SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Never Built & Visionary Projects (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=342)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Ultima Tower | 10,561 FT / 3,219 M | 500 FLOORS | VISION (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=152185)

M II A II R II K Jun 3, 2008 4:52 PM

SAN FRANCISCO | Ultima Tower | 10,561 FT / 3,219 M | 500 FLOORS | VISION
 
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2...timaheight.jpg

http://dvice.com/pics/Ultima-Tower-2-miles-high.jpg





Eugene Tsui originally conceived the idea of the Ultima Tower as part of a study of the compact urban area of San Francisco. The project combines nature with urban environment on a mega scale. The tower is two miles high with a base of 6000 feet in diameter. The structure's shape is modeled after the tallest structure not made by man-- African termite nests. The Ultima Tower is 500 stories tall and is intended to house one million residents.

The tower explores the idea of stacking nature vertically to conserve space. The structure contains stacked levels of soil that form individual landscapes with "skies" between 30 and 50 meters high. Neighborhoods of architectural structures can be built on these landscapes, forming a vertical city.

The structure is designed to be energy efficient. It has built in solar panels on its exterior, self-shading glass, windmills, and a water-based cooling system. The structure also utilizes Atmospheric Energy Conversion, converts the difference in atmospheric pressure at the top and bottom of the structure into electrical power.

The base of the Ultima Tower as seen covering San Francisco:

http://people.clemson.edu/~nlcarte/sfbase.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...population.jpg

JDRCRASH Jun 3, 2008 5:01 PM

I can't see the top photo, but 10,000 ft? :no:

Wrightguy0 Jun 3, 2008 8:56 PM

UGLY, Eugene Tsui is just god awful I don't like any of his stuff

FLBlake Jun 4, 2008 3:03 PM

It looks like a very stretched out nipple, like maybe a nipple with a piercing and someone is pulling hard on the piercing.

RLS_rls Jun 5, 2008 4:03 AM

^Lovely.

So whats the 'Eye in the Sky' building? Never heard of that one before...

JDRCRASH Jun 5, 2008 4:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilon Doomm (Post 3594052)
^Lovely.

So whats the 'Eye in the Sky' building? Never heard of that one before...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148538 ;)

M II A II R II K Jun 5, 2008 2:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilon Doomm (Post 3594052)
So whats the 'Eye in the Sky' building? Never heard of that one before...

That's probably for the best.

JDRCRASH Jun 5, 2008 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K (Post 3594650)
That's probably for the best.

Good point.:haha:

Cypherus Jun 7, 2008 6:41 AM

You'd think the proposed location would be where the Pacific oceanic plate is not sub-ducting under the North American continental plate....

Raraavis Jun 16, 2008 9:25 PM

Why would you destroy half of one of the greatest cities on earth to build this thing. Put it in Oakland.

America 117 Jun 17, 2008 1:29 AM

this is too funny :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
thats the most ugly thing ive ever seen its not even a skyscraper its soo ugly.
dont destroy san francisco.

TANGELD_SLC Aug 20, 2008 7:17 AM

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2...timaheight.jpg

Ok there's that top photo. I got it to work for me :banana:

What I don't get is why they propose these types of mammoth structures in the middle of an already-established area? I think it would be much more impressive if it was built, say, off the east or west coasts somewhere or on a plain in Kansas, or in a mountain valley in Utah, where there was nothing else built for miles and miles and miles.

JDRCRASH Aug 23, 2008 3:52 AM

Have no fear America 117; San Francisco would never allow something that hideous to be erected anywhere near the city.

JDRCRASH Aug 23, 2008 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raraavis (Post 3617132)
Put it in Oakland.

:sly:

Stratosphere Sep 2, 2008 5:35 AM

Oh god! Look at those "puny" supertalls being compared to it.

JDRCRASH Sep 2, 2008 7:01 PM

Tch, yeah I know; I beat that the base of the tower could completely cover up Lower Manhattan Island.

JVissle Sep 10, 2008 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLBlake (Post 3592438)
It looks like a very stretched out nipple, like maybe a nipple with a piercing and someone is pulling hard on the piercing.

LMFAO!!!

:haha:

citywarrior Feb 11, 2009 12:03 AM

eugene tsui was probably high when he was designing this. It would help the population, but 1. It's too ugly. 2. It would probably collapse, 3. It costs 150 billion dollars, and 4. It looks like total crap.

Chicago103 Mar 26, 2009 9:05 PM

Maybe in the 26th Century with the same proportions but a different exterior design and built two miles offshore from mainland San Francisco in the Pacific Ocean but the population still counted as part of the city. So let's assume that in the year 2555 there are two million people living in mainland San Francisco and one million in the tower, that would be three million people. That's roughly level Manhattan density over the entire present day land mass of San Francisco plus the density of the tower. I could base a science fiction series on something like this but the city by the bay would probably have to a plethora of hundred story plus buildings for centuries first before people could accept something like this.

JDRCRASH Apr 2, 2009 6:24 PM

No way this could be built with conventional materials.

Pizzuti Apr 17, 2009 3:04 AM

I hope you guys can see this is not a realistic proposal.

Maybe when human beings colonize space 1,000 years from now they can put this on Mars.

JayCortese Jun 23, 2012 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC (Post 3746631)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2...timaheight.jpg

Ok there's that top photo. I got it to work for me :banana:

What I don't get is why they propose these types of mammoth structures in the middle of an already-established area? I think it would be much more impressive if it was built, say, off the east or west coasts somewhere or on a plain in Kansas, or in a mountain valley in Utah, where there was nothing else built for miles and miles and miles.

That would be nice and impressive.

stormkingfan Aug 16, 2015 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayCortese (Post 5744419)
That would be nice and impressive.

I can imagine that some back-fill dumped along the shores would be required for putting this thing on the end of the Peninsula. A 10,000-foot tower of this shape. Imagine the footprint of its base. Apparently, whoever came up with this idea for a "city within a city" didn't consider how much ground area would be needed.

CaliNative Oct 9, 2016 1:19 AM

That is one ugly building. A forest of supertalls would ruin San Francisco, bury the hills.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.