SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   JEDDAH | Kingdom Tower | 3,303 FT / 1007 M | ON HOLD (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135116)

Smiley Person Jul 23, 2007 1:21 AM

Does it have Lasers?

newstl2020 Jul 23, 2007 4:52 AM

Dude...you're from Chicago...we have all the flat space WE need.

If you want to move 50 odd miles outside of the city:D . Don't think that would exactly be the case in...Jeddah?

KevinFromTexas Jul 23, 2007 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AltinD (Post 2965871)
Unless you think that only a box is a representatiton of Architecture ...:rolleyes:

Of course not. Although in some cases extremely tall boxy buildings aim to make a statement. The old WTC in New York for instance was just two really tall boxy towers. At 300 feet they would have been hideous and totally pointless architecturally, but at 1,300 feet and some change they made a statement about what they stood for. They gave off a sense of power and something that was truely on a huge scale.

I don't get that sense of purpose of design from some of these super tall skinny towers. But I don't know why you quoted my message. This isn't a jab at Middle Eastern cities or architecture, I'm not even a fan of Chicago Spire either, though it could be worse I suppose. I rather like the designs that are being thought up in Dubai with the super talls there, as I already mentioned about Burj Dubai.

JDRCRASH Jul 24, 2007 12:32 AM

:no:

This is getting truly ridiculous. Even Los Angeles has more high-rise demand than Saudi Arabia. Don't believe me, check the Markets for yourselves.
The non-wealthy citizens of the middle-east has other problems to deal with than having their own time wasted by these selfish tycoons trying to see if they can build something over 5,600 ft tall.
This isn't SIMCITY, this is real life.....
But since it's their money, not America's, if they want to waste precious amounts of their capital, which could (and should) be used to fight the war on terrorism and poverty, so be it.


You see, humans have the ability to build something this tall, but its economically foolish, at least right now.
If this is supposed to be a residential, it's simply impossible to satisfy the supply of rooms it will hold, even if they had help from the citizens of the booming CHINESE economy renting lofts in it.

R@ptor Jul 24, 2007 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newstl2020 (Post 2966532)
If you want to move 50 odd miles outside of the city:D . Don't think that would exactly be the case in...Jeddah?

You are aware that Jeddah is the fourth largest city in the Middle East after Tehran, Baghdad and Riyadh with a population of over 3 million? That's larger than Chicago.

Lecom Jul 24, 2007 12:45 AM

I think they need to make the white horizontal lines much more subtle.

WonderlandPark Jul 24, 2007 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R@ptor (Post 2968193)
You are aware that Jeddah is the fourth largest city in the Middle East after Tehran, Baghdad and Riyadh with a population of over 3 million? That's larger than Chicago.

This is largely correct: from Wiki:
Jeddah (also spelled Jedda, Jiddah, Jidda, or Juddah; جدّة Ǧiddah), a Saudi Arabian city located on the coast of the Red Sea (21.50° N 39.1667° E), is the major urban center in western Saudi Arabia, the largest in the Western Province, and the second largest city in Saudi Arabia after the capital city Riyadh. The population of the city currently stands at over 3.4 million. It is considered as the commercial capital of Saudi Arabia and the wealthiest city in the Middle East and western Asia.

That last part surprises me, and that data may now be outdated, thanks to Dubai. But Jeddah is no slouch in the region.

JDRCRASH Jul 24, 2007 1:02 AM

^ ^ ^
Doesn't matter, not even Tokyo has demand this high.

Untitled Jul 24, 2007 2:38 AM

While not a fan of this design, I don't neccesarily have a problem with building a supertall here. Even if the market isn't there right now, these things are built to last. Especially in a non-market economy, where the developer can afford to wait for the profits, even if it means waiting for some time.

Remember, at one point the Sears Tower was something of a failure because of interior design problems and a difficulty attracting tenants. No one's saying today that it shouldn't have been built.

PuyoPiyo Jul 24, 2007 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 2968230)
^ ^ ^
Doesn't matter, not even Tokyo has demand this high.

Tokyo have more than 8 million and total of Great Tokyo Metro (include Yokohama, Kawasaki, Saitama, etc.) area are the largest metro area in the world, even bigger than the New York. So Jeddah seems are not that big to me..

newstl2020 Jul 24, 2007 4:36 AM

Well I'm just going to go by emporis here, no clue how this information adds up to real life...but...

Per Emporis Jeddah has no towers over 30 stories tall as of right now. The tallest building in Jeddah is 126 m, and there are only 4 projects on the table that are taller than this. It is impossible to compare this city to Chicago, or ANY major city in the world. And I appreciate the defense of the middle-east, but are any of you attempting to maintain that a mile tall building needs to be built when as of right now there are 3 towers over 100m, tallest of which is 126? For some reason, I do not believe that this can ever be defended as necessary, or even remotely feasable/possible. A city in the sky? Maybe needed in other cities within the next 50 years, but DEFFINITELY not here.

STR Jul 24, 2007 5:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 2966717)
Of course not. Although in some cases extremely tall boxy buildings aim to make a statement. The old WTC in New York for instance was just two really tall boxy towers. At 300 feet they would have been hideous and totally pointless architecturally, but at 1,300 feet and some change they made a statement about what they stood for. They gave off a sense of power and something that was truely on a huge scale.

I don't get that sense of purpose of design from some of these super tall skinny towers. But I don't know why you quoted my message. This isn't a jab at Middle Eastern cities or architecture, I'm not even a fan of Chicago Spire either, though it could be worse I suppose. I rather like the designs that are being thought up in Dubai with the super talls there, as I already mentioned about Burj Dubai.

Yeah, but the WTC towers were not boxes for any reason you gave above. They were their shape for two reasons:

1) It was very in-vogue in the 1960's to design minimalist buildings where function trumped form and decoration was considered evil.
2) They were government built, owned and operated buildings. Building the WTC at all constituted an outrage by a public horrified by perceived waste and exuberance, throwing in a flashy, and thus expensive, design would have sunk the project.

Alliance Jul 24, 2007 5:48 AM

Not to mention, when WTC 1 and 2 were built...I believe there was a lot of outrage over how hideous the designs were.

The box is a very brutal shape for a skyscraper. It certainly has tremendous value. That being said...the box shouldn't become the box...if you know what I mean.

MolsonExport Jul 24, 2007 4:08 PM

Meh. Unoriginal.

skylife Jul 24, 2007 5:26 PM

It's just completely unnecessary.

speedy1979 Jul 24, 2007 5:43 PM

Funny thing is they call us materialistic.

Calrissian Jul 24, 2007 6:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedy1979 (Post 2969580)
Funny thing is they call us materialistic.

Ha, true.
---

I don't expect this behometh to get built, but then, they have the funds and the cheap labour. It'll look a bit too extreme though in such a place though, I'm not even a novice at what Jeddah is like, but I assume they don't even have any 50+ buildings there ?

Raraavis Jul 24, 2007 7:42 PM

If this thing was proposed in Chicago or New York you guys would be jumping for joy but it would still be every bit as unnecessary. Let the Gulf States have a pissing contest. Who cares? I hope they build three of them.

Lecom Jul 25, 2007 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newstl2020 (Post 2968655)
Well I'm just going to go by emporis here, no clue how this information adds up to real life...but...

Per Emporis Jeddah has no towers over 30 stories tall as of right now. The tallest building in Jeddah is 126 m, and there are only 4 projects on the table that are taller than this. It is impossible to compare this city to Chicago, or ANY major city in the world. And I appreciate the defense of the middle-east, but are any of you attempting to maintain that a mile tall building needs to be built when as of right now there are 3 towers over 100m, tallest of which is 126? For some reason, I do not believe that this can ever be defended as necessary, or even remotely feasable/possible. A city in the sky? Maybe needed in other cities within the next 50 years, but DEFFINITELY not here.

A building of this size would equally overshadow any city, whether it's New York or Jeddah. I know what you are getting at, but skyline-wise it won't matter whether a nearby tower is 100 or 300 m when this one is 1600. Demand-wise - you're talking about need, while the real issue here is "want". Not everything that is created serves a necessity; many things are just novelties that people are willing to pay for. Well, this tower is just a really big novelty. As for demand, I'm confident the building would fill up anywhere between 1 and 10 years. As tall as it may be, 1600 meters of office floors in one building is roughly as much (even less actually, since much space inside this tower would be taken up by elevators) as 16 100-meter towers - roughly the size of the skyline of any mid-size American city. And if a city with 500,000 people can fill this space, then I am certain a city with almost 3.5 million would do it with much greater ease. I bet that if jeddah peoposed 16 100-meter towers, there would barely be any questions from anyone whether the city can fill them. It's just the height that makes it seem larger than it actually is. As for the huge sum, it seems like the developer can afford to sit on it, and investing in real estate, especially landmark real estate, is one of the best investments anyone can ever make. Besides, the money the investor would lose on building such an inefficient structure, he can make back easily with tourism and higher rates charged for living/renting space in such a trophy building. Would it look ridiculously tall on Jeddah's skyline? yes. However, is it destined to be an economical failure for the developer? Not necessarily.

R@ptor Jul 25, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom (Post 2970319)
A building of this size would equally overshadow any city, whether it's New York or Jeddah. I know what you are getting at, but skyline-wise it won't matter whether a nearby tower is 100 or 300 m when this one is 1600. Demand-wise - you're talking about need, while the real issue here is "want". Not everything that is created serves a necessity; many things are just novelties that people are willing to pay for. Well, this tower is just a really big novelty. As for demand, I'm confident the building would fill up anywhere between 1 and 10 years. As tall as it may be, 1600 meters of office floors in one building is roughly as much (even less actually, since much space inside this tower would be taken up by elevators) as 16 100-meter towers - roughly the size of the skyline of any mid-size American city. And if a city with 500,000 people can fill this space, then I am certain a city with almost 3.5 million would do it with much greater ease. I bet that if jeddah peoposed 16 100-meter towers, there would barely be any questions from anyone whether the city can fill them. It's just the height that makes it seem larger than it actually is. As for the huge sum, it seems like the developer can afford to sit on it, and investing in real estate, especially landmark real estate, is one of the best investments anyone can ever make. Besides, the money the investor would lose on building such an inefficient structure, he can make back easily with tourism and higher rates charged for living/renting space in such a trophy building. Would it look ridiculously tall on Jeddah's skyline? yes. However, is it destined to be an economical failure for the developer? Not necessarily.

Well said :tup:


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.