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 October 8th, 2007, 11:14 PM   #7821
jlh630
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 7

The site works sometimes for me, other times it doesn't. Don't know what the deal is.

As for the height of the concrete structure, I highly doubt that it will exceed the current estimate of ~156 floors. At the current height of 154 floors I believe that very soon the base of the steel structure will be added, and there will be a few hybrid floors (concrete-steel) before we see the bare steel structure. My reason for saying this is that so far, the construction has matched this rendering exactly. (At least from what I can see following each setback, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.)

image hosted on flickr


I've done the math and this rendering appears to be the 808-818m model. I know a lot of you are hoping that these current figures of just over 800m will fall short of the actual height of the building, but I believe they are pretty close to what the final height will be.

Now I'm just speculating here, but this is why I think this:
Remember when the original 705m model was redesigned to 800m+? This was done because Adrian Smith of SOM who designed the tower felt that the top did not culminate eligantly. When you are building a multi-billion dollar tower, you want it to look damn good no matter what the height. The result of this redesign was the rendering above, which is what appears to be under construction.

While the tower's design does allow for the steel section and spire to be extended, which I believe it will be, I don't think they are going to push it to 900m and especially not 1km. Why not? While this tower is built to be the tallest in the world, it is also a beautifully designed building. Some of the best architects in the world designed it, and while Emaar has the final say on what will actually get built, I don't think they will sacrifice this building's beauty for 100-200 extra meters. The rendering is perfectly proportioned, and a stretch at the top third of the tower to extend the height to 1km will just make the tower look goofy (in my opinion). It would be something like this:

image hosted on flickr


Let's keep in mind the fact that by the year 2020 (very conservative estimate), this building will almost certainly not be the tallest in the world, whether it's 800m or 1000m tall. The time it is the WTB will be short in comparison to its total lifetime. Personally, I'd rather see this tower be regarded in 50 years as a beautiful building that set a new standard for building tall, not a joke of a skyscraper that just tried too hard to be something it wasn't. It is already going to be so much taller than the current tallest, and that should be enough for Emaar. They shouldn't be concerned with beating whatever comes next because honestly, it's not going to make a difference.

This tower may be exceeded in height soon, but this tower is more than just height. It's height, ambition, and beauty. And when the hideous monstrosity Al Burj goes up (or whatever comes next), it will only have height. Towers like the Burj Dubai don't come along often. In fact, the last tower to redefine what a skyscraper could be was the Empire State Building, which is three quarters of a century old. The Burj Dubai will break the half-mile mark, which is a tremendous milestone. It's going to be a while before another tower beats the current record holder by almost 40%.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry for this post being so long, but if you actually read it I appreciate it, whether you agree with me or not.

Cheers, fellas.
jlh630 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 8th, 2007, 11:14 PM   #7822
Bronz
Registered User
 
Bronz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Zagreb
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollie Maea View Post
If it's a DNS problem messing you guys up you could try adding an entry in your hosts file for 64.22.114.226
well still isn't working I see cpanel page when I entry host for 64.22.114.226
Bronz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2007, 11:20 PM   #7823
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,502
Likes (Received): 6525

i also don't think the concrete-height has been increased. as altin said, only the steel-structure or the spire allows an height-increasing
ZZ-II está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2007, 11:24 PM   #7824
Pippoken
Belgian Dude
 
Pippoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Geraardsbergen, Belgium
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 1

They blocked Vanhenrik because he is using too much of their bandwitch
Pippoken no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2007, 11:25 PM   #7825
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronz View Post
well still isn't working I see cpanel page when I entry host for 64.22.114.226
No...you have to associate that IP address with the domain name in the hosts file since it is name based hosting. Putting the IP address into the browser bar just sends you to the server default page (log in for the control panel). The location of your hosts file will depend on what OS you are running.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2007, 11:57 PM   #7826
BlackSmith!
Peace sells...
 
BlackSmith!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ajdovščina
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 6

@jlh630
I completly agree with you. It will look out of proportions if it would be higher than 800-850m.
BlackSmith! no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 12:02 AM   #7827
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,218
Likes (Received): 5222

it works fine for me.
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 12:03 AM   #7828
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,218
Likes (Received): 5222

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban.kovac View Post
@jlh630
I completly agree with you. It will look out of proportions if it would be higher than 800-850m.
yeah, i think it's going to be between 700 to 750 meters..
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 12:11 AM   #7829
Bikes
sababa
 
Bikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Warsaw, Stockholm, Budapest, Berlin
Posts: 3,418
Likes (Received): 2667

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhenrik View Post
http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/ that site is still down !

is it maitinence or wat ?
Server problems, hopefully it will be resolved soon. Sorry about the downtimes.
__________________
Dubai Marina Yachts
Bikes está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 12:50 AM   #7830
pendolasco
Registered User
 
pendolasco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Milan
Posts: 217
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollie Maea View Post
If it's a DNS problem messing you guys up you could try adding an entry in your hosts file for 64.22.114.226
try to add
64.22.114.226 www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com
in the "hosts" file, edititing with .txt file
(in XP located in C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc) and it works

thxs
pendolasco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 01:21 AM   #7831
Sander-
21st century citizen
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bergen / London/ San Francisco
Posts: 364
Likes (Received): 3

jlh630: I actually find this reasoning very logical. The design element is without a doubt a vital part of this tower. And seeing as "over 700 metres" is the only official announcement they've made, the 808/818 version is still a lot higher, a symbolic number, the best looking and it fits what they've done already. I just hope it's no any lower
Sander- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 01:46 AM   #7832
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by pendolasco View Post
try to add
64.22.114.226 www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com
in the "hosts" file, edititing with .txt file
(in XP located in C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc) and it works

thxs
Well since Bikes said it's a known issue, that won't fix it. I just heard someone say they thought they might have a DNS problem so that would be a way to fix it if it were the problem. I must have just checked the site everytime it was up.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 02:30 AM   #7833
vinouz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 1

jlh, I'm very glad you made this point and this picture too. Which is interesting is that on this estimate picture I precisely disagree with you on two points:

- A) the second shape fits better IMO. Why ? Because the shapes up to now had an hyperbolic start, and a linear finish at best. Each setback in the lower part is more spaced from the previous than the previous from the one before. That doesn't hold in the upper part.
In the higher versions, you have to extend the upper part, extending further the hyperbola.
And an hyperbola is a wonderful shape indeed. Look at the Eiffel tower.

- B) here I disagree with many in this forum. I really do love the Al Burj. IMO it's really good looking, very modern and elegant. Its proportions are good.
It doesn't have to be thin or shiny or a radically new shape to impress. To me it's a very mastered piece of architecture. Simple and elegant.
Well, the proposals up to this point, at least .

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlh630 View Post
The site works sometimes for me, other times it doesn't. Don't know what the deal is.

As for the height of the concrete structure, I highly doubt that it will exceed the current estimate of ~156 floors. At the current height of 154 floors I believe that very soon the base of the steel structure will be added, and there will be a few hybrid floors (concrete-steel) before we see the bare steel structure. My reason for saying this is that so far, the construction has matched this rendering exactly. (At least from what I can see following each setback, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.)

I've done the math and this rendering appears to be the 808-818m model. I know a lot of you are hoping that these current figures of just over 800m will fall short of the actual height of the building, but I believe they are pretty close to what the final height will be.

Now I'm just speculating here, but this is why I think this:
Remember when the original 705m model was redesigned to 800m+? This was done because Adrian Smith of SOM who designed the tower felt that the top did not culminate eligantly. When you are building a multi-billion dollar tower, you want it to look damn good no matter what the height. The result of this redesign was the rendering above, which is what appears to be under construction.

While the tower's design does allow for the steel section and spire to be extended, which I believe it will be, I don't think they are going to push it to 900m and especially not 1km. Why not? While this tower is built to be the tallest in the world, it is also a beautifully designed building. Some of the best architects in the world designed it, and while Emaar has the final say on what will actually get built, I don't think they will sacrifice this building's beauty for 100-200 extra meters. The rendering is perfectly proportioned, and a stretch at the top third of the tower to extend the height to 1km will just make the tower look goofy (in my opinion). It would be something like this:

Let's keep in mind the fact that by the year 2020 (very conservative estimate), this building will almost certainly not be the tallest in the world, whether it's 800m or 1000m tall. The time it is the WTB will be short in comparison to its total lifetime. Personally, I'd rather see this tower be regarded in 50 years as a beautiful building that set a new standard for building tall, not a joke of a skyscraper that just tried too hard to be something it wasn't. It is already going to be so much taller than the current tallest, and that should be enough for Emaar. They shouldn't be concerned with beating whatever comes next because honestly, it's not going to make a difference.

This tower may be exceeded in height soon, but this tower is more than just height. It's height, ambition, and beauty. And when the hideous monstrosity Al Burj goes up (or whatever comes next), it will only have height. Towers like the Burj Dubai don't come along often. In fact, the last tower to redefine what a skyscraper could be was the Empire State Building, which is three quarters of a century old. The Burj Dubai will break the half-mile mark, which is a tremendous milestone. It's going to be a while before another tower beats the current record holder by almost 40%.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry for this post being so long, but if you actually read it I appreciate it, whether you agree with me or not.

Cheers, fellas.

Last edited by CULWULLA; October 9th, 2007 at 02:37 AM.
vinouz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 02:36 AM   #7834
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,731
Likes (Received): 10113

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlh630 View Post
The site works sometimes for me, other times it doesn't. Don't know what the deal is.

As for the height of the concrete structure, I highly doubt that it will exceed the current estimate of ~156 floors. At the current height of 154 floors I believe that very soon the base of the steel structure will be added, and there will be a few hybrid floors (concrete-steel) before we see the bare steel structure. My reason for saying this is that so far, the construction has matched this rendering exactly. (At least from what I can see following each setback, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.)

image hosted on flickr


I've done the math and this rendering appears to be the 808-818m model. I know a lot of you are hoping that these current figures of just over 800m will fall short of the actual height of the building, but I believe they are pretty close to what the final height will be.

Now I'm just speculating here, but this is why I think this:
Remember when the original 705m model was redesigned to 800m+? This was done because Adrian Smith of SOM who designed the tower felt that the top did not culminate eligantly. When you are building a multi-billion dollar tower, you want it to look damn good no matter what the height. The result of this redesign was the rendering above, which is what appears to be under construction.

While the tower's design does allow for the steel section and spire to be extended, which I believe it will be, I don't think they are going to push it to 900m and especially not 1km. Why not? While this tower is built to be the tallest in the world, it is also a beautifully designed building. Some of the best architects in the world designed it, and while Emaar has the final say on what will actually get built, I don't think they will sacrifice this building's beauty for 100-200 extra meters. The rendering is perfectly proportioned, and a stretch at the top third of the tower to extend the height to 1km will just make the tower look goofy (in my opinion). It would be something like this:

image hosted on flickr


Let's keep in mind the fact that by the year 2020 (very conservative estimate), this building will almost certainly not be the tallest in the world, whether it's 800m or 1000m tall. The time it is the WTB will be short in comparison to its total lifetime. Personally, I'd rather see this tower be regarded in 50 years as a beautiful building that set a new standard for building tall, not a joke of a skyscraper that just tried too hard to be something it wasn't. It is already going to be so much taller than the current tallest, and that should be enough for Emaar. They shouldn't be concerned with beating whatever comes next because honestly, it's not going to make a difference.

This tower may be exceeded in height soon, but this tower is more than just height. It's height, ambition, and beauty. And when the hideous monstrosity Al Burj goes up (or whatever comes next), it will only have height. Towers like the Burj Dubai don't come along often. In fact, the last tower to redefine what a skyscraper could be was the Empire State Building, which is three quarters of a century old. The Burj Dubai will break the half-mile mark, which is a tremendous milestone. It's going to be a while before another tower beats the current record holder by almost 40%.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry for this post being so long, but if you actually read it I appreciate it, whether you agree with me or not.

Cheers, fellas.
thanks pal. finally someone who makes sense. i agree.
the concrete is definatly at maximium at 586m. the 200m+ spire section is elongated enough without anymore stretching and pinnacle is proportionate at 70m or so which equates to half a mile high of just over 800m.Architect Adrian Smith is a genious.
It really will be a beautiful structure not just its height but asthetics.
just gorgeous.
cheers
__________________
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 October 9th, 2007, 02:55 AM   #7835
dettol
Logarithm
 
dettol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Auckland
Posts: 836
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinouz View Post
jlh, I'm very glad you made this point and this picture too. Which is interesting is that on this estimate picture I precisely disagree with you on two points:

- A) the second shape fits better IMO. Why ? Because the shapes up to now had an hyperbolic start, and a linear finish at best. Each setback in the lower part is more spaced from the previous than the previous from the one before. That doesn't hold in the upper part.
In the higher versions, you have to extend the upper part, extending further the hyperbola.
And an hyperbola is a wonderful shape indeed. Look at the Eiffel tower.

- B) here I disagree with many in this forum. I really do love the Al Burj. IMO it's really good looking, very modern and elegant. Its proportions are good.
It doesn't have to be thin or shiny or a radically new shape to impress. To me it's a very mastered piece of architecture. Simple and elegant.
Well, the proposals up to this point, at least .
Completely agree with both point
dettol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 05:31 AM   #7836
mastclimber-sales
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 15
Likes (Received): 0

It will exceed 1000m. I forgot where I get this news but as I know the owner don't want let other know until it finished. Because there some other towers also target to world No. 1.
Maybe we should cosult to Samsong coonstruction company for final height. They do this jod.
mastclimber-sales no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 05:48 AM   #7837
dettol
Logarithm
 
dettol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Auckland
Posts: 836
Likes (Received): 7

According to info provided to us by SkyTower, a 1011m proposal has been put forward in the past but this appeared to have been rejected. It doesnt make sense to make the BD that tall. Using the arrgument about the Sheikh wanting to make it last as the WTB is old imo.

In my opinion and from the information, research and conclusions by myself and several others, I believe 950m is the upper limit with 808m being the lower limit.
dettol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 05:50 AM   #7838
jlh630
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 7

vinouz and dettol,

I realize I am in the minority for disliking Al Burj. Those of you who like it have your reasons, just as I have mine for not liking it. As for its design, I just tend to prefer buildings that change as they get taller, that's all. I actually think some renders of it look pretty cool, and it's very interesting that it's hollow in parts of the center. There is some video of the Al Burj on YouTube somewhere that makes it look pretty damn impressive, but I personally prefer the design of Burj Dubai.

As for the parabolic nature of the setbacks, I still have to disagree with you here. I understand where that logic comes from, believe me I've had the exact thought before, but following a precise mathematical pattern doesn't always necessarily look the best. Sometimes structures based on mathematics are perfect, but in this case I think it's just too thin at the top.
jlh630 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 06:01 AM   #7839
dettol
Logarithm
 
dettol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Auckland
Posts: 836
Likes (Received): 7

True, jlh. Perhaps a compromise between the two may look the best. I remember a few months back we had a great discussion about the interpretation of the height of the latest BD render. My conclusion was overly optimistic at over 900m but others seemed to place it around mid 800m.

*runs off to find a link*

Edit1:Got it! Unfortunately, the link to the image we were using is dead :S

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...s#post13281515


Edit2:I hadnt realised graham had been banned!! :O ...graham!? If you are out there, can you repost the diagram?

Last edited by dettol; October 9th, 2007 at 07:01 AM.
dettol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2007, 07:47 AM   #7840
vanhenrik
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: karlskoga
Posts: 624
Likes (Received): 126

still cont come in to

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/

Sidan kan inte visas
Sidan du söker efter är inte tillgänglig för tillfället. Det kan bero på tekniska problem med webbsidan eller så behöver du justera inställningarna för webbläsaren.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Försök med något av följande:

Klicka på knappen Uppdatera eller försök igen senare.

Om du skrev in sidadressen i Adressfältet bör du kontrollera att den är korrekt.

Om du vill kontrollera dina anslutningsinställningar klickar du på Internet-alternativ på Verktyg-menyn och klickar sedan på Inställningar på fliken Anslutningar. Inställningarna bör matcha de inställningar som nätverksadministratören eller Internet-leverantören angett.
Kontrollera om inställningarna för Internet-anslutningen identifieras. Du kan låta Windows söka på nätverket och automatiskt konfigurera nätverksinställningar (om nätverksadministratören har aktiverat den här inställningen).
Öppna Verktyg-menyn och klicka sedan på Internet-alternativ.
Öppna fliken Anslutningar och klicka på LAN-inställningar.
Markera Automatisk identifiering av inställningar och klicka sedan på OK.
Vissa platser kräver säkerhet för 128-bitars anslutning. Klicka på Hjälp-menyn och klicka sedan på Om Internet Explorer för att kontrollera hur stark säkerhet du har installerad.
Om du försöker nå en säker sida, kontrollerar du att säkerhetsinställningarna kan stödja den. Klicka på Internet-alternativ på Verktyg-menyn, och klicka sedan på fliken Avancerat och kontrollera inställningarna för SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0 och PCT 1.0 i avsnittet Säkerhet.
Klicka på knappen Bakåt om du vill försöka med en annan länk.



Det går inte att hitta server eller ett DNS-fel har uppstått
Internet Explorer


four your swedich !
vanhenrik 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 10:55 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