Will the US ever keep up with world skyscrapers? - Page 2

mhays · #21 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Dubai doesn't have ungodly numbers of people at all, the city is smaller than Houston, TX (though that's still pretty big) They just have ungodly money.

But yea that's a legit point, I don't even care if America has WTB or not, but I still think that it should have a 15-2000 foot building or two

It's not just that they have money, it's more that their money is concentrated, and development is extremely cheap.

Crawford · #22 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Lots of people talking out of their asses in this thread, though. Supertalls in Dubai aren't going up because of pride. They are (were) being built because the city set forth a series of incentives that invited a craze of foreign developers looking to seize opportunity in an emerging market.

This is all entirely false.

Development in Dubai originates in the U.A.E. There are foreign partnerships, but it's driven by huge master-planned domestic developments.

There is no network of incentives and the like. It isn't the Wild West. It's top-down planning, same as in China.

It has almost nothing to do with a conventional "market" for such space usage, as folks would consider within a Western context.

Roadcruiser1 · #23 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 9:58 PM**

This is a newspaper article along with plenty on Google that explains China's empty skyscrapers.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...e-fund-manager

Roadcruiser1 · #24 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 10:01 PM**

This is another. Basically China builds empty skyscrapers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2736703/posts

Roadcruiser1 · #25 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 10:02 PM**

There is one stupid visionary project that might give our nation some hope.

http://miapoliscity.com/

• Video Link

uaarkson · #26 Posted **Oct 29, 2011, 1:08 AM**

The term "stupid visionary project" certainly doesn't fill me up with hope.

The North One · #27 Posted **Oct 30, 2011, 7:50 PM**

Honestly, this AGAIN!? Why do you people think the world revolves around skyscrapers?

The U.S. doesn't give a shit if they have the tallest concrete block in the world or not. We're to busy with our own lives/problems.

Dac150 · #28 Posted **Oct 30, 2011, 10:26 PM**

I don't understand the question; what is it exactly we need to keep up with? Many of the countries you refer to are going through a different economic life-stage.

weatherguru18 · #29 Posted **Oct 31, 2011, 9:27 PM**

I don't think skyscrapers make a city iconic. Which of these cities stands out more:

Cairo (pyramids) or Kuala Lumpur (Petronas Towers)? My guess is Cairo.

Paris (Eiffel Tower) or Chicago (Sears Tower)? My guess is Paris.

Few cities are known for their skyscrapers. There are exceptions like NYC or Hong Kong, but when I hear NYC, I think the Statue of Liberty, Taxi's, Subways, Time Square. When I hear Sydney, I think of the Opera House and Kangaroos. When I hear of Los Angeles, I think of Hollywood, surfers, movie stars. I don't think of Library Tower. Chicago is known for it's magnificent mile, navy pier, Wrigley Field. Paris is known for the Eiffel Tower. Rome is known for the Colisseum. London is known for Tower Bridge, Big Ben and Buckingham Palace. The point is way more cities are known for everything but skyscrapers. I may be alone in my belief, but I think there IS a point at which skylines become gaudy and tasteless. I mean Dubai looks---tacky. A bunch of skyscrapers in the desert. Not to mention, Burj is ugly as shit IMO. Sometimes less is more. NYC's skyline is becoming gaudy, too. IMO, cities like Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, Dallas and Philly make nice skylines.

Towersteve · #30 Posted **Nov 7, 2011, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Should we have to?

I definitely understand why people would ask if we should have to build tall sky scrapers. In a way it could seem childish to want to have the tallest building. I disagree. A society does things for its own psyche. We didn't go to the moon for science. We went to the moon to show America could. I realize this is an international board. I think America should build massive sky scrapers to show we still can. Just as other nations do to demonstrate they've arrived. The Empire State Building was certainly impractical at first. It did eventually make money as real estate and through tourism. New megaskyscrapers would as well. In addition it's important to keep trying to push the limits!
I wanted to add I'm new to registering for the board but have been visiting this site for awhile and really appreciate the knowledge of skyscrapers the posters here provide. Have an awesome day!

untitledreality · #31 Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

Honestly, this AGAIN!? Why do you people think the world revolves around skyscrapers?

This.

NYC GUY · #32 Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 10:21 PM**

So does anyone think New York or Chicago even LA will build a skyscraper that has a roof height of 2000 feet in the next 10-40 years?

M II A II R II K · #33 Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 10:54 PM**

When there's vertical take off of aircraft.

THE BIG APPLE · #34 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 12:02 AM**

The Burj Dubai (which was built without a purpose) cost $1.5 billion to build. A plate of rice costs an average of, lets say $1.00. So you could've used that money to feed around 1.5 billion people, give or take a few 100 million. That's around a bit less than 1 fifth the world population. I love the Burj Dubai and think it's an amazing feat of engineering, but Humanity First. I think that's why what's needed is being built in the U.S, because of the economy most people can't put food in their stomach or bread on their table. The idea of the world's tallest is out of the question, in any city in the U.S, because it's not feasable (FAA etc.), and it just wouldn't look good, unless they're meaning to build some half a mile tall building in the middle of Nevada, or Nebraska.

Roadcruiser1 · #35 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 12:37 AM**

Most of China's and Dubai's skyscrapers were built for show. They are barely occupied. Less than 10% of China's and Dubai's skyscrapers are occupied by anyone. It shows that we shouldn't build random buildings in the USA.

ChiSoxRox · #36 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 3:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

So does anyone think New York or Chicago even LA will build a skyscraper that has a roof height of 2000 feet in the next 10-40 years?

10 years? Nope. 40 years? I'm almost certain New York will, and if we get another building boom I wouldn't be surprised for Chicago, but not Los Angeles.

Edit: I'm a bit skeptical about roof height, but I'm pretty sure some developer is going to come along with a big spire and voila, a 2000-footer.

THE BIG APPLE · #37 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 4:41 AM**

A 2,000 footer is very possible, especially in NYC, and Chicago, infact I guarentee that by the 2020-2030 either or both cities will have one or a few. But a building that's the tallest in the world, especially in 20 years, WILL NOT HAPPEN. Why? Taller buildings will be built, so it will be more difficult to build a WTB. AND it faces hassels of it's own (FAA), restrictions, people, light, shadows, too tall, planes, danger, safety, shadows, sun, moon, stars, electricity, pollution, and on and on. So NO.

Zapatan · #38 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 4:53 AM**

I can't believe people are saying "should we have to?"

America invented the skyscraper, and even if it doesn't have the worlds tallest building it should at least try to a certain extent to keep up. People are saying, "Oh they're just trying to show off." Obviously! And their cities will start to look way cooler because of it.

Having the WTB doesn't matter IMO, but having skyscrapers of a world scale should be a priority for any world country. The Chinese towers will fill up even if they are not fully occupied, and even if they aren't they are still there! The ESB wasn't completely occupied.

Anyone who says, "they're just showing off" seems a bit jealous to some degree. What's wrong with showing off? It's human nature.

jd3189 · #39 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

A 2,000 footer is very possible, especially in NYC, and Chicago, infact I guarentee that by the 2020-2030 either or both cities will have one or a few. But a building that's the tallest in the world, especially in 20 years, WILL NOT HAPPEN. Why? Taller buildings will be built, so it will be more difficult to build a WTB. AND it faces hassels of it's own (FAA), restrictions, people, light, shadows, too tall, planes, danger, safety, shadows, sun, moon, stars, electricity, pollution, and on and on. So NO.

Someone could finish the Metlife North and add a spire to its top that will bring the height to 2,000 feet. Then we'll be going somewhere. By the time the new WTC is complete, architects may finally be inspired to build tall again.

THE BIG APPLE · #40 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 5:58 AM**

The reason Dubai has the WTB is because they're using the last of the oil money, before it runs dry by 2016, worlds biggest and tallest EVERYTHING in Dubai. The Shanghai Tower is a government funded project, and there was a BIG competition for the design, and it turned out amazing. The Abraj Al Bait towers were built with Saudi money as an extention to the Kabba plan, and to support the pilgrims during hajj so it was necissary. The Taipei 101 was a plan that cooperated with both developer and government, and both sides were happy so they said lets go. While all this was going on what was happening in the United States of America, the INVENTOR of the SKYSCRAPER.