daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 19th, 2016, 06:00 PM   #7421
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Celt67 has a point there imo, back then it was special to see a building of that size. Not only because it was the tallest building in the world, but it was also an icon for New York when people got televisons and saw it in movies. It's certain that the ESB has a status that can't just be matched by height.
__________________
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 19th, 2016, 10:03 PM   #7422
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

Honestly, that might be the case for people living in the US, in other places I think people were more familiar with the Twin Towers, and these days if you ask them about what would be a major symbol of New York they'd say Statue of Liberty.
These days would be special too, if I saw a 150 floors building soaring, I guess it's not the right time for something like that.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2016, 04:25 AM   #7423
Fabio1976
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 674
Likes (Received): 165

I have counted 108 REAL FLOORS again. Not 131, but not even 95.... To change the title.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Fabio1976 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2016, 05:28 AM   #7424
webeagle12
Registered User
 
webeagle12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Albany
Posts: 1,738
Likes (Received): 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabio1976 View Post
I have counted 108 REAL FLOORS again. Not 131, but not even 95.... To change the title.
Give us more reliable source than your counting
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
webeagle12 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2016, 06:39 AM   #7425
PublicImageLtd
Registered User
 
PublicImageLtd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 406

ESB basically is "the" definitive skyscraper for all times. thus, it is very difficult for a new NYC tower to reach those historical standards. If the Twins were still here (RIP), probably on same footing as ESB. These are the most iconic of iconic. The Hudson Yards project has a chance as far as the first half of the 21st century to be that lasting symbol for this era.
PublicImageLtd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2016, 07:51 AM   #7426
Celt67
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 824
Likes (Received): 1545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
Sounds awfully pessimistic and conservative, we only spent one and a half decade (more or less) and there's so many decades ahead in the 21st century. Not to mention completely new and inspiring styles and designs of architecture.
It's not pessimistic. It's realistic. Being the first 'megatall' , as it would have been viewed back then, the Empire State's historical fathers were Church spires, Egyptian pyramids, factory chimneys....only the Eiffel Tower would have had a bigger culture shock than the ESB....as in...there was nothing nearly as majestic as it before it was built.

Even the tallest megatall today holds no REAL wonder for us, because 'it's been done,,,this is just a bit bigger, thats all'. I'm not saying the towers to come won't be amazing, just that the 'unique-ness' of it all is over.


If we ever go back and land on the moon, it won't be as special as when the world stood still to watch Neil Armstrong do it in 1969.
__________________

CactusLord, humptydumpty7, Judazzz liked this post
Celt67 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2016, 01:18 AM   #7427
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

You do know that there were conservatives who thought that classical Paris was/is the best Paris and it can't get any better than that, so they opposed the construction of the Eiffel Tower heavily, right?
I think we still don't know how a 200 floors building could look like. I respect the status of the Empire State, but I think iconic buildings and designs are not a thing of the past exclusively.
Iconic buildings and designs were part of the past, but they should be in the present and the future too. They don't need to have 200 floors to be iconic, they can be innovative in other aspects.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2016, 11:50 AM   #7428
Celt67
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 824
Likes (Received): 1545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
You do know that there were conservatives who thought that classical Paris was/is the best Paris and it can't get any better than that, so they opposed the construction of the Eiffel Tower heavily, right?
I think we still don't know how a 200 floors building could look like. I respect the status of the Empire State, but I think iconic buildings and designs are not a thing of the past exclusively.
Iconic buildings and designs were part of the past, but they should be in the present and the future too. They don't need to have 200 floors to be iconic, they can be innovative in other aspects.
Yes, I do know that. I also know that the Eiffel Tower was supposed to be ripped down at the end of the decade after the Worlds Fair it was built for... because it was so iconic and popular.
What a few conservatives think is utterly irrelevant. It has now become the most prominant symbol of not only Paris, but France. The conservatives ( as usual ) were wrong.
__________________

Architecture lover liked this post
Celt67 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2016, 05:55 PM   #7429
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

The difference is that the Eiffel Tower stood out a lot more and was much more distinctive. Also, people still knew how to design beautiful buildings back then.

The REAL reason it avoided the scrap heap, btw, was because it had the ability to be used as a radio tower. That's basically it.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2016, 09:27 PM   #7430
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
The difference is that the Eiffel Tower stood out a lot more and was much more distinctive. Also, people still knew how to design beautiful buildings back then.
We still have people who know how to design a beautiful building, or even innovate completely new and distinctive styles, do your research on the forums, or the architecture section and maybe you'll see. Don't forget that the economy might be the most important aspect of the story, a really strong and prosperous economy is the key to really iconic buildings, it allows creative people to use their potential to design, this is only my point of view of course.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2016, 12:50 AM   #7431
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celt67 View Post
It's not pessimistic. It's realistic. Being the first 'megatall' , as it would have been viewed back then, the Empire State's historical fathers were Church spires, Egyptian pyramids, factory chimneys....only the Eiffel Tower would have had a bigger culture shock than the ESB....as in...there was nothing nearly as majestic as it before it was built.

Even the tallest megatall today holds no REAL wonder for us, because 'it's been done,,,this is just a bit bigger, thats all'. I'm not saying the towers to come won't be amazing, just that the 'unique-ness' of it all is over.


If we ever go back and land on the moon, it won't be as special as when the world stood still to watch Neil Armstrong do it in 1969.
I think some of this is historical romanticism. The Empire State Building was an achievement, but it was hardly the only tall building of the 1930s. Despite the down economy, the early 30s were a period similar to today when people were trying to build higher and higher and outdo one another. 30 Rockefeller Center was 850 feet and The Chrysler Building was already over 1,000' by the time the ESB opened. In part the ESB owes a lot to its marketing (there's a little bit of marketing hubris in the title Empire State Building to begin with) and its appearances in King Kong, etc. It is a good design though one that's basically ripped off from Shreve & Lambert's other tower in Winston-Salem, NC, the Reynolds Building.

I don't really buy the "all the best songs have already been written" argument. Every generation feels that way and every generation re-invents, reworks, and creates something special. Also people still manage to be mesmerized by good buildings (and in reality most laypeople can be mesmerized by not good buildings too. I see people go to Caesar's Palace in Vegas, a cartoon representation of Ancient Rome and they think they're in Versailles).
__________________

cnbnca liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2016, 01:04 AM   #7432
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celt67 View Post
Yes, I do know that. I also know that the Eiffel Tower was supposed to be ripped down at the end of the decade after the Worlds Fair it was built for... because it was so iconic and popular.
What a few conservatives think is utterly irrelevant. It has now become the most prominant symbol of not only Paris, but France. The conservatives ( as usual ) were wrong.
But Paris is basically a stage set. The "romantic" city of Paris was basically built in the second half of the 1800s specifically to create a scenographic environment. Haussmann instituted the height limitations, built the bridges, widened streets, demolished almost the entirety of the medieval city to create broad avenues and plazas. It really is a romanticized ideal of a city that even then people complained about losing its character in favor of monotony. The "classical" Paris of today is basically Disneyland. A clever blending of Louis XVI and Mansard styles (dubbed "Second Empire") with deliberate view corridors, boulevards and focal points. It is beautiful as intended, but any notion than Paris is somehow a more authentic architecture that what we have today or that it just organically became one of the most beautiful cities in the world is a little silly. It is a representative example of the historical romanticism that was so popular up until the end of World War I.
__________________

cnbnca, streetscapeer, 412lakes liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2016, 10:36 AM   #7433
Celt67
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 824
Likes (Received): 1545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post
But Paris is basically a stage set. The "romantic" city of Paris was basically built in the second half of the 1800s specifically to create a scenographic environment. Haussmann instituted the height limitations, built the bridges, widened streets, demolished almost the entirety of the medieval city to create broad avenues and plazas. It really is a romanticized ideal of a city that even then people complained about losing its character in favor of monotony. The "classical" Paris of today is basically Disneyland. A clever blending of Louis XVI and Mansard styles (dubbed "Second Empire") with deliberate view corridors, boulevards and focal points. It is beautiful as intended, but any notion than Paris is somehow a more authentic architecture that what we have today or that it just organically became one of the most beautiful cities in the world is a little silly. It is a representative example of the historical romanticism that was so popular up until the end of World War I.
Either you're deliberately ignoring my point, or you just don't grasp what I'm saying.

If you were a graphics designer, and I came to you stating 'The Olympics are coming to Paris, I want you to come up with a logo'.... chances are pretty high that the Eiffel Tower would be in at least one of your drafts...if not more. It's more than a building/tower... it's a symbol. Same as the ESB is in New York.

Taipei 101 is FAR FAR taller than it's surroundings in Taipei.....but it never gained iconic status. Theres more to 'iconic' than just being tall. You have to have that certain 'pazzazz' that certain buildings have, and certain buildings don't have.

Same thing if you asked a kid to draw NYC ....they'll draw the Empire State and possibly the Chrysler buildings first....and probably don't even know what 432 Park Avenue is.
Celt67 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2016, 11:40 AM   #7434
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,663
Likes (Received): 2617

Odd, in my generation, every kid drawing of NYC started with the twin towers. I was born 1982 and everyone seemed to consider those the symbol of NYC when I grew up.
__________________

Architecture lover, ZZ-II liked this post
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2016, 03:49 PM   #7435
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

That was the reason why I reacted, if they don't exist anymore doesn't necessarily mean that people should downgrade their design and appearance, or going even further by saying all of the architecture from the 60's was bad.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2016, 05:33 PM   #7436
PublicImageLtd
Registered User
 
PublicImageLtd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 406

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
Odd, in my generation, every kid drawing of NYC started with the twin towers. I was born 1982 and everyone seemed to consider those the symbol of NYC when I grew up.

Agreed. The Twin Towers certainly started my fascination of skyscrapers.
__________________

LadyAmanita liked this post
PublicImageLtd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:16 AM   #7437
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

Quote:
Originally Posted by PublicImageLtd View Post
Agreed. The Twin Towers certainly started my fascination of skyscrapers.
Actually have went in one of the twins as a kid but I didn't like the boxy look of them and was more interested in the Chrysler building and empire state building because of there shapes and sizes not just the height so I think just cuz a building is tall doesn't really make it an icon. The twin towers were more of a landmark after 911. That's what you see on TV and coins and anything that has to do with NY in general besides the statue of liberty
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2016, 07:26 AM   #7438
dminer
Registered User
 
dminer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Warsaw
Posts: 901
Likes (Received): 2001

I say the question is how many equally famous skyscraper icons can 1 city have, even as big as New York. It is obviously NOT a question whether the 'modern era' can still produce iconic towers, obviously it can (i.e. Petronas Towers, Burj Khalifa).
dminer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:00 PM   #7439
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

Quote:
Originally Posted by trustevil View Post
The twin towers were more of a landmark after 911. That's what you see on TV and coins and anything that has to do with NY in general besides the statue of liberty
Have you ever seen in how many music videos and movies they appeared?
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2016, 09:57 PM   #7440
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
That was the reason why I reacted, if they don't exist anymore doesn't necessarily mean that people should downgrade their design and appearance, or going even further by saying all of the architecture from the 60's was bad.
I didn't say all of it was bad, but a lot was.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
217 west 57th street, 225 west 57th street, central park south, cps, extell, new york, nordstrom tower, nyc, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu