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 13th, 2010, 09:16 PM   #9461
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest89 View Post
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.



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

do you know what the current design looks like?
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 13th, 2010, 09:21 PM   #9462
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

As far as I remember they removed the spire. So it was only the building left. Correct me if I am wrong.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 09:28 PM   #9463
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

that's right, no spire on "the spire" hehe
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 09:34 PM   #9464
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36



I disliked the spire on "the spire" anyways.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 10:01 PM   #9465
回回
Regi-ser
 
回回's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Downtown Chicago
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest89 View Post
Let me have a guess
Let me have a guess, you have no taste? I do not like Las-Vegas style architecture, sloppy cities where I need a car to get around, or the desert for that matter.

I can't think of any building designs that do not at least have some bilateral symmetry that I like outside of the Chicago Spire. Also I hate the set-back look of the Sears tower and Burj Dubai (and about half of Manhattan as a result.) Set-backs are done to reduce cost, complexity, and shadows, not because they look good! (The tripod shape also reduces cost and complexity because it is easier to build than a tall box/cylinder etc.)
回回 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 10:22 PM   #9466
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
Let me have a guess, you have no taste? I do not like Las-Vegas style architecture, sloppy cities where I need a car to get around, or the desert for that matter.

I can't think of any building designs that do not at least have some bilateral symmetry that I like outside of the Chicago Spire. Also I hate the set-back look of the Sears tower and Burj Dubai (and about half of Manhattan as a result.) Set-backs are done to reduce cost, complexity, and shadows, not because they look good! (The tripod shape also reduces cost and complexity because it is easier to build than a tall box/cylinder etc.)
Actually the tripod has never been done before to my knowledge and is made for greater stability and the ability to go higher, not because of costs. "Set-backs" do reduce cost but it suites Burj Dubai. It doesnt suit Sears Tower because it was built in the 20th century and it doesnt look as elegant as Burj Dubai.

I can not believe you claim to have taste and like tall boxes or cylinders which are so common that it makes you want to puke. I for one disliked the old WTC towers because they looked like cement rods that had no beauty what so ever. The tripod shape is unique and gives the building more resistance towards wing. As a matter of fact the Burj Dubai reduces much more wind by tricking it than Chicago Spire. You can check with the wind tunnel experts on that.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 10:56 PM   #9467
Ni3lS
Moderator
 
Ni3lS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 16,465
Likes (Received): 3423

This smells like...........

Going offtopic again? Keep it nice, friendly and on topic please.
__________________
MY SHOWCASE
FLICKR / MY TRAVELS:
[2016] > Norway, Valencia, Arvidsjaur, Innsbruck, Moselvalley, Geneva, Lisbon, Basel, Vosges, Munich, Trieste, Barcelona, Nürburgring, Frankfurt, Spa, Berlin, Wuppertal, Dortmund, Como, Monaco, Saint-Tropez, Tegernsee, Hamburg, Lübeck, Madrid, Stuttgart, Faro, Hochgurgl
[2017] > Düsseldorf, Mallorca, Geneva, Annecy, Montafon, Vorarlberg, Barcelona, Zürich, Crete, Lisbon, Cascais, Málaga, Ronda, Dolomiti, Sistiana, Kitzbühel
Ni3lS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2010, 11:02 PM   #9468
回回
Regi-ser
 
回回's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Downtown Chicago
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 8

I do not like the former WTC either (I meant box as a general shape.) The CN Tower is a tripod (not a building, but still very tall) and the canceled Russia Tower was much taller and more massive. In the 80's there was a WTC Chicago proposal that was basically a 2,300 foot box, so boxes can probably go very high if someone has the money to do it, it would be a tough engineering challenge but it might be practical in a densely built city, if there was extreme demand for floor area. Like you said, wind-resistance is a problem for buildings that are still thick/angular at 300 meters and up.

Generally, a tripod is the easiest shape to build tall/stable (nobody has made a quadripod for cameras) but not space efficient - the Burj Dubai has a similar floor area to the Sears Tower, which is half as tall - and a pyramid is the easiest to build large/tall, that is why there are many pyramid monuments in the Americas and Middle East.
回回 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 06:16 PM   #9469
EddieB317
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
 
EddieB317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 722
Likes (Received): 33

The nasty Ryuyong Hotel in north korea is a big ugly tripod... tripod/3 wing monstrosities have definitely been built before. They are not space efficient at the base. If you want a city to be efficient, comfortable, walkable, and livable then the base of the building can't be 5 city blocks... and triangle shaped. Great cities have buildings that are very close to the streets/sidewalks so that pedestrians have easy access. I know I don't want to walk the minimum 2 miles through the desert to get from the front door of the closest building to the front door of Burj Khalifa. (I have been to Las Vegas... we have done that here... its no so great.) Chicago is great because you can walk to work, to the park, to dinner... The Spire will be in a dense area and will be walking distance from many great areas. I want to get out and explore, not live my life in a stationary commercialized vertical cruise ship [Burj Khalifa].
__________________

I happen to think that things are going to happen for Indianapolis...
EddieB317 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 06:34 PM   #9470
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest89 View Post
It doesnt suit Sears Tower because it was built in the 20th century and it doesnt look as elegant as Burj Dubai.
sad but true. i'm not a big fan of the willi's tower

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest89 View Post
I for one disliked the old WTC towers because they looked like cement rods that had no beauty what so ever
couldn't disagree more on this one, hehe.



beautifull arches


the golden towers
image hosted on flickr


very nice sunset on wtc


You are beautiful no matter what they say
Words can't bring you down
You are beautiful in every single way
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 06:35 PM   #9471
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

so back to topic
maybe we all agree that the spire is nice looking tower

Last edited by Moby_; January 14th, 2010 at 06:45 PM.
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 06:38 PM   #9472
DarkFenX
A B C
 
DarkFenX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,669
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by 回回 View Post
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!
Looks like a giant narwhal.
__________________
[CENTER][SIZE=2]

BOSTON - CITY OF CHAMPIONS

NE Patriots 2001 - NE Patriots 2003 - NE Patriots 2004 - Boston Red Sox 2004 - Boston Red Sox 2007 - Boston Celtics 2008 - Boston Bruins 2011 - Boston Red Sox 2013 - NE Patriots 2014
DarkFenX no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 08:16 PM   #9473
Viperfreak2
BANNED
 
Viperfreak2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 48

My high school drafting teacher would be proud of the point on that pencil.
Viperfreak2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 08:56 PM   #9474
kalt
The Cold One
 
kalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 130
Likes (Received): 4

What height limitation?

__________________
http://www.kalt.co
kalt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 09:21 PM   #9475
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

hehe, nice one kelt, it's a stupid limitation anyway, airplanes follow standard arrival\departure patterns, and they have charts with minimum safe altitude. So wether a tower is 600m or 1000m can't make much a difference
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2010, 09:51 PM   #9476
回回
Regi-ser
 
回回's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Downtown Chicago
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 8

The Trump tower was supposed to be the tallest in the world. They still can expand it if they want, as you can see in my professional rendering:

Only 1 mile (1,600 meters), but as new technologies develop, they can expand it to 10 miles.
回回 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2010, 04:53 AM   #9477
harryc
Registered User
 
harryc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 2,099
Likes (Received): 375

Jan 14

From above

higer res 2007 series - 2008 Q1 series - 2008 Q2 series - 2008 Q3 & 4 series - 2009 series

Bridge work continues


Ice on the slip





Panasonic DMZ TZ4 - Picasa - Autostitch - Photomatix HDR
__________________
Harry C --- Picassa ---- Web Shots

“War is where the young and stupid are tricked by the old and bitter into killing each other.”

--Niko Bellic
harryc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2010, 10:50 PM   #9478
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

thanks again for the pictures harry. realy alot of ice in the hole now, must be a record.

btw, that lakeshore drive isn't very pretty, is there any plans to put it in a tunnel or something?
Moby_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2010, 11:21 PM   #9479
Guest89
----SSC ®----
 
Guest89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1,137
Likes (Received): 36

Lol guys, face it we won't have the world's tallest for a long time. I mean it takes us ages to build a skyscraper at ground zero which isnt high at all and you are talking about tallest? Wake up this isn't the 20th century anymore. Although it would be nice, I highly doubt it. We already have enough tall skyscrapers.

I like people who dream and have visions but sometime stupid reality sets in. Besides with the current pace at least 5 years to go through the red tape of it. 5 more for the foundations. and 6-10 years after that for it to be completed given there is no disaster or financial crisis. Be happy with what we already have.
Guest89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2010, 02:32 AM   #9480
Moby_
Registered User
 
Moby_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 5

well burj kalifa was ridiculously expensive, and that's when they use "slave" labour working 12hour shifts. building taller will be even more expensive. perhaps china could do it.
Moby_ 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 12:39 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