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 September 19th, 2007, 07:29 PM   #7041
AltinD
The Modecator
 
AltinD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TIRANA / Dubai / Vienna
Posts: 31,832
Likes (Received): 6077

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky Tower View Post
I am sad...UK Audi are making me wait another 2 weeks!
Not that Jeremmy or Tiff would be getting it in the meantime ... you know "just for a spin"


Regarding Burj Dubai, since I came back in town from the holidays, I'm finding it difficult to adjust to the sight of just two cranes on top.
__________________
I am the eye in the sky, Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules, Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind.

AltinD no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 19th, 2007, 08:57 PM   #7042
Alweron
Registered User
 
Alweron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 247
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by idkblk View Post
Burj will be above every fog

I guess the concrete part is very very resistant to any kind of "accidents".
With the steel section i m not so sure... remember wtc
Well, u never know. I'm sure the WTCs wouldn't have collapsed if they hadn't placed some bombs there beforehand which, in the end, made it fall down. Anyway, i was just curious about that, cuz the top is very thin. And that made me wonder. Apparently I've watched too many documents considering the 9/11.
Alweron no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:07 PM   #7043
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alweron View Post
Well, u never know. I'm sure the WTCs wouldn't have collapsed if they hadn't placed some bombs there beforehand which, in the end, made it fall down. Anyway, i was just curious about that, cuz the top is very thin. And that made me wonder. Apparently I've watched too many documents considering the 9/11.
Who place bombs in wtc!?
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:15 PM   #7044
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by vader11 View Post
Who place bombs in wtc!?
I don't know what he's talkin' about either, but irrespective, perhaps that discussion is more appropriate in the freedom tower thread.

BTW - I'm about to be pooped on in that thread. I just asked there what the rules are about spires, and that the freedom tower should really be only counted as 1,400' given the rest is stylized antenna. I'm reaching for my hard-hat!
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:21 PM   #7045
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

^but the official height would still be 1776 ft. That "stylized antenna" is count as a spire.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:23 PM   #7046
Momo1435
-----アンジュルム-----
 
Momo1435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: アルフェナンデンライン
Posts: 35,160
Likes (Received): 62783

Quote:
Originally Posted by walli View Post
I don't know what he's talkin' about either, but irrespective, perhaps that discussion is more appropriate in the freedom tower thread.
NOOOOOOOOO!!! The only place for this kind of rubbish is the skybar.


And I have to say that this tower isn't getting any prettier with every meter it grows. I liked it more when it was a bit shorter, maybe I have to wait for the final result but I have my doubts.
__________________
Support your Idols
キタ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ฅ(๑⊙д⊙๑)ฅ!! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━!!!
Japan Projects & Construction
Momo1435 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:35 PM   #7047
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by vader11 View Post
^but the official height would still be 1776 ft. That "stylized antenna" is count as a spire.
But that is precisely the debate - what *should* count as a spire.

Burj Dubai, Empire Stat, Petronas, Chrysler - YES
Freedom Tower - uhmmm, I don't think so.
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:36 PM   #7048
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
NOOOOOOOOO!!! The only place for this kind of rubbish is the skybar.


And I have to say that this tower isn't getting any prettier with every meter it grows. I liked it more when it was a bit shorter, maybe I have to wait for the final result but I have my doubts.
I agree with you. This tower looks better when it is shorter. I don't really like buildings that thin and tall beacuse it would just look like a tall spire but not actually a building.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 09:49 PM   #7049
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,331
Likes (Received): 13288

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alweron View Post
Well, u never know. I'm sure the WTCs wouldn't have collapsed if they hadn't placed some bombs there beforehand which, in the end, made it fall down. Anyway, i was just curious about that, cuz the top is very thin. And that made me wonder. Apparently I've watched too many documents considering the 9/11.
Please stay on topic.
__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 10:01 PM   #7050
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by vader11 View Post
I agree with you. This tower looks better when it is shorter. I don't really like buildings that thin and tall beacuse it would just look like a tall spire but not actually a building.
Big difference between a spire and a building with actual floors and people!

Keep in mind that the tower is still thickening up as all the wings are being built up.

Lastly, of course a building almost 2,700 feet tall is going to look thinner than what we're used to. It is almost twice the height of the planned occupied levels of the Freedom Tower for Christ sake!
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 10:04 PM   #7051
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

But still, its top will be very thin and it will still just look like a spire or a tv tower instead of a building.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 10:18 PM   #7052
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by vader11 View Post
But still, its top will be very thin and it will still just look like a spire or a tv tower instead of a building.
Yes - it does top out like a traditional spire - such as the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building. That being said, it is not as if the top 600' is simply an antenna (604' is 22.5% of the total height, which is the percentage of total height that is the thin antenna on top of the Freedom Tower).

To be fair, I think people from places where they aren't used to really tall buildings will have a tough time assessing the proportions of the BD in pictures. Such an unbelievably tall building (John Hancock Building on top of the Sears Tower) is always going to 'seem' thin. The funny thing is, people in many places often complain about how thick buildings are and that they *should* be thinner!
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 10:21 PM   #7053
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

I know its roof height would still be 600m+! I just said I "think" the whole building looks like a tall spire or a tv tower instead of a building because it is very tall and very thin and has a spire on top.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 11:14 PM   #7054
*UofT*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,798
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by vader11 View Post
I know its roof height would still be 600m+! I just said I "think" the whole building looks like a tall spire or a tv tower instead of a building because it is very tall and very thin and has a spire on top.
Wait till the facade is complete, then you'll come to appreciate its width too
*UofT* no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 11:33 PM   #7055
Momo1435
-----アンジュルム-----
 
Momo1435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: アルフェナンデンライン
Posts: 35,160
Likes (Received): 62783

hmm, we'll see how it turns out, but earlier on it just looked better from far away. I just don't like the setbacks, I can't really explain why.

This just isn't going to be my favorite tower. People have different tastes, that's all. But the construction is interesting since the tower is breaking all these records.
__________________
Support your Idols
キタ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ฅ(๑⊙д⊙๑)ฅ!! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━!!!
Japan Projects & Construction
Momo1435 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 11:59 PM   #7056
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by *UofT* View Post
Wait till the facade is complete, then you'll come to appreciate its width too
I have already seen the renders so I know what it will look like when it is built, and I still think it is too thin and tall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
hmm, we'll see how it turns out, but earlier on it just looked better from far away. I just don't like the setbacks, I can't really explain why.

This just isn't going to be my favorite tower. People have different tastes, that's all. But the construction is interesting since the tower is breaking all these records.
I agree with you. Everyone has their own taste, and this is not going to be my favorite tower, too. ICC is my favorite, then this one and SWFC.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 12:36 AM   #7057
MetalliTooL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 20

...You think it's TOO TALL?

Please leave the skyscraper forums. Thanks.
MetalliTooL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 12:45 AM   #7058
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

Any offense?
It's good to be tall, but I just don't really like it's that thin. It better to be a bit wider at the top. So, this can't be my favorite.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 01:55 AM   #7059
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,859
Likes (Received): 10214

the design of Burj Dubai is the quintessential skyscraper!
too thin? too tall? its a friggen 800m skyscraper! whats everyones obsession with large/wide tops? it has to get thin sometime.
You cant compare widths/bulk with Burj dubai to other skyscrapers because there isnt any , anywhere near its ultimate height and scale.!
The tallest skyscrapers atm are only pressing the 500m mark, not 600m or 700m or 800m!
Ive heard people quote SWFC as a massive wide skyscraper which is 500m tall. has anyone seen it side on?. the top 1/3 of the tower decreases to extremely thin proportions.
see>
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/...b0166613_o.jpg
So bottom line is, most tall skyscrapers get thinner as they rise not wider.
__________________
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 September 20th, 2007, 02:06 AM   #7060
anthony99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 41
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
the design of Burj Dubai is the quintessential skyscraper!
too thin? too tall? its a friggen 800m skyscraper! whats everyones obsession with large/wide tops? it has to get thin sometime.
You cant compare widths/bulk with Burj dubai to other skyscrapers because there isnt any , anywhere near its ultimate height and scale.!
The tallest skyscrapers atm are only pressing the 500m mark, not 600m or 700m or 800m!
Ive heard people quote SWFC as a massive wide skyscraper which is 500m tall. has anyone seen it side on?. the top 1/3 of the tower decreases to extremely thin proportions.
see>
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/...b0166613_o.jpg
So bottom line is, most tall skyscrapers get thinner as they rise not wider.
i love its slenderness it makes it seem even taller than it is


SKYTOWER where have you been! ....you havent been scene round here for ages lol
anthony99 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 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium