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)

JDRCRASH Jul 25, 2007 8:47 PM

@PuyoPuyi: Actually the following statistics may suprise you:

Greater Tokyo Metro: 32,000,000
Greater New York City: 25,000,000
Greater Los Angeles: 21,000,000

Sacto Jul 25, 2007 8:53 PM

Stupid.

j korzeniowski Jul 25, 2007 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 2972033)
@PuyoPuyi: Actually the following statistics may suprise you:

Greater Tokyo Metro: 32,000,000
Greater New York City: 25,000,000
Greater Los Angeles: 21,000,000

source? l.a. will probably pass ny one day in terms of metro size, but the largest number i recall seeing for l.a. is ~17 mil, with ny's highest being around 22 mil. just curious.

that said, i have also seen ny listed with a metro area as small as 11 mil people, which would have to have some strict boundaries.

newstl2020 Jul 25, 2007 10:06 PM

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.

I respectfully think the first part of this is an ill conceived statement. How could it equally overpower any skyline? We are talking about a 100 meter tallest vs. a 600 m tallest in cities such as Chicago or even *possibly) 800+ in Dubai. How is that equally overshadowing? And with regards to the demand, a huge spring of demand does not just surge forward at once. Economically? If there was a demand for this much office space anywhere in the area, they would allready have more than 3 100m towers in the city. Even if they built 16 100m towers that would still be rediculous, as it would be quadroupling the amount of total tower office space currently available in the city. I would deffinitely still question that. I'm confused by the strategy of anyone building this building. I do not disagree that this is a novelty building, which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still not warranted/justifiable. Tourism? I respectfully, once again, do not think that tourism to Saudi Arabia to see this building is going to make up for the cost of a 10(I think that's right. I need to go back) billion dollar building.

Oh, and in regards to above, we would not be jumping for joy if this building was proposed in America. Just because we are from America doesn't mean we don't want other places to succeed. I LOVE the Burj Dubai, and jumped for joy at that. This building is MUCH, MUCH uglier.

aaron38 Jul 25, 2007 10:11 PM

Does it have nuclear powered elevators?

BaSa Jul 25, 2007 11:43 PM

Hey... Most of all these buildings are thought up in the States anyway. (For all the people that care about the WTB's being built outside the US)

(i.e. S.O.M. designs for Burj Dubai)

I like to think of these building like the I.S.S. (International Space Station) We are working with other countries, together, to form something awesome.

JDRCRASH Jul 26, 2007 12:38 AM

Those numbers are probably lower than those that include the Non-Census residents who don't participate.

R@ptor Jul 26, 2007 2:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newstl2020 (Post 2972153)
I respectfully think the first part of this is an ill conceived statement. How could it equally overpower any skyline? We are talking about a 100 meter tallest vs. a 600 m tallest in cities such as Chicago or even *possibly) 800+ in Dubai. How is that equally overshadowing?

Here's a little drawing how a Mile-High tower would look in the Manhattan skyline. And as Lecom said, it doesn't really matter if the surrounding buildings of such a tower are 100m or 300m high. In fact, I would even say constructing such a tower in the desert surrounded by parks or on an artifical island is the right choice because it would totally overpower ANY skyline. That building would be more than double the height of the Burj Dubai.

http://www.jochenhertweck.com/upload/ny_jeddahtower.jpg

STR Jul 26, 2007 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance (Post 2968795)
Not to mention, when WTC 1 and 2 were built...I believe there was a lot of outrage over how hideous the designs were.

Not at first. They were originally unveiled to the public in the middle of the 1960's, during the pinnacle of Minimalism. It was only later, when they were almost done and the taste-du-jour had changed where they lambasted.

Ada Louise Huxtable wrote a article for the NY Times practically gushing over Yamasaki's ability to design a massive building complex, yet retain a sense of intimacy. Less than a decade later Huxtable wrote the oft-quoted line of "These are big buildings, but they are not great architecture."

Ultimately, critics hated the complex. It was too detailed for the modernists, and too basic for the traditionalists. It's unique Gothic-Modernist design didn't fit into any school neatly, so it became an architectural anathema. With the new urbanist movement, its superblock was widely criticized for cutting off the neighborhoods (some of which would not have even existed had it not been from the excavation of said super block) from each other, and that the WTC was essentially designed as a world unto itself, with people riding into it by train and never leaving until it was time to clock out and go home. Though that argument ignores the fact that prior to the WTC, there wasn't much to see or do in the immediate vicinity of the Trade Center.

Lecom Jul 26, 2007 2:51 AM

Thanks for that image, Raptor. Illustrates my point very well.

newstl2020 Jul 26, 2007 3:13 AM

Raptor - Great work on the image! However, did you think of putting the Jeddah skyline with the tower next to yours of manhattan? I'm assuming that would like even more utterly rediculous and outta place. Maybe not though...

Lecom Jul 26, 2007 3:12 PM

Newstl, I see your point, yet I still stand by mine, though I know what you're saying. By the way, thanks for being a good considerable debater, unlike some pain in the ass noobs that think their opinion is the pinnacle of creation (and have to prove it with multiple smilies in every post).

speedy1979 Jul 26, 2007 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R@ptor (Post 2972550)
Here's a little drawing how a Mile-High tower would look in the Manhattan skyline. And as Lecom said, it doesn't really matter if the surrounding buildings of such a tower are 100m or 300m high. In fact, I would even say constructing such a tower in the desert surrounded by parks or on an artifical island is the right choice because it would totally overpower ANY skyline. That building would be more than double the height of the Burj Dubai.

http://www.jochenhertweck.com/upload/ny_jeddahtower.jpg

Where's the image?

Tom Servo Jul 26, 2007 3:58 PM

[QUOTE:thrasher:;297203
Quote:

ñ͸¸w∑
四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四四

四:thrasher:|||

10023 Jul 26, 2007 4:01 PM

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.

Umm, no it isn't - not unless the metropolitan area tops 10 million. You know that municipal populations within city limits don't mean squat. Chicago would be the 2nd largest city in the Middle East after Tehran. New York and LA would both come in first were they in the region.

newstl2020 Jul 27, 2007 12:54 AM

Right back at ya Lecom.

Lecom Jul 27, 2007 2:40 PM

Speaking of Raptor's drawing, something as tall as to the second line of the tower would be a great addition to Downtown, especially coupled with the new WTC.

gttx Jul 27, 2007 4:52 PM

Myth anyone?
 
This "proposal" has been on Pickard Chilton's website for a few years:

http://www.pickardchilton.com/pagProject.aspx?Group='RESEARCH'&ID=41

It's very clear that it is simply a research project into new ideas for 21st century urban demands. I'm not sure how it turned into a supposed proposal for Saudi Arabia.

MolsonExport Jul 27, 2007 5:03 PM

Sure to make all the women want to move to Jeddah. ;)

neverdone Jul 27, 2007 5:04 PM

I wish these threads weren't allowed


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

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