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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 12th, 2010, 06:47 AM   #9441
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFDalton View Post
I would. I think it would fit the skyline better at 1777 - 1800ft. Why at least 1777ft? Should be obvious...
LOL as long as its taller then 1wtc right. I don't care if its taller, but it has to be more then 5 feet, I'm alright wit that.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 12th, 2010, 05:55 PM   #9442
paih
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 1

its must be strong also...
paih no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 08:29 PM   #9443
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

In the United States, the maximum height of structures of any kind is restricted to 2,000 feet (609.6 m). So this is right on the border. Can't go any higher than this I am afraid.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 08:47 PM   #9444
AUTOTHRILL
chill
 
AUTOTHRILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London | Liverpool
Posts: 4,712
Likes (Received): 1948

damn... you smug arab! lol hate to think what the UK height restrictions are... a few foot... heard a guy got chopped up coz he was too tall...
__________________
I hate this username
AUTOTHRILL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 08:51 PM   #9445
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by AUTOTHRILL View Post
damn... you smug arab! lol hate to think what the UK height restrictions are... a few foot... heard a guy got chopped up coz he was too tall...
I am not an arab. Back on topic though, its a great building. I am just curious how they fit 150 floors in 610 metres. How many metres is one floor?

Who said anything about Europe? Europe doesn't need many tall building's since it's beautiful without them.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 09:07 PM   #9446
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest89 View Post
In the United States, the maximum height of structures of any kind is restricted to 2,000 feet (609.6 m). So this is right on the border. Can't go any higher than this I am afraid.
That 2,000 foot rule is a bit of a myth. The FAA does have height rules near airports. Most cities have heights limits as well. But if a developer came forward with a proposal taller than 2000 feet, they could apply for an exception. NYC in the early 1900's had height limits in the couple hundred feet range. That didn't last. If someone came forward with an economical and safe building it could be done.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 10:13 PM   #9447
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

They didn't have airplanes during the 1900s. The 2000 feet rule is not a mith. Ask congress. No building is allowed to pass that height due to air traffic safety. Are there exceptions? Haven't seen one exception yet. So the rule is not a mith, it is a rule by the FAA.

Only structures that can surpass that are TV and Radio Masts, Not buildings.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 10:53 PM   #9448
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

If a real estate developer and a major tenant (financial firm, tech company, etc) joined up to build a 2,000+ foot tower I bet their would be a lot of US cities that would love to have it built. It would require a rework of the air traffic routes, safety, etc. But laws can change. Your assumption is that the FAA is just going to keep the 2,000 feet limit FOREVER. Forever is a very long time.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2010, 10:57 PM   #9449
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36



I didn't say they wont change ever but I dont see them changing anytime soon.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 02:20 AM   #9450
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest89 View Post
They didn't have airplanes during the 1900s. The 2000 feet rule is not a mith. Ask congress. No building is allowed to pass that height due to air traffic safety. Are there exceptions? Haven't seen one exception yet. So the rule is not a mith, it is a rule by the FAA.

Only structures that can surpass that are TV and Radio Masts, Not buildings.
From the FAA.gov website:

"We have concluded that this objective can best be achieved by adopting the following policy : Applications for antenna towers higher than 2,000 feet above ground will be presumed to be inconsistent with the public interest, and the applicant will have a burden of overcoming that strong presumption. The applicant must accompany its application with a detailed showing directed to meeting this burden. Only in the exceptional case, where the Commission concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that there are public interest reasons requiring a tower higher than 2,000 feet above ground, and after the parties have complied with applicable FAA procedures, and full Commission coordination with FAA on the question of menace to air navigation, will a grant be made. Applicants and parties in interest will, of course, be afforded their statutory hearing rights."


The 2000 ft rule is NOT set in stone and may be subject to any claim supporting "the public interest". Following the 1945 crash of a military bomber into the Empire State Building, the FAA sought to limit cruising altitudes of aircraft to those higher than 2000ft. which alternately means that no buildings or structures exceeding that height could be built without FAA permission, after having demonstrated a value to the "public interest". This means that few if any structures of any sort would ever be approved by the FAA unless the airlines and other flying interests could be convinced to raise their 'floor of operations', something they defend tooth and nail, especially in cities like New York.
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 04:05 AM   #9451
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

Nice find desertpunk. I think any mayor of a US city offered the prospects of someone building a 2,000+ foot tower would find a way to make a convincing case to the FAA to allow its construction. The height is one thing, but a massive tower like that is worth billions in labor and materials.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 04:24 AM   #9452
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre000 View Post
Nice find desertpunk. I think any mayor of a US city offered the prospects of someone building a 2,000+ foot tower would find a way to make a convincing case to the FAA to allow its construction. The height is one thing, but a massive tower like that is worth billions in labor and materials.
I agree. There is a strong economic development argument to be made in favor of building supertalls and megatalls. Unlike the 1950s, aircraft are much better equipped with warning devices that prevent catrastrophic accidents. That's why so many other countries are less concerned about exceeding 2000 ft. I think a 300 ft. structure situated near a flight path would be more dangerous than a 2500 ft tower miles from any airport or major flight path.
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 04:24 AM   #9453
kitayabi
Registered User
 
kitayabi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,114
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by dachacon View Post
get your trolling ass out of this forum and into a history book
just a mention of Dubai and you guys flip

Last edited by kitayabi; January 13th, 2010 at 04:31 AM.
kitayabi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 04:58 AM   #9454
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by kitayabi View Post
just a mention of Dubai and you guys flip
i don't blame them, we're all sick of people droning on about dubai.
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 06:46 PM   #9455
回回
Regi-ser
 
回回's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Downtown Chicago
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 8

The only time I see planes flying 2,000 feet around downtown Chicago is during the air shows, so it shouldn't be too hard to apply for an exemption if needed.

The top 600 feet of the Burj Dubai is just a spire isn't it? Why not make the habitable part of Chicago Spire 1,200 feet, give it a 800 foot spire consistent with the overall form, and then put a 1,000 foot needle on top of it to make it 3,000 feet. It would be much cheaper to build and the world's tallest building!
回回 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 07:37 PM   #9456
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

it'll look something like this


The current design is much better, I don't care that it's "only" 600m high
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 08:20 PM   #9457
回回
Regi-ser
 
回回's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Downtown Chicago
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 8

No, it would look like this. (For fun/scale, a Burj Dubai clone to replace that black thing near the water)

At least its not as ugly as John Hancock!
回回 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 08:29 PM   #9458
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

I thought you people hated when somebody spoke about Dubai in this thread. Chicago Spire can only dream of becoming as tall as the Burj Dubai. Chicago spire cheats too much with that long antenna. Nice looking building though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 回回 View Post
The only time I see planes flying 2,000 feet around downtown Chicago is during the air shows, so it shouldn't be too hard to apply for an exemption if needed.

The top 600 feet of the Burj Dubai is just a spire isn't it? Why not make the habitable part of Chicago Spire 1,200 feet, give it a 800 foot spire consistent with the overall form, and then put a 1,000 foot needle on top of it to make it 3,000 feet. It would be much cheaper to build and the world's tallest building!
The top part of Burj Dubai is a steel structure that still counts as part of the structure and till has offices ect. Chicago Spire as the name suggests is a spire on top that has no purpose but to get to 610m. lol
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 08:43 PM   #9459
回回
Regi-ser
 
回回's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Downtown Chicago
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 8

Unlike most, I honestly don't like the look of Burj Dubai, the Chicago Spire is a true work of art! I think that if top part is not habitable than it counts as the spire. The spire on top of Trump is part of the structure for example.
回回 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 08:52 PM   #9460
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by 回回 View Post
Unlike most, I honestly don't like the look of Burj Dubai, the Chicago Spire is a true work of art! I think that if top part is not habitable than it counts as the spire. The spire on top of Trump is part of the structure for example.
Let me have a guess, you dont like it because it is not built in the US. I am from the US and I still love the architecture of Dubai. Maybe if you stop listening to our corrupt media and actually go there and live there and see the buildings you would hcnage your mind. A picture doesn't capture the beauty of a building. In chicago the architecture of the "tall" buildings is all from the 20th century with the exception of Trump which has a resemblance of the Burj. I suggest you go to Dubai and your opinion might change. As far as Chicago spire.. it looks out of proportion with that long spire on top. Infinity Tower in Dubai is around 310 metres and rotates to the top and looks way better IMO.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
chicago, santiago calatrava, spire, tallest, tower

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 09:47 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