With modern building materials why are buildings not more aerodynamic?

Question

I had designed a house that truthfully was too large, but it resembled a stingray from above. I think we can cut our energy by implementing the smallest design enhancements making a structure less "square" and more flowing.

If you stand still on the equator, how fast are you moving? Looking East? Looking West?

Answer 1

The most aerodynamic shaped structures are circular, like smokestacks, silos, storage tanks, etc., however a circular shape does not lend itself to efficient use of internal space.

Also, a circular shaped tall structure has a tendency to develop serious vibration problems when subjected to high wind loads, unless vortex breakers and other methods are used to dampen out the wind effects, and by the time you design for all those conditions you might as well have a less streamlined structure and not have to be concerned with those problems.

Answer 2

Why are you trying to make any building aerodynamic? Hope to get it to fly one day? Seriously, aerodynamycism and useful building architecture don' t overlap that much. Smooth looks are one thing, true aerodynamicism is another, so try to maintain a distinction. Just trying to clarify matters. Recall the scene, in "The Aviator" where Howard Hughes determines that there should be no rivet bumps on his airframe. That was a valid aerodynamic criticism of an airframe. But not of a building. Keep things clear in your head and you'll get farther.

Answer 3

Builders want to enclose and environmentally condition useful space as economically as possible. Aerodynamics only come into it to make sure that wind loads don't destroy the building. Aerodynamic shapes tend to be expensive to build and space-inefficient compared to rectangular boxes.

Answer 4

Because they dont need to travel?? How are you planning to save energy costs by making the building aerodynamic unless you have two jet engines attached to it?