"Freedom" dropped from WTC

[ILikeDeathNote]

...damn Chinese!

[Mr. Oragahn]

The chinese should have gone with something like this:

[l33telboi]

Check this one out. It's a shame they aren't building this beauty here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9S7lx_0bBg

I'm impressed. It's described more as a miniature city then a simple building, and the whole rainwater collectors and wind-power systems are rather intriguing. How efficient would they be? Would be awesome if you could build something that size and have it be self-sufficient, though I doubt a few wind-turbines would be enough.

And on that note, why is it that everybody wants to build tall structures rather then wide ones? I mean, from my perspective it would be really awesome to see a really thick building rather then a pencil-thin one like that. Looks way too... fragile.

[Mr. Oragahn]

There is that 700 meters high (or more) Durj thing in Dubai, which will dominate a new cityskape around its base.

It is crazy, but I just wonder what's the point. The display of power and money over there makes me sick, and bizarrely no one seems to want to go after Dubai for all the leeway it gives to billionaires, ex-tax payers and so on.

These towers literally look like giant middle fingers to the rest of the world.

[Cocytus]

I'm impressed. It's described more as a miniature city then a simple building, and the whole rainwater collectors and wind-power systems are rather intriguing. How efficient would they be? Would be awesome if you could build something that size and have it be self-sufficient, though I doubt a few wind-turbines would be enough.

Zero-energy is the ultimate goal of sustainable design. And Guangzhou's Pearl River Tower is right out in front:

http://www.metropolismag.com/story/2006 ... ltra-green

And for all the attention environmentalists devote to cars, buildings are the biggest polluters in the US, since the vast majority draw their power from coal (which is why we desperately need more nuclear plants). Designing an energy-efficient building consists of more than simply slapping solar panels and wind turbines on it. It's a comprehensive strategy of design that includes how efficiently the building is ventilated (sustainable designs make allowance for natural ventilation) the use of efficient lighting (fluorescents with motion sensors and timers to turn them off when no-one's around, as in the Hearst and Bank of America towers) reducing cooling and heating loads (the BofA tower makes ice at night to reduce heating loads during the day) understanding wind patterns and behavior to make maximum use of wind power (the Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou, which is designed like a giant wing) using recycled materials, green roofs, and so on. A green roof is a great way to capture rainwater and reduce the urban heat-island effect. The latest photovoltaic technology has PV integrated directly into the glass, creating a fritted or striated pattern. Facades may also use PV on the spandrels obscuring the floorplates, as is the case in Dubai's Lighthouse Tower (which also features 3 massive wind turbines.) The Bahrain WTC is also an effective demonstration of wind design. The curved facades channel wind over the turbines.

And on that note, why is it that everybody wants to build tall structures rather then wide ones? I mean, from my perspective it would be really awesome to see a really thick building rather then a pencil-thin one like that. Looks way too... fragile.

Well, we have some wide buildings. The Boeing Everett Plant and the Pentagon are very wide. There are also some pretty fat skyscrapers around the world. But here in New York, zoning setback laws prevent skyscrapers from rising straight up from the street in most districts (unlike in Chicago, which does not have setback laws). The setback requirement was adopted in New York after the construction of the Equitable Building. So a building's base can be pretty fat, but the shaft must get increasingly slender as it rises. Also, most sites in NYC don't have height limits, instead being governed by the Floor Area Ratio, which requires that the building't gross floor area cannot be more than a certain multiple of the site's land area. So FAR 20, which is common in Manhattan, means the building's GFA cannot be more than 20 times the site. As far as height limits go, the only constant in American cities is the 2000-foot limit imposed by the FAA to prevent skyscrapers from interfering with air traffic patterns. As long as the building doesn't cause problems for aircraft on approach or departure, the building can pierce that limit.

[ILikeDeathNote]

I'm impressed. It's described more as a miniature city then a simple building, and the whole rainwater collectors and wind-power systems are rather intriguing.

Perhaps you could make a case that it's a prototype Arcology (yes, just like in SimCity 2000)

There is that 700 meters high (or more) Durj thing in Dubai, which will dominate a new cityskape around its base.

For the time being, anyhow (also, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Towers_Dubai )

It is crazy, but I just wonder what's the point. The display of power and money over there makes me sick, and bizarrely no one seems to want to go after Dubai for all the leeway it gives to billionaires, ex-tax payers and so on.

There are many practical reasons for having such huge buildings; real estate is real estate, whether it's natural land sitting on a pasture or an artificially constructed steel floor sitting at 300 feet above sea level. The United Arab Emirates is a very tiny country and only a portion of that is available for land development.

Besides, Dubai isn't a bad country and is a very valued ally of the U.S., Western Europe and Southeast Asia.

These towers literally look like giant middle fingers to the rest of the world.

It's a consequence of the design, which seeks to maximize the amount of "window offices" available. The Sears Tower follows a similar design principle.

And for all the attention environmentalists devote to cars, buildings are the biggest polluters in the US, since the vast majority draw their power from coal (which is why we desperately need more nuclear plants).

I'm fully with you there.

Although it honestly frustrates me that, of all nations, it's China who's leading.

[Cocytus]

There is that 700 meters high (or more) Durj thing in Dubai, which will dominate a new cityskape around its base.

For the time being, anyhow (also, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Towers_Dubai )

I don't mean to sound nitpicky, but Dubai Towers Doha is in Qatar. It's about 200 miles from Dubai. They're also busy building a 550-meter tower for their convention center.

Here: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

This place has the most comprehensive diagram database on the planet, and the status of each project is regularly updated. It and SkyscraperCity are the best resources for up-to-the-minute info.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Besides, Dubai isn't a bad country and is a very valued ally of the U.S., Western Europe and Southeast Asia.

Of course it's not a "bad country", but the zealous display of wealth just makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.
I actually despite it.