ABUJA | City Point | Mixed-Use | 15 fl

[•eze•]

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

Except that all of the developed and/or developing properties in Abuja actually PRE-DATE the removal of that restriction. Since the change, there have been several new and/or proposed skyscraper projects (such as Silverbird's Strastophere or Matherson's Porters Tower).

So you're not against height any more?

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

Btw, one needs to look no further than places like Pyongyang or any number of the old Soviet cities for evidence that tall buildings do not make a city "thrive"!

No one said tall buildings make cities thrive, but thriving cities like tall buildings. You can't even reach Pyonyang, so how is this comparable to Abuja? Why change the comparison from Western countries, to North Korea, aren't Western countries the set example? Many ex-soviet/socialist cities are historical, they have a lot of old buildings and they gain a lot from tourism, in these cities there's no need for skyscrapers, or their cities have maintained a height restriction, but Abuja is new and non of the buildings are older than 20 years and it no longer has a height restriction, if it ever seriously did. I don't know which ex-soviet city you wouldn't describe as thriving, unless the Moscow International Business Center is a mirage. Abuja is trying to look as beautiful as it can, constructing land hogging buildings is not the way to go about it. The building above looks like a hospital or at least a shopping centre.

[paddylo]

The building above looks like a hospital or at least a shopping centre.

maybe it is. . .

[JoblessBeggar]

Originally Posted by •eze•

So you're not against height any more?

Huh?!

Never said that I was "against height" (whatever that means), merely not obsessed with skyscrapers for the sake of it. Again, just in case you missed it, my primary interest is in striking architecture, not height.

PS: Btw, I am unsure why any rational person would seek to confine a discussion of skyscrapers to "Western" countries (and I must have missed where we previously set that out as a criteria) since non-Western cities like Sao Paulo, Singapore and various Chinese cities have more skyscrapers than the average Western city.

[•eze•]

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

Huh?!

Never said that I was "against height" (whatever that means), merely not obsessed with skyscrapers for the sake of it. Again, just in case you missed it, my primary interest is in striking architecture, not height.

Well, if you are able to go back and read my first post, then you would see that I have explained my tall vs. fat building opinion. A taller, therefore slimmer building is far better looking than a bulky waste of space. Anyway, maybe you find this building "striking", but I wouldn't call the consideration for a taller building as opposed to an obese building an "overcompensation".

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

PS: Btw, I am unsure why any rational person would seek to confine a discussion of skyscrapers to "Western" countries (and I must have missed where we previously set that out as a criteria) since non-Western cities like Sao Paulo, Singapore and various Chinese cities have more skyscrapers than the average Western city.

This is all you, I guess you have to question yourself, unless you forgot to add non Western cities? Or maybe non Western cities wasn't helpful for your 'no skyline but a thriving city' point at the time?

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

As someone has already noted, Washington DC and most European cities have no "skyline" to speak (despite the odd skyscraper) and most would certainly consider the likes of London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, etc, to be "thriving" cities. Certain cities (including Lagos in Nigeria) need a multiplicity of skyscrapers, but others not so much.
.

And could you please tell me what the Eifel tower and expensive Big Ben clock tower was built for, if there is an actual purpose to them?

[JoblessBeggar]

Originally Posted by •eze•

And could you please tell me what the Eifel tower and expensive Big Ben clock tower was built for, if there is an actual purpose to them?

Do you actually know what skyscrapers are?

Not every tall (and not-so-tall) monument or structure is a skyscraper. Heck, even Abuja's Millennium Tower (at 560 feet) is almost TWICE the height of Big Ben (at 315 feet), which btw is just a clock tower. Anyway, I'm done. Good luck with your obsession -- to each his own buddy!

.

[GeeOhDee]

eze you're speaking as if the height is what is making those cities rich. height is nothing, and on a continent where people don't feel comfortable living or working on the 35th floor of anything, it's stupid and illogical.

[GeeOhDee]

Originally Posted by Artemis

empirical evidence please

tell your mother to climb a tree.


i remember when we had our nigerian reunion in dallas texas, all the nigerians that weren't from dallas were in a big motorcade going 75 miles and hour following 1 guy and as soon as we got on a high overpass everyone started doing 25 miles and hours LOL.

[friendsofthecity]

There should be a good sense of notable buildings in a city like Abuja. If the city continues to adhere to old building plans and wish to distinguish itself as a modern place proves nothing but less-innovative city in construction. This new city would have been a testing ground to create a modern African architectural constructions.

If I may ask, what's Nigerian urbanization like?

[•eze•]

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

Do you actually know what skyscrapers are?

Not every tall (and not-so-tall) monument or structure is a skyscraper. Heck, even Abuja's Millennium Tower (at 560 feet) is almost TWICE the height of Big Ben (at 315 feet), which btw is just a clock tower. Anyway, I'm done. Good luck with your obsession -- to each his own buddy!

.

The examples were to show that tall buildings are used for beautification in Western cities. I thought someone would understand that since this is a discussion on skylines. It's okay, an intelligent person will understand what I wrote.

Originally Posted by GeeOhDee

eze you're speaking as if the height is what is making those cities rich.

I don't even know who said that. Well having one building take up space that three buildings could have used is not going to make any cities rich either. Show something that is impressive, create some hype for Nigeria, it helps for tourism and even investment because people will see that the city is physically being 'looked after'.

Originally Posted by GeeOhDee

eze you're speaking as if the height is what is making those cities rich. height is nothing, and on a continent where people don't feel comfortable living or working on the 35th floor of anything, it's stupid and illogical.

I didn't know they've demolished the NITEL building.

[friendsofthecity]

Originally Posted by •eze•

I don't even know who said that. Well having one building take up space that three buildings could have used is not going to make any cities rich either. Show something that is impressive, create some hype for Nigeria, it helps for tourism and even investment because people will see that the city is physically being 'looked after'.



I didn't know they've demolished the NITEL building.

Conserving the land now is a great foresight for better construction for sustanability. There can be enough space for greenery,parks,playground,just to mention a few.With the city population increasing at an alarming rate and building vertically would seem the right way out.

[Carver02]

Originally Posted by •eze•

Can you think of an iconic building that isn't tall? If you are going to build something that looks like a war camp, at least have some sleek designs to it instead of intimidating angles.

There are hundreds of iconic buildings that are not tall.

Originally Posted by •eze•

Washington DC and Abuja are not the same, one city is a level headed government station, the other is off trying to be Dubai. Also, I don't think Abuja has a height restriction.

You think Abuja is trying to be Dubai? I think the development plans have been quite modest. The Nigerian government could have spent much more money on building this city than it has thus far, but the government is wisely pacing itself with the work.

Originally Posted by •eze•

Am I seeing things, or do you not consider the building designs that have been posted here not an "overcompensation"?

You're seeing things.

[friendsofthecity]

Those buildings are way back into time.

What I think matter is the way this building is being revisited without any change to give it a modern distintive look. There is every idea for Nigerians to build vertically as the population of the city continues to increase. Relying on horizontal buildings in this present generation doesn't seem the right way to go.

[•eze•]

Originally Posted by Carver02

There are hundreds of iconic buildings that are not tall.

I knew that someone will post pictures of Roman and other architectural buildings as evidence of iconic large buildings. But here's the thing, those buildings are:

1. built in a specific architectural style that's part of the country's heritage
2. are probably hundreds of years old and was probably built by a royal family or the Imperial government
3. are palaces, temples or government buildings that were probably built over 70 years ago
4. are unique and have acres of land to themselves, not duplicated on the streets of the countries capital
5. are not used for commercial purposes, except tourism
6. usually are not the first things you imagine when you hear the country's name, maybe except the Vatican, which really isn't a country in practice

The topic is about a mixed-use complex, not a cathedral. If it was the Oyo palace built 200 years ago, do you think there'd be any criticism? It's really quite funny that you posted pictures of imperial palaces built 300 years ago to justify the modern forts of Abuja, and it's quite ironic as well.

Originally Posted by Carver02

You think Abuja is trying to be Dubai? I think the development plans have been quite modest. The Nigerian government could have spent much more money on building this city than it has thus far, but the government is wisely pacing itself with the work.

And what exactly is stopping them from pacing the work in other parts of the country if they're being modest? Here's the answer: there's heaps of money being poured into the building of Abuja more than anywhere else in the country, only that a large part of the money is 'missing road'.

Originally Posted by Carver02

You're seeing things.

Okay so you don't think this building is Nigeria's equivalent of building a skyscraper?

[Carver02]

Originally Posted by •eze•

Okay so you don't think this building is Nigeria's equivalent of building a skyscraper?

This is just ordinary commercial/office space.

[friendsofthecity]

That's where the construction would make more difference being it commercial office building.

[JoblessBeggar]

Originally Posted by Carver02

There are hundreds of iconic buildings that are not tall.

Allow me to help.








.

[JoblessBeggar]

And for the truly nutty.

[•eze•]

And the keywords are: Museum, Opera House.
Word's missing: Mixed use city building.
Relevant budget comparison? No.
Architecture comparison? No.
Architect comparison? No.
Overall relevant comparison? No.

[JoblessBeggar]

Originally Posted by •eze•

And the keywords are: Museum, Opera House.
Word's missing: Mixed use city building.
Relevant budget comparison? No.
Architecture comparison? No.
Architect comparison? No.
Overall relevant comparison? No.

Not even ONCE has any of my posts mentioned "mixed use building" or even this particular building (City Point).

Unlike you, I duly recognize and respect the fact that PERSONAL tastes differs (and cannot always be accounted for). Accordingly, and again unlike some, I do not seek to impose my own architectural taste(s) upon others. My comments are limited to noting that the referenced obsession with skyscrapers and tall buildings is actually limited to a handful of contributors, and that striking or iconic architecture has little or NOTHING to do with the height of a building. Frankly, anyone who cannot think of "an iconic building that isn't tall" or believes that skyscrapers is what makes cities "thrive" is quite unfortunately mistaken.

[•eze•]

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

Not even ONCE has any of my posts mentioned "mixed use building" or even this particular building (City Point).

So? What's the point now?

Originally Posted by JoblessBeggar

Unlike you, I duly recognize and respect the fact that PERSONAL tastes differs (and cannot always be accounted for). Accordingly, and again unlike some, I do not seek to impose my own architectural taste(s) upon others. My comments are limited to noting that the referenced obsession with skyscrapers and tall buildings is actually limited to a handful of contributors, and that striking or iconic architecture has little or NOTHING to do with the height of a building. Frankly, anyone who cannot think of "an iconic building that isn't tall" or believes that skyscrapers is what makes cities "thrive" is quite unfortunately mistaken.

Now, how can you not be pushing your tastes on anyone when you're giving height rules for architectural taste itself? Is preferring tall buildings not a taste? You need to quote somebody correctly before you start rewriting what they said in order to make your point. Nobody is even forcing tastes on anyone, the fact is that the first reason for the preference of a taller building was because of the same pattern buildings in Abuja are styled in, which is just clutter. Posting pictures of Cathedrals to counter my point of "can you think of an iconic building that isn't tall" (that's what I wrote, so please quote me correctly) purposely ignores the context, or at least I hope it does. That would be the equivalent of posting pictures of American yellow school buses if I asked if anyone has seen an iconic car that isn't slim....when we're talking about a fast car that is being manufactured.