近日有美国网友在该国论坛布了这么一个帖子：中国能用19天建成一栋摩天楼，为什么美国不行？
引发网友纷纷评论，评论翻译如下：（如有翻译错误，纯属偶然）
（ps：以下外国网友评论，均不代表小编的看法。）
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.
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。
———————————————–
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。
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。
———————————————–
Matthew Lohden 30+ years working in the design and construction of buildings.
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。
———————————————–
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。
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。
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?).
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？ ）。
————————————————
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。
———————————————–
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。
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。中国的更多著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
