cranes and an army of people to put together a prefab building is a lot cheaper in China than in the US.

Isaac Gaetz的回答覆盖了所有的点。我想对他的第四点进行补充，中国的资源，劳动力以及运输成本低多了。工人工资非常低（通常一年支付一次），建筑公司也没必要给工人提供医保和保险。所以中国的成本比美国低多了。

-------------译者：messiah168-审核者：BXHin1995------------

Alex Wong just like to learn about the USA
Written Nov 26
It’s difficult to compare something like this for a variety of reasons. Construction speed isn’t just about competence and capability it’s also about willpower.

由于各种各样的不同的原因很难与之比较。建设速度不只是能力和性能，也需要毅力。

China is building loads of new buildings to massively increase the standard of living for its people. If everyone is going to have modern washer/dryer plumping toilets fully equipped kitchen and glass bay windows… well there’s 1.3 billion to do that for. So they’re going full speed ahead with pre-fab construction techniques highly compliant local governments and a federal initiative to provide contemporary technology housing for everybody in China.

中国正在建设新的符合国民的生活标准的建筑物以负荷大量增加的国民。如果按照每个人都将拥有现代化的洗衣机/烘干机配备齐全的厨房和卫生间的玻璃窗户的住房…需要配备13亿套。所以地方和中央政府为了给大家提供在中国的现代化的住宅，他们在高速发展预制施工技术用于满足房子的需求。

United States has no such initiative they already have a lot of housing and local governments are notorious for blocking everything under the sun. You used San Francisco as an example. Every year in the Bay Area plus wine country they have somewhere in the range of 80000 new families arrive in the area but they only issue around 30 000 to 40 000 building permits. Compare this to Toronto that issues 80 000 permits a year for less population. That necessarily means that the local government is saying “You may not building anything and I want you to leave or become homeless.”

美国没有这样的主动性，他们已经拥有了大量的住房，而地方政府也因为阻止当地一切发展而臭名昭着.。你可以以旧金山为例。在湾区和酒乡每年都新增80000个左右新家庭抵达该地区，但他们只颁发约30000至40000建筑许可证。而多伦多每年发放了80000许可证，而且人口更少。这就意味着当地政府说：“你不可以建设任何东西，我希望你离开或无家可归。”

So what is China even competing against? While China is building as much as possible to ensure every man woman and child has a home United States doesn’t even want to have more buildings. It’s competing with someone that doesn’t even know there’s a race going on.

所以中国是在和什么样的对手竞争呢？中国在建造尽可能多的房子以确保每个人都有房子住，而美国甚至不想建造更多房子。所以中国的竞争对手甚至都没意识到一场竞赛正在发生着。

The discussion in other answers about wages safety and other factors aren’t very strong. Construction deaths in San Francisco are notoriously high corruption is high build quality is terrible and many of the new constructions are already facing significant damage after a year of being built (incorrect foundations incorrect plumbing one set of buildings was even radioactive!). If American wanted to compete with China on construction I’m sure they could but the reality is that nobody in the United States is trying.

其他答案的讨论关于工资安全性或者其他因素的支持不是特别充分。施工时的事故死亡率在旧金山是出了名的高，并且由于严重腐败所导致的建筑质量也是非常糟糕的所以许多新建完成的建筑在一年后都面临着严重的损伤（不合格的地基不合格的管道有一些建筑甚至是有放射性的！）。如果美国人想和中国人在建筑上进行竞争，我确定他们可以，但现实是没有美国人这么做。

Most construction in the USA occurs in low population area where you’re building single detached homes. China’s more famous constructions are in tight urban spaces which require super high rises. When USA is as heavily populated as China then the comparison will be on equal grounds but for now USA can build loads of single detached homes and ignore skyscrapers which require a lot of the pre-fab techniques.

在美国你正在建造的独栋别墅.的大部分都建筑在人口稀少的地区。中国的更多着名的建筑都位于紧张的城市空间所以需要造得非常的高。如果美国人口也像中国那么多，那才有可比性，但如今的美国只能建设大量的独栋别墅却忽略了需要大量预制件技术的摩天大楼