Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpireCityGuy
Really? I think they would complimenty each other very well. I've never really cared for the Empire State Building affect-- one tower with not many more of relative height nearby. That's changing some now-- But I think a metropolis should be associated with more than one "tower"-- a tower garden -- truly dense-- where towers are built not as status symbols-- but as an accomodation to urban development and property values. Taipei 101 is simply rediculous in its setting
|
See I kind of disagree. I have no problems with giant towers being built relatively close to eachother, but they need room to breathe. I actually suggested earlier that Beitler be placed behind Sears.
There is no way I want this tower on the lake, this is something that should go in the back of the city: tall, but a side note. I hate these TV towers. I find them worthless structures built only to engage in the global pissing contest for "worlds tallest anything" But if Chicago want to build one, fine, just don't make it a prominent location. Putting it next to The Spire is like parking a pinto next to a Porsche and trying to display both at the same time.
Taipei 101 may be out of place now, but whenever a city builds its first supertall, it always seems out of place...including Hancock, Sears, Empire, and WTC 1&2.
I think Shanghai is doing a nice job with thier three planned supertalls, Jin Mao, WFC and a 3rd all in a clump, but there's some spacing in between.
I think if Beitler was a bit taller, blacker, ad more of a building... we could get some nice effects.
