MECCA | Abraj Al-Bait Endowment | 601m | 1972ft | 95 fl | T/O

[abumuhannadh]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Normally I abhore re-posting oversized pics, but I found this perspective fascinating. I didn't realize how the structure literally turns a blind eye to the back side! Granted, there may be ownership or structural restrictions prohibiting such, but the result shows an imbalance to the design: As if they don't want anyone to view it save from the front. Curious.

this is what will happen to the back side

[GunnerJacket]

Thanks, abu!

Methinks that's too much, actually, and begins to detract from what they've achieved with the primary tower. I like the form of the three buildings that would abut the clock tower, but think they should be lowered to at least 2/3 their height, IMO. The rest of the development should help the project flow with the surrounding cityscape, not rise out of it like a ship that's run ashore.

[KillerZavatar]

this is like a man made mountain

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Stalinism? Curious as to how to build that association. Take away the traditional elements of skyscraper form and conventional Arabian architecture and I'm not making the connection.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alac_Nauki.jpg

Originally Posted by KillerZavatar

it has the largest floor area

That doesnt make building beautiful.

[Roukaya19]

View behind the Makkah Clock Tower
9 July 2011

[abumuhannadh]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Thanks, abu!

Methinks that's too much, actually, and begins to detract from what they've achieved with the primary tower. I like the form of the three buildings that would abut the clock tower, but think they should be lowered to at least 2/3 their height, IMO. The rest of the development should help the project flow with the surrounding cityscape, not rise out of it like a ship that's run ashore.

everyone wants it to be better in looks, but the priority here is to accommodate more in a small space, (Makkah gets millions of pilgrims every year, that's what these towers are all about)

[Makkawi.Pk]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Normally I abhore re-posting oversized pics, but I found this perspective fascinating. I didn't realize how the structure literally turns a blind eye to the back side! Granted, there may be ownership or structural restrictions prohibiting such, but the result shows an imbalance to the design: As if they don't want anyone to view it save from the front. Curious.

I think its designed to face masjid-al-haraam. Thats why the back side feels alone, but believe me, even from back its mind blowing.

[EuropeanChancellor]

I think that El Greco meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist_skyscrapers

[Luli Pop]

it's the ugly and cheesy version of Mole Littoria by italoargentinean architect Mario Palanti:

[King of Construction]

Originally Posted by GulfArabia

i'm reposting this, dedicated to the trolls

I really love this tower, and your post just made it even more beautiful for me.

Nowadays almost all new skyscrapers are of glass. Here in the Netherlands where I live there is the saying:
onbekend maakt onbemind, which in English translates to:

Unknown makes unloved

(Maybe this saying also exists in English but I've never heard it)

Probably this is the reason many people do not like it, if most buildings in the world were build in this style this would probably be one of the best in this
architectural style

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alac_Nauki.jpg

Gotcha. I tend to view Stalinist style for more the minimalism of the period (the mass housing) rather than the select towers with heavy gothic feel. But I understand what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Makkawi.Pk

I think its designed to face masjid-al-haraam. Thats why the back side feels alone, but believe me, even from back its mind blowing.

I don't doubt that, but it udoubtedly takes on a different character when viewed as a singular wall or mass when compared to the front with it's juxtaposition of the differing towers. Impressive, but different.

Originally Posted by Luli Pop

it's the ugly and cheesy version of Mole Littoria by italoargentinean architect Mario Palanti:

I get the allusion, but I find it funny to compare an artists' fanciful vision, particularly one from a different era, to that of a practical work of today. The constraints and demands of modern architecture are decidedly different, and any number of great designers have offered how and why they must compromise their ideal vision in order to suit the demands of the builder/owner. (Especially considering how often realized buildings can so differ from the conceptual imagery.) I think we also need to account for the differences between pure gothic stylings and the Arabian ornamtentation seen here. Definitely drawing from the historic design ethos, but obviously not trying to be just gothic, either. Thankfully.

One man's opinion, anyway. Nice pic, btw.

[abumuhannadh]

Originally Posted by Luli Pop

it's the ugly and cheesy version of Mole Littoria by italoargentinean architect Mario Palanti:

seriously? you think THAT is is similar and more beautiful than THIS?




funny taste you have

[Pfeuffer]

actually it looks way better

[boschb]

beautiful tower, fuck pessimists

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by King of Construction

I really love this tower, and your post just made it even more beautiful for me.

Nowadays almost all new skyscrapers are of glass. Here in the Netherlands where I live there is the saying:
onbekend maakt onbemind, which in English translates to:
Unknown makes unloved

(Maybe this saying also exists in English but I've never heard it)

Probably this is the reason many people do not like it, if most buildings in the world were build in this style this would probably be one of the best in this
architectural style

I think people don't like it because:

- it's out of scale. Because of its proportions, I've had always impression as it is being build by some giants not by people. Even burj khalifa even though is taller is still of human scale. And the clock tower is located in relatively small city surrounded by hills. It really looks grotesque when it is surrounded so close be the hills that are three times lower that the tower itself. In many pictures it is simply self explanatory, like on the one just posted by GunnerJacket. And it's not the height itself what makes it so bad, but also the fact that the tower rises with not a slightest transition of hight to the freaking 600m from the density of small crowded buildings. I think this tower with its rectangular footprint might of look quite well in the manhatan-style cluster filled with arabic style goldish boxy towers, but not in the very low city surrounded so closely by mountains. They can add some surroundings to the tower to make some transition in the future but they are limited with hills so they will never make big enough cluster of towers. Also the projects like this huge wall of towers on the back side of clock tower is not helping.

- it has wrong proportions. The tower is extremely fat all the way up, and under the clock it gets thin almost instantly. It just can't look right. Whats more from the side of the tower (again pic posted by GunnerJacket) the tower is thinner than on front, but the clock is the same and that also looks very wrong. The very fact that boxy tower with spire has rectangular footprint instead of square doesn't seem right.

- it takes the the model of clock tower from extremely different culture and incorporates it in what suppose to be the Arabic landmark in the center of the Arabic world. I thing that itself for some is the biggest fail of this tower. It would be very similar like putting statue of liberty or Eiffel tower with the crescent on top of it in the center of Mecca. And yes it does look like big ben. Not a long time ago I showed it to my cousin that has no interest on skyscrapers about his first impression. Big Ben was his fast answer with no hesitation

- the crescent - well, this is the symbol of Islam and one would argue that it should fit the tower of mecca perfectly. But because it is put on the tower which shape is taken from the European architecture it doesn't seem right. Crescents looks great on the minarets, but on the bigger brother of big ben? Really? I totally understand those calling it big ben with horns. That just looks silly. Maybe we will use to it with time, who knows?

To not to be so negative I can say what I really like about this tower is its complexity and rare/unique technical features used which not necessarily makes it more beautiful, but at least construction itself is quite interesting I have to admit that. Another thing is the quality of the materials and interiors. Not a doubt about that they are top notch.

Trying not to be ignorant I sometimes try to like it but there is so much wrong about it that, at least for now, I just can't. And apparently many people can't since it did lost in the first round of world cup so badly.

[Makkawi.Pk]

Originally Posted by abumuhannadh

seriously? you think THAT is is similar and more beautiful than THIS?




funny taste you have

Leave it bro

[abumuhannadh]

Originally Posted by patrykus

I think people don't like it because:

- it's out of scale. Because of its proportions, I've had always impression as it is being build by some giants not by people. Even burj khalifa even though is taller is still of human scale. And the clock tower is located in relatively small city surrounded by hills. It really looks grotesque when it is surrounded so close be the hills that are three times lower that the tower itself. In many pictures it is simply self explanatory, like on the one just posted by GunnerJacket. And it's not the height itself what makes it so bad, but also the fact that the tower rises with not a slightest transition of hight to the freaking 600m from the density of small crowded buildings. I think this tower with its rectangular footprint might of look quite well in the manhatan-style cluster filled with arabic style goldish boxy towers, but not in the very low city surrounded so closely by mountains. They can add some surroundings to the tower to make some transition in the future but they are limited with hills so they will never make big enough cluster of towers. Also the projects like this huge wall of towers on the back side of clock tower is not helping.

- it has wrong proportions. The tower is extremely fat all the way up, and under the clock it gets thin almost instantly. It just can't look right. Whats more from the side of the tower (again pic posted by GunnerJacket) the tower is thinner than on front, but the clock is the same and that also looks very wrong. The very fact that boxy tower with spire has rectangular footprint instead of square doesn't seem right.

- it takes the the model of clock tower from extremely different culture and incorporates it in what suppose to be the Arabic landmark in the center of the Arabic world. I thing that itself for some is the biggest fail of this tower. It would be very similar like putting statue of liberty or Eiffel tower with the crescent on top of it in the center of Mecca. And yes it does look like big ben. Not a long time ago I showed it to my cousin that has no interest on skyscrapers about his first impression. Big Ben was his fast answer with no hesitation

- the crescent - well, this is the symbol of Islam and one would argue that it should fit the tower of mecca perfectly. But because it is put on the tower which shape is taken from the European architecture it doesn't seem right. Crescents looks great on the minarets, but on the bigger brother of big ben? Really? I totally understand those calling it big ben with horns. That just looks silly. Maybe we will use to it with time, who knows?

To not to be so negative I can say what I really like about this tower is its complexity and rare/unique technical features used which not necessarily makes it more beautiful, but at least construction itself is quite interesting I have to admit that. Another thing is the quality of the materials and interiors. Not a doubt about that they are top notch.

Trying not to be ignorant I sometimes try to like it but there is so much wrong about it that, at least for now, I just can't. And apparently many people can't since it did lost in the first round of world cup so badly.

a good criticism is rare here, thank you for your views, sir!
most people come here and throw garbage.
no building in the world will be same in beauty to everyone, that's why they say "tastes differ"

[Makkawi.Pk]

Originally Posted by patrykus

I think people don't like it because:

- it's out of scale. Because of its proportions, I've had always impression as it is being build by some giants not by people. Even burj khalifa even though is taller is still of human scale. And the clock tower is located in relatively small city surrounded by hills. It really looks grotesque when it is surrounded so close be the hills that are three times lower that the tower itself. In many pictures it is simply self explanatory, like on the one just posted by GunnerJacket. And it's not the height itself what makes it so bad, but also the fact that the tower rises with not a slightest transition of hight to the freaking 600m from the density of small crowded buildings. I think this tower with its rectangular footprint might of look quite well in the manhatan-style cluster filled with arabic style goldish boxy towers, but not in the very low city surrounded so closely by mountains. They can add some surroundings to the tower to make some transition in the future but they are limited with hills so they will never make big enough cluster of towers. Also the projects like this huge wall of towers on the back side of clock tower is not helping.

- it has wrong proportions. The tower is extremely fat all the way up, and under the clock it gets thin almost instantly. It just can't look right. Whats more from the side of the tower (again pic posted by GunnerJacket) the tower is thinner than on front, but the clock is the same and that also looks very wrong. The very fact that boxy tower with spire has rectangular footprint instead of square doesn't seem right.

- it takes the the model of clock tower from extremely different culture and incorporates it in what suppose to be the Arabic landmark in the center of the Arabic world. I thing that itself for some is the biggest fail of this tower. It would be very similar like putting statue of liberty or Eiffel tower with the crescent on top of it in the center of Mecca. And yes it does look like big ben. Not a long time ago I showed it to my cousin that has no interest on skyscrapers about his first impression. Big Ben was his fast answer with no hesitation

- the crescent - well, this is the symbol of Islam and one would argue that it should fit the tower of mecca perfectly. But because it is put on the tower which shape is taken from the European architecture it doesn't seem right. Crescents looks great on the minarets, but on the bigger brother of big ben? Really? I totally understand those calling it big ben with horns. That just looks silly. Maybe we will use to it with time, who knows?

To not to be so negative I can say what I really like about this tower is its complexity and rare/unique technical features used which not necessarily makes it more beautiful, but at least construction itself is quite interesting I have to admit that. Another thing is the quality of the materials and interiors. Not a doubt about that they are top notch.

Trying not to be ignorant I sometimes try to like it but there is so much wrong about it that, at least for now, I just can't. And apparently many people can't since it did lost in the first round of world cup so badly.

I understand what you're saying, but you should understand that this tower is not built for people to stand beneath it and admire/criticize its 'beuty'. Its built for maximum practicality during the peak seasons of the city (ramadhan and hajj). We really don't care if its tall and ugly and doesn't slim down upto 600m. (BTW it DOES slim down to 600 m, that 'nasty square' is beneath 300m ). The clock is there to show time, not to show off. The crescent is there to light up the beatiful nights at beautiful occasions. See, when you look at it from practical point of view, you'd BLINDLY give it 30 out of10.
And those towers behind it, well, renders always look bad, so we can't say anything about it.
And finally, the mountains don't surround the city, the city surrounds the mountains. Those mountains you saw in the pic are INSIDE the city, which should help you realize this city ain't small at all, and its still growing in size.

[Makkawi.Pk]

Originally Posted by abumuhannadh

a good criticism is rare here, thank you for your views, sir!
most people come here and throw garbage.
no building in the world will be same in beauty to everyone, that's why they say "tastes differ"

Yeah we wouldn't have had problems here if everyone talked like him

[EuropeanChancellor]

Originally Posted by Makkawi.Pk

I understand what you're saying, but you should understand that this tower is not built for people to stand beneath it and admire/criticize its 'beuty'. Its built for maximum practicality during the peak seasons of the city (ramadhan and hajj). We really don't care if its tall and ugly and doesn't slim down upto 600m. (BTW it DOES slim down to 600 m, that 'nasty square' is beneath 300m ). .

So you don´t mind if the holiest city in islam will be poluted by hideous architecture?

Originally Posted by Makkawi.Pk

The clock is there to show time, not to show off. The crescent is there to light up the beatiful nights at beautiful occasions. See, when you look at it from practical point of view, you'd BLINDLY give it 30 out of10..

Well I agree with you

Originally Posted by Makkawi.Pk

And those towers behind it, well, renders always look bad, so we can't say anything about it..

Renders almost always look great and real. Don´t make everything too general

Originally Posted by Makkawi.Pk

And finally, the mountains don't surround the city, the city surrounds the mountains. Those mountains you saw in the pic are INSIDE the city, which should help you realize this city ain't small at all, and its still growing in size.