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 August 27th, 2007, 10:52 AM   #6121
depressio
Lime and limpid green
 
depressio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 293
Likes (Received): 15

So was New York in 1929. New York in 1930 is an entirely different story.
depressio no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 27th, 2007, 10:55 AM   #6122
depressio
Lime and limpid green
 
depressio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 293
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by snail456 View Post
The Empire State Building had a lower top floor hight than the Burj Dubai and a was composed of steel supported by a central concrete core so would have been quicker to construct.

It remained empty for ages because it was built in the middle of the Wall Street crash and the great depression.
Do you think I'm an idiot? You've told me nothing I didn't already know. Of course it has a lower top floor height -- the thread says "New WTB" right there in the title!! The point is the ESB was built over 70 years ago, and yet its pace was much much faster than any building today. I think some forum members don't really know the meaning of quick construction is all.
depressio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 11:05 AM   #6123
velciane
Moderator
 
velciane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 729

Quote:
Originally Posted by snail456 View Post
The Empire State Building had a lower top floor hight than the Burj Dubai and a was composed of steel supported by a central concrete core so would have been quicker to construct.

It remained empty for ages because it was built in the middle of the Wall Street crash and the great depression.
are you sure about the core?? I thought the ESB had only steel.
velciane no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 11:23 AM   #6124
depressio
Lime and limpid green
 
depressio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 293
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by velciane View Post
are you sure about the core?? I thought the ESB had only steel.
You're absolutely right. Reinforced concrete wasn't developed in the thirties! Bah!!
Sorry I've been drinking tonight. Plus it's late as it is!! Ha!
depressio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 11:58 AM   #6125
Gattberserk
Smith
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate View Post
Burj Dubai has absolutely an awful and silly design!
It's just like "How can we build the WTB, no matter it will look like!
Sorry for that! No comparison to CS!
It seem that you have absolutely no passionate in architecture. You didnt even bother to look at the discovery youtube video that was posted not too long ago.

If you did watch you would have known why izzit design and build in this way, and how it actually divert the wind current upward.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deep sea buildings View Post
just noticed the diagram says roof4 701m but there seems other similar set backs higher than 702m? its a bit confusing to work out the highest roof set back.
I guess above 700.9m is not accessible by anyone unauthorised? So I guess it should be the official highest roof height (Meaning the council of tall building might take this as their measure for the highest record)
__________________
WORLD TALLEST STRUCTURE


Kingdom Tower of Jeddah
Gattberserk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 12:52 PM   #6126
cyborg81
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dubai/Sydney/Los Angeles
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 8

The ranting of a sore loser

Aug 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban affairs columnist

At some point during the next few weeks, the CN Tower will no longer be the tallest free-standing structure in the world.

It will be surpassed by the Burj Dubai, yet another nasty-looking petro-money monster in the United Arab Emirates. The question is: Does anybody care? Not likely.

It's amazing Toronto's 30-year-old tower has reigned as the world's tallest free-standing structure for as long as it has, but let's be honest, in the 21st century the fight for height has become degraded, ersatz and rather tasteless, even tacky.

To be blunt, the edifice complex is no longer a Western obsession; it has moved to arriviste nations recently grown wealthy by plundering their own natural resources, and, in China's case, its population.

You want proof? Just ask yourself: Until the Burj Dubai (due to top off 165 storeys of offices and apartments a year from now) began to claim both records, what was the tallest building in the world?

The answer, lest you've forgotten, is Taipei 101, a 2004 architectural grotesque that stands just over half a kilometre tall.

Before that, it was the Petronas Towers (1998) in Kuala Lumpur. Few outside Malaysia have ever heard of the building, unremarkable but for its height.

The need to be the biggest, highest, shiniest – whatever – is something cities go through in their civic adolescence, so to speak. Paris built the Eiffel Tower for the Universal Exposition of 1889.

In New York, the race to the clouds was played out in the 1920s and '30s, the great age of skyscrapers. Think of the competition between William Van Alen and his Chrysler Tower (1930) and William Lamb and the Empire State Building (1931).

All three are as famous now as ever. All are also magnificent structures. That's the critical factor. None of the early giants has held a height record for decades, but as icons they loom as large as ever.

Their places in the collective imagination will never be matched by Taipei, Petronas or Burj. Not only is there less interest in height records, the architecture of these three ugly sisters lacks the poetry of their antecedents.

The CN Tower, while technically not a skyscraper – a needle housing communications cables is not the same as a building – also has its place in contemporary culture. Sure it was tallest, but its design said something more; it speaks of the modern age and man's eternal desire to reach ever higher. More to the point, it soars. It is a spire, tall, thin and, yes, beautiful.

Of course, it also says much about Toronto's wanna-be psychology, but the important thing is that the CN Tower transcends the banality of its makers' intentions. The designer, Australian-born architect John Andrews, came up with a masterpiece, a structure that is somehow quintessential, not compromised by design trends or architectural fashion. It is elemental; this, we feel, is what a tower should look like.

Even the accomplished Santiago Calatrava, creator of the Montjuic Telecommunications Tower in Barcelona, didn't come close to the CN Tower.

By contrast, the Dubai building is all about height for height's sake. Its ambition can be read in every detail. It is what it is, nothing more. It goes no further than its creator's desires.

This is why the CN Tower's reign as one of the world's most recognizable and admired towers isn't threatened. It possesses qualities more important than mere height; it has a kind of perfection that makes it indispensable, irreducible and incomparable. It rises above time and place and the conditions of its own creation. It simply is, much in the manner of the pyramids, not exquisite like the Parthenon, it's true, but equally essential.

Spires elsewhere may out-climb the CN Tower, but Toronto need not concern itself. Outside their host cities, few will care.

http://www.thestar.com/article/250095
cyborg81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 01:04 PM   #6127
Gattberserk
Smith
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 17

Wtf is this? What with this guy biased attitude toward Asian architecture, he is just plain immature in having such jealous view that the Asian architecture has reign supremcy in the 21st century. You seriously think Western structure is that big deal? Omg!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by cyborg81 View Post
Spires elsewhere may out-climb the CN Tower, but Toronto need not concern itself. Outside their host cities, few will care.
Yeah I agree few would really care. Sadly the sore loser of this article is actually one of them. Worst, he didnt even realised it.
__________________
WORLD TALLEST STRUCTURE


Kingdom Tower of Jeddah
Gattberserk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 01:59 PM   #6128
Guere
Registered User
 
Guere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,846
Likes (Received): 8821

Indeed. That guy is desperately trying to convince himself he shouldn't care. But he does, otherwise he wouldn't have wasted an entire article to that rant. Sad, very sad...
Guere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 02:13 PM   #6129
TexasSkyWatcher
Supertall fan #1
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyborg81 View Post
Aug 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban affairs columnist

At some point during the next few weeks, the CN Tower will no longer be the tallest free-standing structure in the world.

It will be surpassed by the Burj Dubai, yet another nasty-looking petro-money monster in the United Arab Emirates. The question is: Does anybody care? Not likely.

It's amazing Toronto's 30-year-old tower has reigned as the world's tallest free-standing structure for as long as it has, but let's be honest, in the 21st century the fight for height has become degraded, ersatz and rather tasteless, even tacky.

To be blunt, the edifice complex is no longer a Western obsession; it has moved to arriviste nations recently grown wealthy by plundering their own natural resources, and, in China's case, its population.

You want proof? Just ask yourself: Until the Burj Dubai (due to top off 165 storeys of offices and apartments a year from now) began to claim both records, what was the tallest building in the world?

The answer, lest you've forgotten, is Taipei 101, a 2004 architectural grotesque that stands just over half a kilometre tall.

Before that, it was the Petronas Towers (1998) in Kuala Lumpur. Few outside Malaysia have ever heard of the building, unremarkable but for its height.

The need to be the biggest, highest, shiniest – whatever – is something cities go through in their civic adolescence, so to speak. Paris built the Eiffel Tower for the Universal Exposition of 1889.

In New York, the race to the clouds was played out in the 1920s and '30s, the great age of skyscrapers. Think of the competition between William Van Alen and his Chrysler Tower (1930) and William Lamb and the Empire State Building (1931).

All three are as famous now as ever. All are also magnificent structures. That's the critical factor. None of the early giants has held a height record for decades, but as icons they loom as large as ever.

Their places in the collective imagination will never be matched by Taipei, Petronas or Burj. Not only is there less interest in height records, the architecture of these three ugly sisters lacks the poetry of their antecedents.

The CN Tower, while technically not a skyscraper – a needle housing communications cables is not the same as a building – also has its place in contemporary culture. Sure it was tallest, but its design said something more; it speaks of the modern age and man's eternal desire to reach ever higher. More to the point, it soars. It is a spire, tall, thin and, yes, beautiful.

Of course, it also says much about Toronto's wanna-be psychology, but the important thing is that the CN Tower transcends the banality of its makers' intentions. The designer, Australian-born architect John Andrews, came up with a masterpiece, a structure that is somehow quintessential, not compromised by design trends or architectural fashion. It is elemental; this, we feel, is what a tower should look like.

Even the accomplished Santiago Calatrava, creator of the Montjuic Telecommunications Tower in Barcelona, didn't come close to the CN Tower.

By contrast, the Dubai building is all about height for height's sake. Its ambition can be read in every detail. It is what it is, nothing more. It goes no further than its creator's desires.

This is why the CN Tower's reign as one of the world's most recognizable and admired towers isn't threatened. It possesses qualities more important than mere height; it has a kind of perfection that makes it indispensable, irreducible and incomparable. It rises above time and place and the conditions of its own creation. It simply is, much in the manner of the pyramids, not exquisite like the Parthenon, it's true, but equally essential.

Spires elsewhere may out-climb the CN Tower, but Toronto need not concern itself. Outside their host cities, few will care.

http://www.thestar.com/article/250095
Just another boring newspaper story from someone who is obviously jealous of losing the title. He is dead wrong about who cares.....guess he's never seen this site.
TexasSkyWatcher no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 02:18 PM   #6130
deep sea buildings
Registered User
 
deep sea buildings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 488
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
514m or lev140 will longest lift run. Lifts will go alot higher then this.
i think lev162 is main LMR which is 624m high.
deepseabdldgs- looks like roof no4 on tier 22 will be highest inhabitable floor which is 701m high. Ive seen this quoted on plans.
You will also be able to get access to tier27 by stairs which is 768m high.This will be highest balcony with small standing area. above this the spire can be access by internal ladder to very top.
So if you asked my what height is Burj Dubais roof, thats a hard one.
lev162(624m)-highest level accessed by lift.
lev174?(701m)-highest enclosed floor accessed by stair climb.
tier27(768m)-highest level to comfortably stand on outside balcony.
thanks for that detailed answer. i'd guess that the roof height will be tier27 then but that's over 140m higher up than a lift will take you it seems....quite a climb!!
deep sea buildings no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 02:27 PM   #6131
deep sea buildings
Registered User
 
deep sea buildings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 488
Likes (Received): 6

also CULWULLA if you look at your diagram on the previous page you can see that there is very liuttle difference between the possible highest inhabitable floor (701m) and the room under tier 23 at 720m. so if that's the highest possible inhabited floor at 701m why not the one a few floors higher at 720m? they do look identical.
deep sea buildings no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 02:34 PM   #6132
deep sea buildings
Registered User
 
deep sea buildings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 488
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
You will also be able to get access to tier27 by stairs which is 768m high.This will be highest balcony with small standing area. above this the spire can be access by internal ladder to very top.
also i wanted to say that i don't think there will be an internal spire ladder access from 768m upwards. from that point it looks like the spire can only be ascended externally.

i wonder how large the surface area is of the the tiny roof terrace at 768m/tier27? not much bigger than a small living room floor i'd say.
deep sea buildings no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 02:35 PM   #6133
Havefun85
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 69
Likes (Received): 0

The cladding is going very fast now!
But I have a couple of questions about this project , I thought you folks would know.
1-Where is all the concrete coming from? from which factory?
2-Where are the cladding piece’s made? , and from where are they transported to the building place?
3-And how many teams are doing the cladding? ( how many workers )
4- Are they on sheme with the cladding? And are there many problems attaching the cladding to the building?
Thanks in advance
Havefun85 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 03:04 PM   #6134
AleBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyborg81 View Post
Aug 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban affairs columnist

At some point during the next few weeks, the CN Tower will no longer be the tallest free-standing structure in the world.

It will be surpassed by the Burj Dubai, yet another nasty-looking petro-money monster in the United Arab Emirates. The question is: Does anybody care? Not likely.

It's amazing Toronto's 30-year-old tower has reigned as the world's tallest free-standing structure for as long as it has, but let's be honest, in the 21st century the fight for height has become degraded, ersatz and rather tasteless, even tacky.

To be blunt, the edifice complex is no longer a Western obsession; it has moved to arriviste nations recently grown wealthy by plundering their own natural resources, and, in China's case, its population.

You want proof? Just ask yourself: Until the Burj Dubai (due to top off 165 storeys of offices and apartments a year from now) began to claim both records, what was the tallest building in the world?

The answer, lest you've forgotten, is Taipei 101, a 2004 architectural grotesque that stands just over half a kilometre tall.

Before that, it was the Petronas Towers (1998) in Kuala Lumpur. Few outside Malaysia have ever heard of the building, unremarkable but for its height.

The need to be the biggest, highest, shiniest – whatever – is something cities go through in their civic adolescence, so to speak. Paris built the Eiffel Tower for the Universal Exposition of 1889.

In New York, the race to the clouds was played out in the 1920s and '30s, the great age of skyscrapers. Think of the competition between William Van Alen and his Chrysler Tower (1930) and William Lamb and the Empire State Building (1931).

All three are as famous now as ever. All are also magnificent structures. That's the critical factor. None of the early giants has held a height record for decades, but as icons they loom as large as ever.

Their places in the collective imagination will never be matched by Taipei, Petronas or Burj. Not only is there less interest in height records, the architecture of these three ugly sisters lacks the poetry of their antecedents.

The CN Tower, while technically not a skyscraper – a needle housing communications cables is not the same as a building – also has its place in contemporary culture. Sure it was tallest, but its design said something more; it speaks of the modern age and man's eternal desire to reach ever higher. More to the point, it soars. It is a spire, tall, thin and, yes, beautiful.

Of course, it also says much about Toronto's wanna-be psychology, but the important thing is that the CN Tower transcends the banality of its makers' intentions. The designer, Australian-born architect John Andrews, came up with a masterpiece, a structure that is somehow quintessential, not compromised by design trends or architectural fashion. It is elemental; this, we feel, is what a tower should look like.

Even the accomplished Santiago Calatrava, creator of the Montjuic Telecommunications Tower in Barcelona, didn't come close to the CN Tower.

By contrast, the Dubai building is all about height for height's sake. Its ambition can be read in every detail. It is what it is, nothing more. It goes no further than its creator's desires.

This is why the CN Tower's reign as one of the world's most recognizable and admired towers isn't threatened. It possesses qualities more important than mere height; it has a kind of perfection that makes it indispensable, irreducible and incomparable. It rises above time and place and the conditions of its own creation. It simply is, much in the manner of the pyramids, not exquisite like the Parthenon, it's true, but equally essential.

Spires elsewhere may out-climb the CN Tower, but Toronto need not concern itself. Outside their host cities, few will care.

http://www.thestar.com/article/250095
Lol. Your economics is poor. Oil wealth as a percentage of Dubai's gross domestic product is about 4% and this figure is declining as the economy undergoes the movement towards service based trade. Dubai's economic growth during the recent skyscraper boom can only really be attributed to it's strategic location as a port and the institutions that prevail which allow for uninterrupted and ambitious construction. The whole point of the new construction is that Dubai can attract tourists and once the oil runs out (Dubai is not well endowed) people living there will not be impoverished.

In the case of China, to suggest that population leads to a level of wealth capable of allocating resources on skyscrapers rather than food is misleading.
The rate of economic growth per person, in brief summary, is determined by one single factor, the growth rate of technology. We can think of technology as the productivity per worker, per time. If workers can produce more output per time then wealth increases allowing for resources to be shifted away from essential consumption such as shelter, food and clothing, to non essential construction such as ambitious skyscraper projects. Growth in population only contributes to total output, and it is meaningless to infer it in an argument in which you relate wealth to skyscrapers.

Also, perhaps you need to refine your command of the English language to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. To suggest that Dubai is "plundering" its resource wealth is to forget the "plundering" that occurred in the Americas in their civic infancy, not only in terms of material resources but also of human resources.

In response to your question, "does anybody care?" to which you answered, incorrectly by making the assumption, 'not likely' I offer firstly the evidence of the forum you posted on. Your post is the 6128th, unprecedented on such a forum. Secondly, there have been numerous documentaries aired on television and the building hasn't even been completed. Thirdly, almost the whole building has been preletted. Fourthly, news channels all over the world are covering the story of the emergence of the new WTB in Dubai.

This structure certainly is compromised by design trends. Most observation platforms look like the one you have in Toronto. Secondly, elemental and quintessential are good words but used inappropriately. I think what you want to say is that the design of the CN tower transcends architectural tropes and contemporary influences. All designs are subject to the subjectivity of their designers. Just look at similar observation towers around the world built before the CN tower.

Urban colunmists, utterly contained in their irrational nostalgic bubble may claim that the CN tower somehow created a broader social response than the Burj Dubai is doing now but this is preempitive.

I don't understand, however, why you compare a 1970s observation tower, to an ancient tomb! Both had enormously different social connotations.

Civic adolsecence is rarely characterised by high rise construction.

You say stuff like it 'rises above time and place and the conditions of its own creation', don't use any evidence or example undermining any robustness to the claim. This is an empty statement.

Also, by claiming that the Burj Dubai goes no further than the maker's desires you are making an assumption. In your heart this may be the case, that the Burj Dubai is simply an exposition of Dubai's consumerist culture, but that does not mean to say that people living in Dubai and nearby share this view. To be able to judge Burj Dubai's success in going beyond the makers' ambition requires an empirical study based on the local and international cultural rersponse of individuals and institutionns to the wider cultural symbolism of the building. No one, as yet, is in a position to do that.
AleBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 03:19 PM   #6135
AleBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 2

CYBORG81, do you know this guy? send him my rebuke.
AleBoy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 03:19 PM   #6136
Ember-To-Ashes
Registered User
 
Ember-To-Ashes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
update. i think its right
i cant seee any of the changes i suggested? :S
Ember-To-Ashes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 04:01 PM   #6137
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10143

^ember -i havnt forgot.im redoing it soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyperu34 View Post
Will it be possible to access and stand on that comfortable balcony at tier27??? Who will be the lucky guys to acces right there???
the tier27 balcony will be tiny.
in this plan, the spire at this level is 2.1m diametre.
thus the balcony area measures 1.1m deep x 1.7m wide.
basically enough to stand in.lol nearly 2sq metres.enough to dance
compariable to size of a bath tub floor?

__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 04:04 PM   #6138
cyborg81
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dubai/Sydney/Los Angeles
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by AleBoy View Post
CYBORG81, do you know this guy? send him my rebuke.
i dont know this guy,but i've sent him a feedback email he will remember for a longtime

Last edited by cyborg81; August 27th, 2007 at 04:13 PM.
cyborg81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 04:05 PM   #6139
WhiteMagick
Moderator - Επιτηρητής
 
WhiteMagick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,095

I bet though it will have an awesome view
__________________
Ο κάθε λαός έχει το κράτος και την κυβέρνηση που του αξίζει. Καθρέφτης λαού, ἄστη αυτού.

如果希腊国民继续信阴谋论,外资救世主的,不为自己的行为负责, 他们会灭亡。

人は何かの犠牲なしに何も得ることはできない。何かを得るためには同等の代価が必要になる。それが、生活における等価交換の原則だ。その頃僕らは、それが世界の真実だと信じていた。時間は、最も貴重な資源である。だから、誰の時間もあなたは無駄にしてはいけないし、誰もが他の人の時間を無駄にしないでください。
WhiteMagick está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 04:14 PM   #6140
cyborg81
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dubai/Sydney/Los Angeles
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by AleBoy View Post
Lol. Your economics is poor. Oil wealth as a percentage of Dubai's gross domestic product is about 4% and this figure is declining as the economy undergoes the movement towards service based trade. Dubai's economic growth during the recent skyscraper boom can only really be attributed to it's strategic location as a port and the institutions that prevail which allow for uninterrupted and ambitious construction. The whole point of the new construction is that Dubai can attract tourists and once the oil runs out (Dubai is not well endowed) people living there will not be impoverished.

In the case of China, to suggest that population leads to a level of wealth capable of allocating resources on skyscrapers rather than food is misleading.
The rate of economic growth per person, in brief summary, is determined by one single factor, the growth rate of technology. We can think of technology as the productivity per worker, per time. If workers can produce more output per time then wealth increases allowing for resources to be shifted away from essential consumption such as shelter, food and clothing, to non essential construction such as ambitious skyscraper projects. Growth in population only contributes to total output, and it is meaningless to infer it in an argument in which you relate wealth to skyscrapers.

Also, perhaps you need to refine your command of the English language to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. To suggest that Dubai is "plundering" its resource wealth is to forget the "plundering" that occurred in the Americas in their civic infancy, not only in terms of material resources but also of human resources.

In response to your question, "does anybody care?" to which you answered, incorrectly by making the assumption, 'not likely' I offer firstly the evidence of the forum you posted on. Your post is the 6128th, unprecedented on such a forum. Secondly, there have been numerous documentaries aired on television and the building hasn't even been completed. Thirdly, almost the whole building has been preletted. Fourthly, news channels all over the world are covering the story of the emergence of the new WTB in Dubai.

This structure certainly is compromised by design trends. Most observation platforms look like the one you have in Toronto. Secondly, elemental and quintessential are good words but used inappropriately. I think what you want to say is that the design of the CN tower transcends architectural tropes and contemporary influences. All designs are subject to the subjectivity of their designers. Just look at similar observation towers around the world built before the CN tower.

Urban colunmists, utterly contained in their irrational nostalgic bubble may claim that the CN tower somehow created a broader social response than the Burj Dubai is doing now but this is preempitive.

I don't understand, however, why you compare a 1970s observation tower, to an ancient tomb! Both had enormously different social connotations.

Civic adolsecence is rarely characterised by high rise construction.

You say stuff like it 'rises above time and place and the conditions of its own creation', don't use any evidence or example undermining any robustness to the claim. This is an empty statement.

Also, by claiming that the Burj Dubai goes no further than the maker's desires you are making an assumption. In your heart this may be the case, that the Burj Dubai is simply an exposition of Dubai's consumerist culture, but that does not mean to say that people living in Dubai and nearby share this view. To be able to judge Burj Dubai's success in going beyond the makers' ambition requires an empirical study based on the local and international cultural rersponse of individuals and institutionns to the wider cultural symbolism of the building. No one, as yet, is in a position to do that.
you are directing your comment at the wrong person. i didnt write that article,check the link to find out the source
cyborg81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 11:56 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