nexess Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 The reason Petronas was and is still such a big deal is because its an icon of what Malaysia did. Their people and their leadership created a beautiful country in very short time--remember, Malaysia is not as rich as the United States-but resources and hardwork was so well utilized, it really IS a big deal. and LMFAO, we're calling it the Freedom Tower? God, no wonder the world hates us--thats just plain arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted April 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 19, 2005 I was wondering where the Freedom tower would be.....wasnt london meant to be building a massive building to compete with the other world structures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted April 19, 2005 Author Share Posted April 19, 2005 Where is the Freedom Tower ?... 585794917[/snapback] They (SSP.com) might have not yet finished working on the render of the the Freedom Tower. Also I found this highlighted part suspect: Because CN Tower is 1815 feet, still 39 feet taller. :D Burj Dubai is going to own them all though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shao Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 not strictly a skyscraper as such, but going on 33% taller than the tallest building currently being built / planned (although the final height of the burj is not known, estimates between 120-160 floors) is the solar flue, or sun chimney in rural australia, which has been estimated at 1km tall, and it has a better use than enslaving poor finance workers inside elevators for most of the day. :) :) http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/ed...12001BA833?open http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/th...lar_chimney.htm "wasnt london meant to be building a massive building to compete with the other world structures?" i doubt it, it seems we can't build anything for ourselves any more, although alot of our engineers and architects work on the largest constructions in the world, including skyscrapers. there was enough trouble filling the canary warf buildings for a while after they opened, and if anything it made us realise people want smarter buildings rather than taller buildings. If you look at the likes of the proposed London Bridge Tower or 30 st Mary's Axe you'll see buildings that are as much of a challenge to build as the taller buildings purely to attain a more pleasing building, and one that suits the 'olde worlde' feel of the city. There've been a couple of semi psycho-phallic designs that've been cancelled probably because of their lack of feasibility as much as bad design, especially green bird but other than that the skyline will be pretty much unchanged and flat for the time being. having recently been to china and seen the mass tracks of construction going on there i can't help but think the lack of a similar scale of development in london has to be a good thing. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted April 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 19, 2005 the burj dubai is simply astonishing. imo some of em are real fugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedogg Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 They (SSP.com) might have not yet finished working on the render of the the Freedom Tower.Also I found this highlighted part suspect: Because CN Tower is 1815 feet, still 39 feet taller. :D Burj Dubai is going to own them all though. 585798630[/snapback] Perhaps you missed the "over 2000 ft" comment in the top right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted April 19, 2005 Author Share Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) not strictly a skyscraper as such, but going on 33% taller than the tallest building currently being built / planned (although the final height of the burj is not known, estimates between 120-160 floors) is the solar flue, or sun chimney in rural australia, which has been estimated at 1km tall, and it has a better use than enslaving poor finance workers inside elevators for most of the day. :) :) 585798648[/snapback] I read about that but that is so boooring. I mean 1. You cant probably get near the top. 2. Even if you did the view would be useless as it'd be plain with no real population close enough. 3. No jaw dropping architecture. I'd fly to Dubai just to get on Burj Dubai. (when its ready) Perhaps you missed the "over 2000 ft" comment in the top right? 585798702[/snapback] Perhaps you should read the entire article at Wiki. :rolleyes: There is no mention that the antenna would be over 2000ft. Also when completed (2009), Freedom Tower will not be the tallest by any means: Burj Dubai (2008) - 2300 ft Edited April 19, 2005 by jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djsaad1 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 i dont understand the first picture. from the look of it the sears tower is taller then the one in malaysia. Why do they measure the two points in malaysia and not the antennas on the sears tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedogg Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) I read about that but that is so boooring. I mean 1. You cant probably get near the top. 2. Even if you did the view would be useless as it'd be plain with no real population close enough. I'd fly to Dubai just to get on Burj Dubai. (when its ready) Perhaps you should read the entire article at Wiki.?:rolleyes:: There is no mention that the antenna would be over 2000ft. 585798703[/snapback] Dont be silly, that image is their image and it clearly states in the upper right that "New antenna will broadcast television and radio signals from over 2000 ft". Since you are arguing based on the claims and facts illustrated in that picture, if it is factually accurate then its claim is therefore correct. Furthermore you werent comparing it to Dubai, you were comparing it to Taipei 101. Wiki also states 2008 for its completion date not just 2009. Edited April 19, 2005 by leedogg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted April 19, 2005 Author Share Posted April 19, 2005 Dont be silly, that image is their image and it clearly states in the upper right that "New antenna will broadcast television and radio signals from over 2000 ft". Since you are arguing based on the claims and facts illustrated in that picture, if it is factually accurate then its claim is therefore correct. 585798788[/snapback] Who's trying to be silly ? 1. You are asking me to believe one hack job of a picture with no facts, proofs to back it up. 2. Its Wikipedia, an enthusiast encyclopedia. Students are getting owned silly for referencing to it. :D Furthermore you werent comparing it to Dubai, you were comparing it to Taipei 101.? Wiki also states 2008 for its completion date not just 2009. 585798788[/snapback] 1. I wasnt comparing it to Taipei 101, I was comparing it to the CN Tower. 2. When they are not sure, why should my personal bias make it complete a year earlier ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedogg Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) Who's trying to be silly ?1. You are asking me to believe one hack job of a picture with no facts, proofs to back it up. 2. Its Wikipedia, an enthusiast encyclopedia. 585798830[/snapback] well. dont ask me to read the entire WIKI article to find out where they said over 2000 then. :rolleyes: and did I not state that "if it is factually correct then its claim is therefor correct?" 1. I wasnt comparing it to Taipei 101, I was comparing it to the CN Tower.2. When they are not sure, why should my personal bias make it complete a year earlier ? 1. which is still not the Dubai tower and 2000 > 1815 2. why should your personal bias make it a year later? Edited April 19, 2005 by leedogg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shao Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I read about that but that is so boooring. I mean 1. You cant probably get near the top. 2. Even if you did the view would be useless as it'd be plain with no real population close enough. 3. No jaw dropping architecture. 1. there's talk of observation platforms on the top 3. you're saying a structure that size; 1km isn't jaw dropping? it spanks all other structures with pants down, and that's not to mention the unfeasibly large greenhouse that'll be built around the bottom. it's all a matter of perspective. I don't see office buildings as being as interesting or as visionary as the people that build and finance them say they are, or as worthwhile as a purpose built, zero emmission power station that can provide enough power for 200,000 homes (24 hours a day) "and will abate over 900,000 tonnes of greenhouse producing gases from entering the environment annually" perhaps if the likes of america and china were so ecologically astute we wouldn't be so ******. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Holocaust| Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I think they don't count the antennae on the Sears tower because they weren't part of the original structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted April 19, 2005 Author Share Posted April 19, 2005 well.? dont ask me to read the entire WIKI article to find out where they said over 2000 then.?:rolleyes:s: and did I not state that "if it is factually correct then its claim is therefor correct?" 585798858[/snapback] Thats what I'm saying .. it wont be the tallest because Wiki claims it in one picture and then doesnt back it up. 1. there's talk of observation platforms on the top3. you're saying a structure that size; 1km isn't jaw dropping? it spanks all other structures with pants down, and that's not to mention the unfeasibly large greenhouse that'll be built around the bottom. 585798859[/snapback] Frankly, the circular chimney-like tower architecture it isnt jaw dropping even if its huge. Look how Malaysia advertises the Petronas Towers, Canada the CN Tower etc., because of their unique architectures. How would Australia advertise this ? Like this: perhaps if the likes of america and china were so ecologically astute we wouldn't be so ******.:whistle:le: 585798859[/snapback] Agreed 100% on that:yes:s: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts