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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment

Global Announcement

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


Thread Tools
Old January 28th, 2007, 02:40 AM   #41
megatower's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,214
Likes (Received): 34

to me, i think the Burj Dubai takes WTB to a hole new level. and the use of concrete takes skyscraper's to a hole new level.
the reason i say the Burj Dubai takes WTB to a hole new level, because usually a new tallest building would usually beat the previous tallest just under 200 ft. then all of the sudden DUBAI takes it to a level never thought possible. and beating the highest building right now which is Taipei 101 by hundred's of feet!!!!. like for example: sears tower was beaten by the petrona tower's by only 33ft. then Taipei took the tallest by 184ft. then there's the Might Burj Dubai beating them all by more then 900ft!!!!!!!!
megatower no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 28th, 2007, 03:19 PM   #42
poshbakerloo's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,084
Likes (Received): 283

Originally Posted by WANCH View Post
Unless the Millennium Tower in Tokyo is built then the Burj will have a competition.

Yes The Burj is much taller compared to its neighbouring scrapers. But really, does Dubai need such megastructure?

i think that Dubai will benefit by these tall towers as it will brig loads of people in just to see the buildings.

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2007, 10:54 PM   #43
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 161
Likes (Received): 0

The notion that buildings from back in the day are more "unique" and buildings today are all the same is maybe the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this board. If you seriously think there is less variety in today's buildings than in buildings from the 30s, then you have no eye for architecture.

The fact is there is just more today. More construction means more of both the good and the bad. I think people are focusing on just the bad and comparing it to a handful of cherry-picked classics from the past, as though there were no derivative designs then, no forgettable infill buildings, or no ugly buildings that have since been redeveloped. IMO, the best of any time period compares with the best of any other -- you just have to understand that buildings and their styles change and evolve over time.

Last edited by sl64; January 28th, 2007 at 11:01 PM.
sl64 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 22nd, 2007, 11:57 PM   #44
I double dog dare you!!!
FastFerrari's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas - USA
Posts: 707
Likes (Received): 32

i love towers
FastFerrari no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2007, 04:24 AM   #45
Registered User
redbaron_012's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11,565
Likes (Received): 3095

I feel a little frustrated when hearing about all the new towers going up around the world when here in Melbourne where we have had some great buildings in the 200m - 300m go up over the past 20 years yet now there seems to be a swing to ' Campus ' style office buildings...even in the city. Australia's largest by floor space building (new ANZ Bank ) now going up in the Docklands isn't even 15 stories yet sprawls across a large area.They say tenants want large floorplates....is this trend anywhere else ???
redbaron_012 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2007, 04:38 AM   #46
Registered User
philvia's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nyc
Posts: 1,022
Likes (Received): 33

I much prefer today's designs than back in the early 1900s. I like the metal/glass structures because I love everything modern and futuristic. And the taller the better.

only thing old buildings have going for them is the history and usually they're more interesting to look at.
philvia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 04:25 AM   #47
Blue Collar
Rizzato's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 899
Likes (Received): 49

I grow angry when an architect duplicates their work in different countries, essentially copying their own design when lacking inspiration.
older buildings like the chrysler bulding and chicagos tribune tower appeal to me more than what we get nowadays. but I do enjoy the SWFC and chicago u/c scrapers.
Rizzato no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 03:25 PM   #48
Registered User
The_Dark's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

We're probably living in the most exciting period of skyscraper construction in history. I never really imagined I'd witness perhaps dozens of 300m + towers all over the world under construction at one time - with Dubai leading the pack. The fact there is no real clear style (unlike the International style in the 60s) only adds to this drama.

What I find interesting are cities such as New York with a long history of skyscraper construction, with contrasting styles, good and bad. As long as the architecture is of a high enough standard I think such cities will continue to be fascinating to people. The history and layers of past styles just adds to the appeal.

As for the current trends in design/asthetics, well its pretty extreme. I probably lean toward the more restrained high tech approach of the European, US and in particular (biased) London scrapers, as opposed to Dubai's circus of post modern, kitsch and disneyesque towers. However there is a place for all kinds as long as each building is considered properly and its location is sympathetic and does not damage its surroundings. I wouldn't mind betting we see a fare few super talls rivalling the Burj Dubai in the near future, which can only be a positive thing for urban design and architecture as a whole.
The_Dark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 01:30 AM   #49
TalB's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

Please do not make any personal attacks at me if what I am saying doesn't agree with any of you. For me, it would depend on the style. There are some that I like and others that I don't like. I do favor a lot of prewar architecture, b/c they have shown that design meant something in those days. However, I am very mixed with postwar architecture. The only reason I like buildings that are either mordernist, post-modernist, neo-classical, or even international is b/c they show how something great can be just by being very simple. In a way, I do favor a lot of glassy boxes b/c the sun gives them their sleekiness. Deconstructivism, I find to be ugly and a lot of them do not look realistic, not to mention how expensive they are to build. Honestly, I do not believe in flaunting architecture to make a city look better. After hearing and reading Learning from Las Vegas, I would rather not learn from that, b/c it's really just creating a part of a city that seperates itself from the rest, not to mention that tacky architecture it shows.
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 04:43 AM   #50
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 70
Likes (Received): 0

Originally Posted by Zaki View Post

They all look pretty similar to me. Brown boxes tapering off with small windows. With todays scrapers, you have everything from plain boxes, to egg shaped buidlings, to twisted buildings, to setbacks, to leaning towers, and snake like towers, and the list goes on and on.

I guess the main thing is, if you don't live in a city where there is a lot of QUALITY new constuction, yu start believing things like all modern towers suck. What you have to remember was not all the buildings built in the 20s and 30s was a chrysler or empire state and that most places of the world didn't see the quality you are speaking of. And in the same way, there is still a lot of quality skyscrapers going up, just in other parts of the world.
that picture is amazing! Look how they are oriented at all angles - it's as if there was no street grid at all.
Is this a picture of downtown where the grid starts to break down a little?

The tapering towers were a result of NYC zoning restrictions that required the setbacks at certain heights - and they couldn't make the windows any bigger. In the 60s the zoning in NYC changed to favor taking up less of the parcel and just building straight up, so that you started seeing scrapers with large plazas in front of them, like the Seagram Building.
yerfdog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 11:23 AM   #51
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 0

Originally Posted by The_Dark View Post
We're probably living in the most exciting period of skyscraper construction in history. I never really imagined I'd witness perhaps dozens of 300m + towers all over the world under construction at one time - with Dubai leading the pack. The fact there is no real clear style (unlike the International style in the 60s) only adds to this drama.
You do say that there is no clear style yet personally I find that most modern skyscrapers look the same, even if they have different overall shapes they tend to use the same materials, the same detailing and the same elements to build up their shapes... It's all in the eye of the beholder but I personally think the more modern skyscrapers look more like consumer goods than buildings. I prefer the permanent look of the pre-war classic and art deco styles and the post war simplicity of concrete, steel and glass. (when it was done good, which is wasn't always)
carlisle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 01:08 PM   #52
Nightsky's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malm÷
Posts: 6,082
Likes (Received): 3704

I think it is good with as many tall towers as possible, as long as they aren't placed in historical districts or in the nature.
The design has changed in a good way. It started with the postmodernism in the 80s and has changed to the futurism we have now in China and Dubai that is far more interesting than the boring boxes of the 60s and 70s. However, the skyscrapers of the early 20th century are unbeatable!
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 April 26th, 2007, 01:44 PM   #53
the new republic
isaidso's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,654
Likes (Received): 10806

I am not a civil engineer, but I am surprised no one has brought up the issue of safety and practicality. As impressive as many of the super talls are, how safe is an 800 metre tower? Are construction standards in some of these countries stringent enough? Has their been enough testing? What about severe weather testing? Durability of materials?

Pumping water, running elevators, etc. passed a certain height becomes economically and technically impractical. Are these parameters simply being ignored? Is an office 800 metres up going to sway so much that it renders such a place to be inhabitable? What are the evacuation plans for these buildings in case of fire, or some unforeseen threat? If they collapsed, what of the city below?

I'm fascinated by developments in tower design, but also abit weary.
isaidso está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 02:34 AM   #54
Salad Days Are Here
Xelebes's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Едмончук/Oil Capital of Canada
Posts: 3,626
Likes (Received): 746

I think the designs just simply reflect the current mythology - that being, aliens instead of gargoyles and spirits. The glass structures are built simply because they don't look human crafted - so we won't see the gold leaf and stonework as much as we did in the 20's and 30's.
Xelebes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 07:41 AM   #55
Registered User
beaujoe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FoCo, CO
Posts: 44
Likes (Received): 1

I personally love the style of new skyscrapers. I also liked the style of the 1920s and 1930s skyscrapers. I appreciate both for what they are. Glass and steel skyscrapers have a light feel to them, and an often simplistic shape is a reflection of a different aesthetic. The skyscrapers of the 20s and 30s were much more ornate, and their stone, brick, and other heavy facades have a different appeal. I don't consider one or the other to be superior overall, aside from which I find more appealing (which is merely a reflection of my opinion). Much like painting, there are different movements and styles of architecture. You have to appreciate them for what they are, I guess.

As for the current skyscraper boom, I don't think it's that ridiculous. Societies are becoming much more urban and wealthy overall. As more and more people move to cities, they can choose to either have the cities sprawl and take up more and more land, or they can choose to build upward. Or they could do a combination of both. Each presents its own problems, but in the long run, it becomes more and more important that they grow vertically so as to maximize effective land use and facilitate transportation issues.

Of course, some projects do seem to be a bit extreme. The Burj Dubai is a definite example of that. The entire city is, actually. I admit - I'm completely baffled as to why they would build so many high rise buildings when they have plenty of undeveloped land all around. But they have the money and are obviously willing to spend it. 20 or 30 years from now, it will probably make a lot more sense. But right now, it doesn't - not to me, at least.

I still admire the tremendous engineering and architectural feat that the BD represents though. They are pushing the limits to what we have even tried before, and are paving the way to new accomplishments in architecture, much the way the Empire State Building or the Chrysler buildings did.
beaujoe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2007, 09:05 PM   #56
In the bog.
PresidentBjork's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,863
Likes (Received): 3366

Yeah, I agree these supertalls are just reflections of their time.
But, aren't we forgetting something, supertalls have always been an expression of corporate/national pride. When previous structures have been built they have always faced accusations of garishness or haste. The point is that the initiatives to build such costly structures thrive or their modernity. They have to be fast and brash. The sears and empire state where designed and built very quickly, and while i much prefer the latter, the sears, often criticised for it's simplicity, is still 108 stories tall! That's what makes it a great structure. At the moment new economies want to show off by throwing up new supertalls, and many are better than others, it's up to posterity to decide which are design icons. Now, there are just more.

jdjones liked this post
PresidentBjork 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 02:52 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