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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers General news, discussion and announcement forum about skyscrapers, including the Skyscraper Living forum



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 August 10th, 2012, 08:14 AM   #81
windowsoftheworld
Registered User
 
windowsoftheworld's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 638
Likes (Received): 171

that's more like quadruplets, exchange the 4 smaller buildings for another big tower = Save space and time.
windowsoftheworld no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 10th, 2012, 09:46 AM   #82
LeCom
Registered User
 
LeCom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,396
Likes (Received): 698

1) Why would it save time? How? For whom?

2) What's the point of saving space in that complex if it is already surrounded by acres of underused Modernist plazas in the middle of a dense, traditional Downtown of Albany, NY?



Though I suppose this is off topic, because I'm not comparing these to the World Trade Center, which, as you said, is the only complex we can use here because it's the only one that had twinned and non-twinned structures during its existence

Last edited by LeCom; August 10th, 2012 at 10:00 AM.
LeCom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 10:21 AM   #83
LeCom
Registered User
 
LeCom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,396
Likes (Received): 698

Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
Complexes usually will always have more than 1 tower, that was the ground discussion here. How do twin towers have the upper edge on complexes that have multiple non twin towers buildings scattered around the area a la WTC.
I don't need to back up this argument because it is logic; Two Buildings take less space than 4 or 5 buildings. PERIOD.
Your argument has no logic. Here is why:
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
Two Buildings take less space than 4 or 5 buildings. PERIOD.
Two buildings with large footprints (say, 2 acres each) will take up less space than 4 buildings with much smaller footprints (say, 0.25 arcres). 2x2 = 4, much bigger than 0.25x4 = 2.

Besides, the thread title explicitly compares the Twin Towers to ONE WTC, which is one building that takes up twice as little space as the Twins. If you wanted to discuss the entire complex (WTC1-7), you should've made a different thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
Money and resources also come into play in efficiency, and twin complexes also have the upper edge by needing less of everything in order to erect.
I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear.
Once again, how do they need less of everything? Also, less of everything than one tower, or than five? And how big are the towers?

And finishing ANY argument with "I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear" means "I have nothing to back up my claims with but I am right, and you are wrong" For example: "Apples are better than oranges. They look better. They taste better. I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear."
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
Yup, but this thread revolves around naming reasons why twin towered complexes are better than non twin towered complexes, not the opposite. Subjective opinions are unavoidable in this case.



Two Burj Khalifa's aren't more memorable than 1?
Did they build two? No. So how can you make that assumption? There is only one Burj Khalifa, and saying it is better if doubled is ridiculous speculation. It's like saying that we should clone people because two Johhny Depps are more memorable than one Johnny Depp, or that Da Vinci should've painted two Mona Lisas to make them both twice as memorable. It hasn't happened. It won't happen. Like Burj Khalifa, these examples are ridiculous and prove nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
It's not subjective, you've said it yourself twin towered complexes provide monotony, which would essentially look methodical.
And who says that methodical means better looking? It is still highly subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
Compare this:



To this:
(the red highlighting the complex)





The point of that was to point out how twin towers usually feed of each other's looks and presence to look pleasant on the eye.

EX:

You're STILL being subjective! In my opinion, the first examples look better because they are more diverse, and they feed of each other's looks more effectively, in my opinion. Some may agree, some may disagree. Matters of taste are ALWAYS subjective.

Last edited by LeCom; August 10th, 2012 at 12:41 PM.
LeCom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2012, 07:38 AM   #84
windowsoftheworld
Registered User
 
windowsoftheworld's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 638
Likes (Received): 171

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
Your argument has no logic. Here is why:

Two buildings with large footprints (say, 2 acres each) will take up less space than 4 buildings with much smaller footprints (say, 0.25 arcres). 2x2 = 4, much bigger than 0.25x4 = 2.

Besides, the thread title explicitly compares the Twin Towers to ONE WTC, which is one building that takes up twice as little space as the Twins. If you wanted to discuss the entire complex (WTC1-7), you should've made a different thread.
4 buildings of 0.25 acres footprints could become 2 buildings of 0.5. More floor space, less construction areas = save time, construction space.

The title was a mistake on my part, if you had read the thread, you would have known by now this thread isn't comparing twin complexes to 1WTC(the tower) but the complex as a whole.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post

Once again, how do they need less of everything? Also, less of everything than one tower, or than five? And how big are the towers?
Less planning, less resources (since you're building two of the same as opposed to 4 of different), less money(less excavations, less foundations) , etc
The towers only need to be as big as how much they require office space, so it depends on the amount of floor space needed for the complex. 4,252,000 sq ft required for say complex, you could either distribute this by 4 or 5(etc) or you could simply do it by 2. Yes, that would mean bigger footprints but you just saved yourself from having to build more structures than necessary and money along the way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
And finishing ANY argument with "I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear" means "I have nothing to back up my claims with but I am right, and you are wrong" For example: "Apples are better than oranges. They look better. They taste better. I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear."
Maybe i overestimated some of you by thinking the point of this thread was clear enough to understand. I apologize.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
Did they build two? No. So how can you make that assumption? There is only one Burj Khalifa, and saying it is better if doubled is ridiculous speculation. It's like saying that we should clone people because two Johhny Depps are more memorable than one Johnny Depp, or that Da Vinci should've painted two Mona Lisas to make them both twice as memorable. It hasn't happened. It won't happen. Like Burj Khalifa, these examples are ridiculous and prove nothing.
Because what's more awe inspiring than one of the tallest building in the world? Another one by it's side. I don't think it's hard to imagine how ******* amazing it would be to witness something like that, specially on ground level.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post

And who says that methodical means better looking? It is still highly subjective.
We weren't talking about better looking there, we were talking about neatness and how organized they look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post

4.They Look neat and organized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
4.They Look neat and organized. - Highly subjective. Complexes with diverse towers can appear just as organized.
And you mentioned

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
2.Improve the Skyline. - Highly subjective. An argument could be put forth that diversity is better for the skyline than monotony of twinned structures.
Hence my comment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
You're STILL being subjective! In my opinion, the first examples look better because they are more diverse, and they feed of each other's looks more effectively, in my opinion. Some may agree, some may disagree. Matters of taste are ALWAYS subjective.
We were still talking about neatness and organization.


This thread started well, then it went to hell.
windowsoftheworld no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2012, 11:22 AM   #85
Bruce.Tenmile
Registered User
 
Bruce.Tenmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Denver, UK
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 44

Dude, you had a noble goal; have people only post if they agree with you. The fact is, not everybody does, and those people who disagree aren't stupid. 'I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point clear' is a dumb stupid thing to say here, because if you had more to say, you actually could go on and on. Nobody could call you on it because it's your damn thread. What it is, is you couldn't go on and on because you don't have any more points, and that's fine. You have your opinion, others have theirs. You don't have to make it seem like there are umpteen 'reasons' for your opinion. You don't even need to give people one reason for your opinion.

I think you'll find the thread started badly, and continued in a similar way, sorry.

Last edited by Bruce.Tenmile; August 11th, 2012 at 11:28 AM.
Bruce.Tenmile no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2012, 12:30 PM   #86
windowsoftheworld
Registered User
 
windowsoftheworld's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 638
Likes (Received): 171

What i meant by i could go on and on is that i could go on and on in circles trying to explain to you people what apparently more than a few members understood since the first reply.
This thread did not start bad, it actually started with a discussion relevant to the topic and an enjoyable discussion, until the likes of you came along and ruined it.
Hell the proof is right here in this thread, but i admit the only mistake on my part was naming this thread the way i did. Obviously some of you go from reading the title to skipping OP and all the posts after that all together.
windowsoftheworld no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2012, 12:54 AM   #87
Bruce.Tenmile
Registered User
 
Bruce.Tenmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Denver, UK
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 44

No, I think you'll find most people read the title, read the opening post, and depending on the number of posts, read some of them too, and then post.

I, and some others, just can't swing with the idea of a thread which only wants one side of the debate. That's really why I keep coming back. It's just ridiculous to want a discussion consisting of only one half of views.
Bruce.Tenmile no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2012, 03:31 AM   #88
windowsoftheworld
Registered User
 
windowsoftheworld's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 638
Likes (Received): 171

Get over it quite frankly.
windowsoftheworld no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2012, 09:06 AM   #89
Nouvellecosse
~ Mysterious Entity ~
 
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, N.S.
Posts: 4,444
Likes (Received): 305

Quote:
Originally Posted by windowsoftheworld View Post
True, they definitely add to the uniqueness factor
image hosted on flickr


As opposed to
I loved the skyline with the old towers (I didn't actually realise how much until they were gone), but I think actually like the 2nd image better.

That's of course a purely subjective, aesthetic opinion. But objectively, a smaller number of very tall buildings is actually less efficient than more shorter buildings. This is because a greater ratio of interior space needs to be taken up by elevators in very tall buildings, the structure has to be far stronger to cope with wind loading, and because of the other hassles involved in the infrastructure of supertalls (such as plumbing). Once buildings pass a certain height, they become less and less efficient and are often built for artistic reasons (as landmarks) more so than practical reasons.

That's of course assuming that the complex will use the same amount of land either way. If the two taller towers free up land that can hold other buildings, then that would give the advantage of being more space efficient. But I'm not sure whether or not that would make up for the lack of other types of efficiency.

Of course this all may not be that relevant in terms of the WTC as the shorter buildings don't look much smaller than the big one.
Nouvellecosse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #90
windowsoftheworld
Registered User
 
windowsoftheworld's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 638
Likes (Received): 171



windowsoftheworld no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2012, 05:05 PM   #91
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

2WTC is my favorite out of the complex, i would never want to lose it, even for a 1WTC twin.
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2012, 05:11 PM   #92
CxIxMaN
Registered User
 
CxIxMaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Penang
Posts: 2,031
Likes (Received): 876

If you are able to build something amazing 2 times it is definately going to make an impression although I do not think it would work for every skyscraper. Some skyscrapers work better on its own while others look great in a twin form.

Good examples of twins are obviously the old WTC and Petronas Twin Towers. Aesthetically to me, a twin new 1WTC tower just dose not have the same power as the old WTC twin while the complex has more 'power' in it. This is all my opinion

image hosted on flickr


__________________
PENANG PHOTO GALLERY

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones

A.Einstein

Public transport is the way to transportation revolution

A MAYOR of Bogota is reported to have said: “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.”
CxIxMaN no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 01:59 AM   #93
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I loved the skyline with the old towers (I didn't actually realise how much until they were gone), but I think actually like the 2nd image better.

That's of course a purely subjective, aesthetic opinion. But objectively, a smaller number of very tall buildings is actually less efficient than more shorter buildings. This is because a greater ratio of interior space needs to be taken up by elevators in very tall buildings, the structure has to be far stronger to cope with wind loading, and because of the other hassles involved in the infrastructure of supertalls (such as plumbing). Once buildings pass a certain height, they become less and less efficient and are often built for artistic reasons (as landmarks) more so than practical reasons.

That's of course assuming that the complex will use the same amount of land either way. If the two taller towers free up land that can hold other buildings, then that would give the advantage of being more space efficient. But I'm not sure whether or not that would make up for the lack of other types of efficiency.

Of course this all may not be that relevant in terms of the WTC as the shorter buildings don't look much smaller than the big one.
tower 2 is only about 20 feet shorter then tower 1 (roof height) tower 3 is shorter, im not sure if those pictures have the new lowered 3 wtc
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 06:44 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