New World Trade Center design chosen!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't like skyscrappers, can't see the point of it.

Um, the point is to conserve acreage by building vertically. That's how you get more people into less space...

[Ned]

Well, I guess the chose the spire because it will be hard to hit with a plane.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Uh...Chicago lost its berth to Malaysia's Twin Towers a while ago.

Only by one of the four measures used to dertime the tallest building. The Sears Towers still holds the three other records. The only reason that the towers in Kuala Lampur are considered higher is that for some reason, a spire is considered part of a building, but radio antennae aren't. If the spire wasn't included or the radio antennae were, then the Sears Tower would hold all four measures of the world's tallest building.

Chicago still rules!

[DRoseDARs]

If placed side-by-side, when you stand on the roof of the Sears Tower you'd be looking DOWN onto the top floors and roof of the Petronas Towers. Sears is the tallest building, end of story. If you scale to the top of the antennas of either Petronas Tower, you could look down to the top of the Sears antenna, making them the tallest structures. It's a matter of "usable space." What makes a building "a building?" Whether or not we can go inside and use the space within, that's how. An antenna does not a building make.

Here's how you invalidate the argument of anyone who thinks the antennas should count towards "tallest building" title: If I were to build a 2,000' free-standing antenna on top of my 30' tall home, my house would be The Tallest Building In The World. The antennas don't count worth sh*t.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, the point is to conserve acreage by building vertically. That's how you get more people into less space...

I realise that.

People still put in skyscrappers when there's no need for them, though. Bozos.

[Lung]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
If they DARE build that God awful STUPID lattice thing, I'll drop out of architecture and become a celebate monk!

You don't have to be an architect to know that those stupid 1990's lattice designs will be out of date in 10 years and look even siller than they do now.

I read in Popular Science that there is a skyscraper planned for somewhere in Asia for over 4,000 ft!!! It sounds just plain ridiculous, but it looks like it would have style and character http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...0169-6,00.html . To me, a subtle skyscraper for the WTC site indicates an admission of failure.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lung
To me, a subtle skyscraper for the WTC site indicates an admission of failure.

The WTC towers were UGLEEE! Now we have a chance to put something tasteful back in their place.

[Lung]

Tasteful has nothing to do with size, so a skyscraper can be just as beautiful if it's bigger than if it's smaller, with the added bonus of telling the terrorists to go and **** themselves.

[DRoseDARs]

Lung, yes, I'm familiar with that proposal

It's meant as an experimental testbed of ideas on how to deal with the problems of over-population. They've got too many damn people over in Asia and they don't know where to put 'em all. Seriously, the developement of so-called "proto-acrologies" will have the greatest push from the countries on that side of the Pacific since they have the greatest challenges. As many of them are only just entering the industrialized era, pollution (already bad) will only get worse as everyone starts getting cars and cities begin expanding outwards. Asia contries REALLY need viable alternatives to the way the Western world has evolved or else they'll choke themselves to death with smog and teeming masses. The Bionic Tower addresses only a scant number of issues, but it's another piece of the puzzle of the coming century.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The WTC towers were UGLEEE! Now we have a chance to put something tasteful back in their place.

They were not ugly. Anyone who says that never saw them as I did, with the sun hitting them in the evening, turning them pink-orange. They were my favorite buildings, because they were majestic and comforting, the twin collossi at Manhattan's southern end.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
If placed side-by-side, when you stand on the roof of the Sears Tower you'd be looking DOWN onto the top floors and roof of the Petronas Towers. Sears is the tallest building, end of story. If you scale to the top of the antennas of either Petronas Tower, you could look down to the top of the Sears antenna, making them the tallest structures. It's a matter of "usable space." What makes a building "a building?" Whether or not we can go inside and use the space within, that's how. An antenna does not a building make.

The spires of the Petronas Towers are not antennas, they are part of the structure.

Che, if you removed the "structure" aspect as a measure, there'd only be 3 measures left, not 4, anyway.

[DRoseDARs]

I'm going to correct myself here: from the top of the *I don't care what they want to call them* of the Petronas Towers, you'd only be looking down onto the roof of the Sears, not its antennas as well. You'd still be looking down onto the roof of the Petronas' from the roof of the Sears, but antennas/spires/phallic structures/whatever-you-want-to-call-the-damn-things STILL do not a building make. Further, using my own example from the previous post, it looks like the Sears Tower is both the tallest building AND third tallest structure built, after the CN Tower and Ostankino Television Tower.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


They were not ugly. Anyone who says that never saw them as I did, with the sun hitting them in the evening, turning them pink-orange. They were my favorite buildings, because they were majestic and comforting, the twin collossi at Manhattan's southern end.

same here! some of my most treasured pictures of my childhood were some i took of the towers from the jersey coast and the statue of liberty... beautiful pictures, sometimes with me, my family, or jsut those structures. Their sheer size thrilled me... i was almost as sad for the loss of the buildings on 9/11 as I was for the victims themselves... I had an attachment to them...

Kman

[Space05us]

that has to be the UGLIEST thing Ive EVER seen, even worse than that fat chick that someone posted on the Babes of the World Cup thread (or whatever its called

Why dont they just rebuild it how it was????!!!!!



I refuse to call that the World Trade Center

[MRT144]

lung, or it can tell terrorists to "go and **** themselves all over the building with explosives"