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 > Megatalls

Megatalls Discussions of projects under construction at least 600m/2,000 ft tall.



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 March 24th, 2017, 09:44 PM   #21
Artfully
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 6
Likes (Received): 2

Good god. Building a Dubai style boondoggle at NYC prices?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Artfully no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 24th, 2017, 09:51 PM   #22
meteoforumitalia
Registered User
 
meteoforumitalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greater Milano
Posts: 12,756
Likes (Received): 10967

I've just seen this project also on facebook. for what it seems, it's a today's announcement. should I start to worry?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
meteoforumitalia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 01:14 AM   #23
FTL Beach Bum
Registered User
 
FTL Beach Bum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 718
Likes (Received): 656

Not impressed.

If they're gonna arch, do it over something worthwhile...the Hudson, Central Park, ESB, etc..
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
FTL Beach Bum no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 01:38 AM   #24
Skizo91
Photographer
 
Skizo91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 168

This is amazing and retarded at the same time.
__________________
Skizo91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 01:38 AM   #25
SkyscraperLover2K16
Registered User
 
SkyscraperLover2K16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 49

This project would be much better if there was no massive opening that makes the skyscraper have 2 sides that are relatively small in widith, New York deserves skyscrapers that are better than this (this is just my opinion, I don't mean to hurt the architect of this design in any way).
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
SkyscraperLover2K16 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 01:51 AM   #26
LouDagreat
High in the sky
 
LouDagreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 150

I know I should feel disgusted by this concept like everyone else, but for some reason, I don't mind this design at all. I mean if 432 Peak Avenue is ok to build, why not this? They're pretty similar in design. I feel this design would draw a lot more attention.

What would be built in those spots anyway?

It's too late to be concerned about NYC's skyline. It's already been dramatically changed to the point of no return.
__________________
LouDagreat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 01:57 AM   #27
Skizo91
Photographer
 
Skizo91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouDagreat View Post
I know I should feel disgusted by this concept like everyone else, but for some reason, I don't mind this design at all. I mean if 432 Peak Avenue is ok to build, why not this? They're pretty similar in design. I feel this design would draw a lot more attention.

What would be built in those spots anyway?

It's too late to be concerned about NYC's skyline. It's already been dramatically changed to the point of no return.
Streets.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Skizo91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 02:56 AM   #28
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,518
Likes (Received): 22531

http://imgur.com/gallery/INOsL

Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 06:02 AM   #29
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,767
Likes (Received): 31711

LMAO!
__________________
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 02:14 PM   #30
Ivan the Immigrant
Ex user
 
Ivan the Immigrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,351
Likes (Received): 2464

I think Boeing 737 can fly through this without problem...
__________________
Ivan the Immigrant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 02:17 PM   #31
Kadzman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 351
Likes (Received): 515

I can imagine the temptation to fly through the gap..
__________________
Kadzman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 04:57 PM   #32
BritBangla
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 21

I think it looks amazing but would this be structurally viable? It obviously won't happen in NY but I'd like to see it somewhere.
__________________
BritBangla no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 06:19 PM   #33
CrazyDave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Waterbury - CT
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 192

Arched Towers can be beautiful when done right. I love the one in Suzhou, China that was recently built.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
CrazyDave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 06:30 PM   #34
patpap1990
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 25

This one is really ugly!!!
__________________
patpap1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 11:33 PM   #35
TopoGigio
Registered User
 
TopoGigio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madrid
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 250

We can love it or hate it, but I hope it will be built just to see this new challenge in the world of vertical construction.
__________________
1/500 Skyscraper Paper Models
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJw...mGVL7nvVOgtOcA
Plane Spotting
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbe...0wqfMLnW3SkkoA

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
TopoGigio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 11:43 PM   #36
TallestKidOnTheBlock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 82
Likes (Received): 131

I really like this one. Very futuristic and boundary-pushing. Also it sort of takes the minimalist styles of 432PA in a new direction which I think is kind of cool. It does look kinda' like Clippy, though, I'll give the skeptics that.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
TallestKidOnTheBlock no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2017, 11:51 PM   #37
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,087
Likes (Received): 3621

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritBangla View Post
I think it looks amazing but would this be structurally viable?
My guess? Hell no.

The statics alone would be a nightmare. The dead load of the arch creates an outward force that has to be braced against. A very strong, mostly diagonal force which somehow has to be transferred through six hundred metres of stick-thin building without creating deflections.

The dynamics would be the real killer, though. Towers sway in the wind. Tall towers sway more. Tall, thin towers sway even more. And this is essentially two very tall, very thin towers with a bridge in between. In strong winds, they would possibly sway a metre or so in opposite directions. This would generate very strong forces that would try to pull the bridge apart or squash it together. Now, the bridge would probably be strong enough to withstand this, but that would just transfer the problem further down the towers. At some point, something needs to flex. Or be built strong enough not to flex, but they insist on having proportions that wouldn't even serve a pencil.

I guess one could theoretically create towers that could withstand these forces, but the amount of liveable space in them would be minuscule. Essentially, you'd have to move the foundations for a bridge 600 meters into the air, with all the requirements of building that tall on top of the requirements of the bridge.

Or another practical example: The top of 432 Park Avenue is built and designed to carry a load of, say, 500 kg of snow per square metre. That's it. Pretty much zero for all structural purposes. And the building is still a concrete pillar with some liveable space carved out. Now, build the building a hundred and fifty meters taller, and add the weight of a bridge on top of it. Don't increase the building's footprint, all you can do is reinforcing the existing structure by widening the cross-section of all its elements, to carry the extra floors and the bridge, not to mention the weight of all the heavier structural elements required to carry that extra weight. The heavier you build, the heavier you need the support structure to be, and the more supports you need to support the extra weight of the support structure. Now imagine how much liveable space there would be left on the bottom floors after a few iterations of that process.

This thing would never be built in its current form with those proportions. Stick-thinness or bridge, those can be done separately, but at the same time... no way. Check Droneriot's post (Post #15) to see how the Chinese design of the concept "bridge between the tops of supertall towers" looks. Narrow, skinny bridge, and really thick towers. And even that was rejected at the planning stage.
__________________
Poe's law: You can't impersonate stupidity without somebody mistaking it for the real thing.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2017, 12:24 AM   #38
BritBangla
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 21



Thanks that's a good explanation, I like the design but it's a shame it can't work anywhere.
__________________
BritBangla no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2017, 01:57 AM   #39
The-Real-Link
The-Real-Link!!
 
The-Real-Link's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 752
Likes (Received): 300

A simple like-it-or-hate-it design and in a way very beautiful. But my immediate thought is they're looking to build an arch. The base forces wanting to push outward where it meets the towers would be immense. Kyll said, in far lengthier and even more thorough terms than I, as to why this simply can't work.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
The-Real-Link no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2017, 11:03 AM   #40
philipx
Registered User
 
philipx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 100
Likes (Received): 166

This is just a vision, but has been heavily featured in many news medias these days, maybe by this way can increase the chance of becoming a reality? I like the design, but it seems no space for this, it is actually two buildings, more buildings will be demolished to make way for it.
philipx 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 10:19 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