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 > General Urban Developments > DN Archives

Global Announcement

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


Thread Tools
Old June 1st, 2005, 12:01 PM   #21
Enoch Root
Beautiful Estonia
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 53
Likes (Received): 0

I'm totally against such move by the UN. The history has not ended, it's an ongoing process. The UN or UNESCO has no business making such rules. It seems to me the overpaid officials just seek justification for their existence by proposing such rules.
Enoch Root no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 1st, 2005, 12:12 PM   #22
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,198
Likes (Received): 591

I am pretty sure that they can find more important things to do.

They interfere very seriously in the life of the cities. If Riga would obey to these requirements, the city would have less economical success and less financing to sustain its historical heritage (which requires billions over the coming decades).
The planned highrise district in Riga is well defined and well divided from historical centre but according to UNESCO this is still too near. But we do not have other options to locate it. And without such district we do not have hope to develop as international business centre.
If such UNESCO decision would be accepted, Riga most likely will withdraw from WH list. Attraction of financing for preservation of historical heritage is more important than being on World Heritage list.
Wondermondo - an armchair guide to world attractions - most interesting landmarks and attractions in the world!
Gatis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2005, 12:25 PM   #23
Its a sleepy little town
Malt's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,847
Likes (Received): 487

Originally Posted by Avatar
I tend to agree.

It is absurd esp when their skyscraper headquarters graces the hudson river -I bet they don't want to move to a business park groundscraper in some far flug suburb or NYC.

the UN has less and less relevance today and this shows they are clutching at straws in attempting to assert a power that is not there.

They need to be given ALOT of power.
For a step towards a world govt of sorts.

Malt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2005, 02:58 PM   #24
Construction Paradise
Dubai-Lover's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dubai (UAE) | Oehringen (GER) | Bad Honnef (GER)
Posts: 12,390
Likes (Received): 5

Originally Posted by demanjo
While i generally think the concept is OK, i disagree with the move. A city is a dynamic, evolving environment, that people shape and develop as they move forward. Todays development is just the next chapter in cities history, and are as important as times past in many circumstances. If handled correctly, it only enhances the city and adds a new, unique character in conjunction with heritage sites.

very well said!!!

it is the mix of new and old what makes a city interesting.
with this move the un appears backward to me, sticking to the history and not looking into the future

an agreement has to be made here, how far away shall new towers be built

but i can't agree with this statement:
A lot of these iconic buildings are designed with no sense of context. They are just pure design. Architecture should be a human activity. It is not for magazines, it is for people.
Dubai-Lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2005, 03:17 PM   #25
Blue Devil
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Duke University, Durham, NC
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 4

I've always respected UNESCO, and I like the concept of the World Heritage Sites, many of which have benifitted enormously from being listed. However, this policy in question is incredibly problematic.

I can understand why we shouldn't allow anyone to build a skyscraper in the Forbidden City, or in the middle of the Grand Canyon, or in front of the Taj Mahal. However, you can only protect the actual listed areas, not areas near them. Beijing or Agra are free to build scrapers near those landmarks, and indeed they should if that would improve the lives of their citizens. Listing an entire city is obviously overkill, and very unfair if it means no growth is allowed to occur.

I think cities and countries themselves should be free to make their own decisions about these World Heritage Sites. UNESCO could and should make recommendations, but ultimately it's up to local authorities to protect vistas. UNESCO should just focus on protecting the sites themselves, otherwise they will become a joke.

That being said, wouldn't it have been nice if we could have invaded Afghanistan earlier to protect Bamiyan?
dcb11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2005, 07:36 PM   #26
Liverdude's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 762
Likes (Received): 23

Liverpool became a World Heritage site last year and now the enitre city centre is a buffer zone. When it was announced people voiced their concerns that the title would limit development but we were told it wouldn't, now look at what they want to do! The city has been getting back on it's feet over the past few years with high rise develoment a sign of a revival but if they ban tall buildings in the city then we would be turning away developers and investment. Liverpool is a city not a museum, if UNESCO introduce these rules I wouldn't be sad to give up the title.

Under these new rules I doubt the tallest building in these pictures would have been given permission. Do you think the view here would be ruined?

Liverdude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2005, 05:12 PM   #27
Liverdude's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 762
Likes (Received): 23

These modern buildings could become monuments from our time. These rules talk of a total ban, no chance for us to build our landmarks. I love the historic parts of Liverpool but I think we are over protecting it a little bit. I wonder if the architect of the Liver building thought that it would take 100 years for another building in Liverpool to be taller than it?

Last edited by Liverdude; June 2nd, 2005 at 05:21 PM.
Liverdude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2005, 05:14 PM   #28
Nightsky's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malm÷
Posts: 6,077
Likes (Received): 3695

Life and society changes and has always done and so are the buildings. But it is important to be careful when designing tall and large modern buildings close to historic monuments.
A like means a lot! But one word says more then a thousand likes.

Website about my travels and buildings in USA and Europe -many cool pics:

All my diagram drawings - more than 700!:
Nightsky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2005, 06:01 PM   #29
Registered User
Indyman's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bloomington
Posts: 836
Likes (Received): 4

I dont agree with limiting the building heights. I believe that the monuments or whatever are fine so long as they are not destroyed. I dont believe we should sacrifice development for the sake of not covering up monuments.
Envy is the ulcer of the soul- Socrates
Indyman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2005, 08:24 PM   #30
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 160
Likes (Received): 0

There are dozens of armed conflicts the world over. People are dying of disease, pestulence, armed warfare, food shortages, and all sorts of other maladies, and the f**kin' UN is worried about this crap? This is an organization that just doesn't know how to keep their elitest little noses out of anyone's business! Enough!

And just who in the hell is the UN to tell any of us "where" and "how high" our buildings can be? And this isn't under the catagory of "overstepping one's bounds?"

On a scale of importance of 1-10; if you had a micrometer, you couldn't get a reading..
Malo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2005, 02:19 AM   #31
The Picture Guy
philip's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 568
Likes (Received): 71

Under such a guideline, the Eiffel Tower in Paris would have never been built because of its close proximity to nearby museums/ historical landmarks. How can the United Nations impose a law to limit people's imagination ?

Is this what they want ??
I am the Picture Guy - A picture is worth a thousand words.
philip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2005, 11:40 AM   #32
Capzilla's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,879

If you ask me, the civilised world should just pull out of the UN.
Rob Kaper
Capzilla no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2005, 12:13 PM   #33
FM 2258
Registered User
FM 2258's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,435
Likes (Received): 611

Originally Posted by shaun
The UN has no business in how we develop our cities - unless they contribute significant money towards maintaining them, which I don't think they do.
I agree.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2005, 06:41 PM   #34
3rd Coast
Talbot's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,123
Likes (Received): 14

Originally Posted by Capzilla
If you ask me, the civilised world should just pull out of the UN.

Im surprised that many haven't by this time.
Talbot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 4th, 2005, 01:09 AM   #35
Senior Button Pusher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 16,393
Likes (Received): 2460

Originally Posted by wjfox2002
Yep. This plan from the UN is absurd. Here in London, we already have incredibly strict rules/regulations for tall buildings near world heritage sites. This UN plan would take things to the extreme, and ban them on principle.

Agreed. These people need to mind thier own business, and quit trying to push thier personal opinion onto an entire planet.
Jasonhouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 4th, 2005, 01:35 AM   #36
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
Steely Dan's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1295

and what bloody authority does UNESCO have to do this?

all they can do is make recomendations, they have absolutely zero power to dictate how sovereign nations see fit to develop their cities.

the very notion that UNESCO would even say that they would ban tall buildings near world heritage sites is just plain old absurd because they have absolutely no say in the matter. they have no real power of decision.
"I wish they'd hurry up and just destroy humanity already........... it's the waiting that I can't stand" - Philip J. Fry
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote


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 02:38 PM.

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