This appears like a fantasy but it's apparently real. A very tall mixed use tower going up in a remote part of Siberia:

http://dsgnspot.com/2008/03/26/the-green-tower-siberia/

What to make of it? Why not South Bend Indiana or Manchester or Sau Paulo? In other words, we have no precedent for this type of major innovative development taking place in a remote backwater. I'd like to know more about how this came together. Maybe Siberia is offering the right incentives similar to Dubai's efforts to attract growth. They also realize that world-class architecture is a quick to get a global identity.

Several months ago I thought I was the first to come up with the concept of a very tall building, a self-contained city in a remote wilderness:

http://www.plainview3d.com/Sustainable/GreenAndTall.html

Maybe Sir Norman Foster has been spying on me. Actually, I predicted it was inevitable. Of course, it's easy to dream about these things, quite another thing to make them happen.

Comments welcome.

Peter Tocco
www.plainview3d.com

If I am not mistaking, Russia's biggest gas/oil company has its headquarters in Siberia. And I am guessing that they want some better offices than the old soviet commie blocks converted to office space. So why not build something better when they (the oil company) can easily afford it?

I just don't understand why it is so far away from the city's center? If they got so much money, why not put it closer to downtown?

The building has been approved already
56 floors -> 280m, that must be some very high ceilings...

http://www.admhmao.ru/news/New_gub/2007/oktober/foto/17_2.jpg


The thread on Russian forum about it (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=462498)

This looks like a Sputnik!

I can see why they're building it out of the city. They can escape slums, land is cheaper, they don't have to worry about right of ways or city ordinances, plus they can have urban and nature in one spot. I'm surprised no one in the US or Canada has done it. It's not a good sign when you fall behind Siberia.

Peter

^^ The richest town in Siberia(if not the whole country) for that matter ;)

Looks cool! But is it ecconomically to build a 280 metres tall skyscraper in a city with just 54000 inhabitants? Why do they not build it in a larger city like Novosibirsk or Irkutsk?

Is it only about solar gains?

Paris's Tour Generale is going to be yet another green tower with lots of PV cells, solar cells and wind turbines.

This looks like a Sputnik!

I can see why they're building it out of the city. They can escape slums, land is cheaper, they don't have to worry about right of ways or city ordinances, plus they can have urban and nature in one spot. I'm surprised no one in the US or Canada has done it. It's not a good sign when you fall behind Siberia.

Peter

Because in the USA people have all ready cornered nature into oblivion.

- Andy

Because in the USA people have all ready cornered nature into oblivion.

- Andy


:lol::lol: That one was good !!!:lol:

its funny coz its true...try looking at seoul, tokyo or beijing on google earth...theres literally no green in the city centres...

its funny coz its true...try looking at seoul, tokyo or beijing on google earth...theres literally no green in the city centres...

not really, actually Seoul has much more green space than Tokyo and Beijing. Seoul has many large parks for recreation and lots of mountains that surround the city, which Tokyo and Beijing seriously lacks.

These are just empty sounds. They are building it in a remote part of Siberia, out of town, in the middle of nowhere. Their transportation needs alone will amount in massive greenhouse emissions. How's that green?

What I see here is the owner not making a responsible commitment to sustainability. If it was the number one priority, then an urban, formerly used building would have been the best choice. I would also blame the architect because to toot your own horn about being 'green' and building in taiga with no pedestrian accessibility is just plain stupid.... unless they are so vain to think the town will grow up around them, won't happen.

These are just empty sounds. They are building it in a remote part of Siberia, out of town, in the middle of nowhere. Their transportation needs alone will amount in massive greenhouse emissions. How's that green?

Sorry for brief reply, but I would like to point out that the tower is going to be built in Khanty-Mansiysk, the booming oil capital of Russia. It is doubtful that the "transportation cost" would be high, since the rail network is well developed, and it is not particularly far off from major resources for construction.

What I see here is the owner not making a responsible commitment to sustainability. If it was the number one priority, then an urban, formerly used building would have been the best choice. I would also blame the architect because to toot your own horn about being 'green' and building in taiga with no pedestrian accessibility is just plain stupid.... unless they are so vain to think the town will grow up around them, won't happen.

I would let others to comment on this viewpoint. Thank you for your contribution.

It is doubtful that the "transportation cost" would be high, since the rail network is well developed, and it is not particularly far off from major resources for construction.

I don't know any of that, but I'll take your word for it.

Let's get real for a moment for the whole issue of skyscrapers being "green" is nothing more but a PR farce. The problem I have with it is that one can't call a building "green", especially a new building. You didn't read carefully, but the point I was trying to make is any new building, let alone a 280m skyscraper, in spite of technologies used, will result in massive CO2 releases and massive energy consumptions through the production of the materials used to construct it. This fact alone already undermines the very basis of such a statement.

Let's get real for a moment for the whole issue of skyscrapers being "green" is nothing more but a PR farce. The problem I have with it is that one can't call a building "green", especially a new building. You didn't read carefully, but the point I was trying to make is any new building, let alone a 280m skyscraper, in spite of technologies used, will result in massive CO2 releases and massive energy consumptions through the production of the materials used to construct it. This fact alone already undermines the very basis of such a statement.

I agree with that. "Green" tower did not intend to be completely "green", although some attempts were made in the design so that it seems a little bit "green".

Since when skyscrapers were green? Even when the project boast its "green" content.

Are there attempts for suitable material for shrubs or broadleaf forbs to grow vigorously? Sure, within the skyscrapers itself--- a "greenhouse" within a skyscraper. We should not undermine the novel concept of design, nonetheless, it is far from sufficiently "green" for its surroundings.

N. Rasmussen.

That's a nice tower !!

http://www.admhmao.ru/news/New_gub/2007/oktober/foto/17_2.jpg

im hoping for it to be a big succes, so that more projects like this one come out, congrats

thanks for the links and information.

Aesthetically stunning and environmental friendly, simply beautiful… Very inspiring…

so I'm assuming since we haven't heard anything for quite some time. its been cancelled, right ?

Looks really nice ! Does it include that very large green area surrounding the tower? Ifso, then it gets all my respect for keeping such an important planet preservation priority.