Comments on: Half-mile high buildings...

Half-mile high buildings...

blahblahblah — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:23:50 -0800

A growing crop of towers pushing 2,000 feet: though just shy itself, the much-redesigned Freedom Tower is finally under construction for completion in 2011; but there is also the stunning Fordham Spire, approved in Chicago, that will rise to 2,000 feet by 2010. Moscow is planning the tallest tower in Europe, while there are a number of sightseeing and radio towers under construction in Asia. In Dubai, two towers under construction (despite worker protests) are racing to be the world's tallest, both are keeping their final heights secret, but will likely be over half a mile in height -- the Burj Dubai and the Al Burj. As previously discussed, there are great illustrations comparing buildings both built and under construction. Bring on Frank Lloyd Wright's The Illinois!

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:32:56 -0800

Hooray for phallic symbols!

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:33:37 -0800

Wake me up when we get here:

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:39:26 -0800

The final design Freedom Tower ended up a lot more blah than the early designs.

By: disgruntled

disgruntled — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:39:54 -0800

I thought the twin towers should have been rebuilt, only better and stronger (resistant to attacks), as a powerful statement to terrorists.

By: carter

carter — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:39:57 -0800

Great links, thanks! I'm a sucker for these sorts of things and willingly cough up the cash to ride to the top of whatever tower happens to be in whatever place I'm visiting. I hadn't seen this picture of the Freedom Tower before - to me it looks eerily like the stump of one of the WTC towers, after 9-11.

By: washburn

washburn — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:41:06 -0800

I thought they should build a giant clenched fist instead of freedom tower.

By: kalessin

kalessin — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:41:11 -0800

resistant to attacks Like, you mean, point defense lasers, defense screens, shields and anti-conspiracy fields?

By: wfrgms

wfrgms — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:43:38 -0800

There is a lot of excitement in Chicago about the Fordham Spire. I think our feelings were kind of hurt when the Sears Tower lost it's place (through several distinctions) as the world's tallest. Even if the Fordham isn't built the new Trump Tower will dramatically alter the Chicago skyline - which means all across the city people and businesses will be scrambling to update everything from posters to stationary.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:44:15 -0800

So who is occupying all those towers in Dubai?

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:47:41 -0800

lol freedom tower i guess we do tend to build monuments to things that are dead

By: Kikkoman

Kikkoman — Tue, 16 May 2006 08:59:18 -0800

The Freedom Tower is great: As long as you remember it is a monument to the corruption, malfeasance, ineptitude, paranoia, and idiocy of America post-2001. I've always liked that drawing of The Illinois.

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:04:18 -0800

I don't think people understand exactly how useful a tall broadcasting beacon would be in lower manhattan. My apt used to receive cable-quality (better, in the days of digital cable) signal from the twin towers. (the Empire State Building is blocked behind a bridge from me) I also thought it was more commonly accepted that any building greater than 60-70 stories is basically economically unviable. I understand that skyscrapers are all a boast of some sort, but the idea that you could at least fill it with paying tenants has always seemed to be part and parcel of building them, no?

By: sfts2

sfts2 — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:08:53 -0800

washburn, Sure, with middle finger extended.

By: disgruntled

disgruntled — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:09:43 -0800

Like, you mean, point defense lasers, defense screens, shields and anti-conspiracy fields? Playing too many video games, eh? Metafilter is slowly becoming redundant. The buildings did survive the initial impact of the planes, so I would think an improved structural design with modern heat-resistant materials would suffice.

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:12:13 -0800

I understand that skyscrapers are all a boast of some sort, but the idea that you could at least fill it with paying tenants has always seemed to be part and parcel of building them, no? this is why everything is becoming "mixed-use". people realized there's no fucking way in hell they're filling 115 floors with offices.

By: kalessin

kalessin — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:14:10 -0800

Playing too many video games, eh? No, I was just being sarcastic. Of course architecture can be hardened, but there's always a bigger missile. To me, buildings are the least defensible structures, unless you can figure out how to move them around. But I guess that only works in space movies.

By: fluffycreature

fluffycreature — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:14:54 -0800

Fascinating material - thanks for a great post!

By: goatdog

goatdog — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:22:53 -0800

I hadn't seen any drawings of the Fordham tower before this. That's a gorgeous building, and seeing it will make my drive to the north side even more enjoyable.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:23:37 -0800

Of all the upcoming skyscrapers in that awesome penultimate link, the Freedom Tower that will stand on the WTC site is by far the most boring and ugly. :-(

By: chuma

chuma — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:23:40 -0800

Call me when any of them has finally beat the record holder.

By: agregoli

agregoli — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:31:22 -0800

Ryvar broke my heart with the memories.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:36:45 -0800

er.....what happened to the freedom tower ? it looks total bollocks now.

By: washburn

washburn — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:50:47 -0800

Re the wtc: maybe there was always something wrong with the idea that we could make beauty out of violence. Maybe this banal ugliness is somehow better. But it makes me sad. Otho, it looks like the idea of rebuilding the WTC may not be dead after-all . . .

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Tue, 16 May 2006 09:57:47 -0800

I thought the twin towers should have been rebuilt, only better and stronger (resistant to attacks), as a powerful statement to terrorists. I think the statement would have been lost. Terrorists want to cause fear and erosion of democracy and they earned their "Mission Accomplished" banner. Basically you'd be setting the pins up for another frame. And whether you get a strike or not is not as important as showing up at the alley. Actually, I'm kind of hoping that the terrorists knock down Fort Awesome just because anything in the modern United States called the "Freedom Tower" is purely too Orwellian to deserve to stay.

By: beth

beth — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:02:09 -0800

Aren't these all giant artificial penises? What we need are gigantic buildings in the shape of labia. (Are there any? Then we need more.)

By: wendell

wendell — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:10:31 -0800

No, beth, but the Pentagon is kind of a giant abstract asshole and it survived the 9/11 attack with minimal damage.

By: kalessin

kalessin — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:18:10 -0800

I've always said assholes were more resilient than dicks.

By: Keith Talent

Keith Talent — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:19:35 -0800

So who is occupying all those towers in Dubai? posted by smackfu Ditto. Anything I've ever read about Dubai says a bunch of abstract stuff about it being a centre for the Arab world, blah blah blah. I've never actiually read what they do there outside of a place where Saudi nationals can go and enjoy a scotch and soda. And that ceratinly doesn't seem to be enough to justify its' existance.

By: goatdog

goatdog — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:20:39 -0800

Some people call the Smurfit-Stone building "the vagina building."

By: rsanheim

rsanheim — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:26:56 -0800

High buildings have no genuine advantages, except in speculative gains for banks and land owners. They are not cheaper, they do not help create open space, they destroy the townscape, they destroy social life, they promote crime, they make life difficult for children, they are expensive to maintain, they wreck the open spaces near them, and they damage light and air and view.

-Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language, "Four Story Limit"

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:32:17 -0800

Per chuma's point, check out the wikipedia page for the Ostankino Tower:

In 2003, media reports claimed a new antenna had been installed, increasing the tower's height to 577 meters (1893 feet). However, the new antenna is the same height as the old. Plans for a newer, higher antenna have been considered, but funding has not yet been secured.

Amazing.. The thing I always found funniest about the debate - Chicago liked to claim the Sears Tower was tallest, because it has a higher occupied floor than the WTCs did, or the Petronas towers have, but wait... The CN Tower has the highest occupied floor as well as the highest spire! Anyway, it will be just as well when somebody beats the CN Tower definitively. One less thing for Canadians to whine about (or should that be whinge).

By: incongruity

incongruity — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:34:02 -0800

Aren't these all giant artificial penises?C'mon, the average skyscraper looks about as much like a penis as it does an arm or even a fishing rod, if not more so like the last two. Don't make me diagram to prove my point... I think the accusation of phallic resemblance is more telling than the supposed resemblance. (and while I'm at it, such claims are so 1980's feminism, it's time to get past the vague, coincidental similarities)

By: carter

carter — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:36:21 -0800

er.....what happened to the freedom tower ? it looks total bollocks now. I think that Libeskind must be thoroughly regretting winning this particular competition. Also - the cost of the planned WTC memorial is now almost $1 billion. The cost attributed to the Vietnam War memorial varies, but is less than $10 million (in 1980).

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:40:27 -0800

Beth: Too answer your question, there is Trump's new hotel in Dubai. I don't buy the "giant phallic symbol" thing, though. Any three dimensional shape that is longer than it is wide is an awfully large catagory to dismiss as giant phalli. And, as for the economics, the rule of thumb is that 60-70 stories is tha maximum height at which skyscrapers are profitable, simply because above that height they require too much infrastructure per floor to leave enough space for rentable square feet - most of the buildings above that limit are speculative at best, although "prestige addresses" may indeed be profitable above that amount. Fordham Spire is unusual, because it is basically apartment complexes, and will be relatively cheap to build. Indeed, for the first time, many supertall high-rises are actually condos, rather than office buildings, since technology is allowing smaller buildings that are still quite tall. Fordham's footprint is only 14,000 square feet, as opposed to 40,000 for the WTC and Freedom Tower.

By: LeLiLo

LeLiLo — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:56:58 -0800

Hooray for phallic symbols! Every man knows that size is all that matters. It's not just phallic, though; cities with low self-esteem think if only they had a giant domed stadium, they'd be big-time. Anyway, speaking of giant towers, that Tower of Babel project worked out pretty good...

By: illovich

illovich — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:58:40 -0800

I thought the twin towers should have been rebuilt, only better and stronger (resistant to attacks), as a powerful statement to terrorists. Like, you mean, point defense lasers, defense screens, shields and anti-conspiracy fields? No, we need a stronger statement to the terrorists. We need to communicate to this rabble that we are the ultimate power in world, and that any dissidence will not be tolerated. Gentlemen, I present the Freedom Star: I grow tired of asking this, so it'll be the last time. Where is the ~~rebel~~ terrorist base?

By: matty

matty — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:07:23 -0800

So who is occupying all those towers in Dubai? posted by smackfu Ditto. Anything I've ever read about Dubai says a bunch of abstract stuff about it being a centre for the Arab world, blah blah blah. I've never actiually read what they do there outside of a place where Saudi nationals can go and enjoy a scotch and soda. And that ceratinly doesn't seem to be enough to justify its' existance. posted by Keith Talent at 10:19 AM PST on May 16 [+fave] [!] Gents, it's a big world out there. Not everyone's idea of a vacation is loading up the family wagon and going to Disney (although I'm partial to it myself). I've been to Dubai several times... it is the playground of the Middile-East, and increasingly Europe (they have a large Irish and British expatriate population). It is a very 'western' city, with a veil of Arabia over it's face. It's lots of fun, plenty to do, awesome hotels and shopping... and WAY too damn hot in the summertime. Point is... Dubai is much more than you're giving it credit for. Go see the world!!!

By: freebird

freebird — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:08:43 -0800

It's been a long time since I rode the elevator down below the 500th floor. My papers are in order, and my passport is current, but there's still that moment of uncertainty as you leave America. Not worried if you'll be able to leave - relations with the Commonwealth are good, which gets you down to the 400th with no more hassle than walking on the wrong side of the pedway - but worried if you'll get back. The long lines of immigrants and asylum seekers clog and strain the escalators at the border, and it's easy to imagine a minor bureaucratic error leaving you stranded in their midst. And I'll be coming from even lower - when they see you get off that elevator from the third world, Homeland Security gets out the special manuals. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure they have working elevators down there anymore. Other than the occasional NATO Building Maintenance Expedition, we don't have alot of contact with the lowest floors like Syria. I continue down. I need to rent a helicopter to get from 382 to 380, since a revolution has closed the elevators and the escalators are plagued by snipers. Some thugs chase me out of 238, ranting about Satan America but clearly just interested in my wallet. I knew this kind of hassle would be part of the job, but usually work just takes me to parts of America in other buildings, not downstairs out of the country. My health plan is good and I've had my shots, but these people seem to live in another world! Eventually, in a maintenance room in the depths of some middle-eastern country I don't even know the floor numbers for, I find what I need. Unlocking the rusty old locker, I reach inside to the ancient keyboard and type the message which is the same in every language on every floor of the world: "CTL-ALT-DEL". I watch the server reboot, then start the long slow journey back upstairs to America.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:09:30 -0800

Me...I'm just constantly amazed at the need to populate our planet with sky peni.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:11:51 -0800

Rolling Stone's suggestion:

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:15:44 -0800

Also don't forget that oil and natural gas are massive businesses which require administration. There is some of that in Dubai. Also, Dubai is a major major shipping hub which also requires a ton of administration. It's also a global center of trade, all kinds of things pass through Dubai to be sent elsewhere. Lastly, it's the safest and best place to set up shop if you want to do business in that part of the world, so many multinational corps have offices there.

By: jrb223

jrb223 — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:18:45 -0800

A Vanity Fair article this month suggested Dubai's leaders are looking to get 15 million tourists a year by 2010 or something like that. By comparison they pointed out that NYC gets only 5 million tourists a year. (apologies if I've mis-remembered any of these figures)

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:21:27 -0800

Well something like 12m Asians go to Macau to gamble each year. Gambling is surely a very powerful draw, but Dubai is within close-enough range of Europe, Asia, India, Africa, and the Middle East to compete with anything as a tourist destination. Beaches, shopping, dining, hotels, indoor skiing... if they added gambling it would probably go even further.

By: roboto

roboto — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:26:46 -0800

FLW's The Illinois: RETROFUTURO11, see also Palpatine lives in The Illinois!

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:36:12 -0800

freebird: I actually liked the short-short story a lot.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 16 May 2006 11:41:31 -0800

I think the main attraction of Dubai in the region is the comparative lack of interfering religious police. Not just alcohol, but sex -- both "normal" coed activities and quiet prostitution -- seem to be less regulated, from what I've read. Oh, and Canucks: The CN Tower is a freestanding structure, not a building. (On Wikipedia I'm annoyed because some pedants think that when people want a list of the tallest buildings, they're looking for guy-wired radio towers. Um, no.) The Freedom Tower -- stupid name aside -- has gone from potentially interesting to probably travesty, largely due to not design-by-committee, but design-as-a-conference-compromise-between-committees. It is an open question as to how desirable an address it will be, in part due to cost, in part due to the fear of another attack, and in part due to the outflow of backoffice work from Lower Manhattan to Jersey City and elsewhere. It's just something they feel they have to build, I guess. Chicago, though, has Fordham coming, which will be one of the coolest new buildings in the US in quite a while. Most of the design lead has taken place in Asia and now the Middle East (even Europe slow to catch on). I think people have been scared to try something different, and this will really open things up a bit. If anything else, it re-establishes Chicago as the skyscraper city. I really like the Federation Tower in Moscow for whatever reason. Funny how much it looks like something rising out of the Death Star, though.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 16 May 2006 12:16:23 -0800

Freedom tower rocks. Looking at this though, how are the Petronas Towers considered higher then the sears tower? Because they have higher 'decorative' spires then the sears tower?

By: raedyn

raedyn — Tue, 16 May 2006 12:31:00 -0800

goatdog - Why in the world would you describe the Smurfit-Stone building "the vagina building." I don't see it at all.

By: raedyn

raedyn — Tue, 16 May 2006 12:33:36 -0800

The Fordham in Chicago looks pretty awesome in the drawings.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 16 May 2006 12:40:17 -0800

I just don't see the point of skyscrapers in the desert. People build up only when they don't have space, and suffer trade-offs because of it. Dubai has plenty of space, so it really is just some kind of weird overfunded fantasy.

By: raedyn

raedyn — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:04:18 -0800

maybe it's difficult to build on sand? /obviously clueless

By: beth

beth — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:13:45 -0800

What's the terrorist attack insurance premium like on one of these places these days? Does it increase with the height?

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:26:01 -0800

I'd smurf it.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:50:14 -0800

I just don't see the point of skyscrapers in the desert. It's not as if Dubai owns a huge desert. It's not Saudi Arabia-- yes there's space but there's space everywhere besides islands. Furthermore cooling/heating costs are supposed to be far lower in vertical structures, as may be the cost of moving water around, so it might be more economical to build up? People build up only when they don't have space, Tell that to Los Angeles, Shanghai, or any number of cities with a lot of space but tall buildings as well. it really is just some kind of weird overfunded fantasy. Well that could be true, I guess time will tell. The economy is pretty good there right now, but that is probably just because the price of oil is so high.

By: junesix

junesix — Tue, 16 May 2006 13:51:27 -0800

I'm probably in the minority but I've always found the original designs for the Shanghai WFC extremely elegant (scroll all the way to the right).

By: Potsy

Potsy — Tue, 16 May 2006 14:44:17 -0800

junesix: Yeah, I agree it did look much cooler when the hole was round. It still looks awesome, though.

By: D J Robertstein

D J Robertstein — Tue, 16 May 2006 16:10:59 -0800

Does anyone else think "Freedom Tower" is a really crap name?

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 16 May 2006 16:26:32 -0800

Does anyone else think "Freedom Tower" is a really crap name? That's just so that next time somebody decides to fly some planes into it & burn it to the ground, the headlines can proclaim, "Freedom Fries!"

By: uni verse

uni verse — Tue, 16 May 2006 16:58:05 -0800

Could the freedom tower be more boring? What was the point of the design competition? None, when compromise by committee is done. What a waste.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Tue, 16 May 2006 20:22:03 -0800

it did look much cooler when the hole was round iirc, i think they changed it to a trapezoid cuz it resembled a "rising sun" :P cheers!

By: Poagao

Poagao — Wed, 17 May 2006 00:02:43 -0800

World's tallest building? Or SPACESHIP??? (Full disclosure: self link)

By: webfanatic

webfanatic — Sat, 27 May 2006 23:36:29 -0800

Trump has been trying to build ANOTHER tallest building in Chicago. Chicago might have the 2 world's tallest buildings soon. The cool bit for me is that I used to look down from my office on the site where the Trump tower is going in.

By: webfanatic

webfanatic — Sat, 27 May 2006 23:41:46 -0800

Note: After looking around a bit, I might have to retract that part about the Trump tower being a world's tallest, as I can't seem to confirm it.