Your Favorite/Least Favorite Skyscrapers - Page 2

jimmycoasterman · #31 12-18-2003, 05:18 PM

Speaking of the Middle East, Dubai is home to some of the finest architectural specimens in the world, including a gigantic one coming in...[url]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/26/1046064104215.html[/url]

Attached is another beautiful hotel from Dubai...

**Wes** · #32 12-18-2003, 05:24 PM

[QUOTE=musicfreak]

And here is the new Westin in Charlotte, I LOVE it...

[/QUOTE]

I don't really like the Westin. Looks like origami gone wrong. lol I ride past it every day going home. It's not ugly, it's just not my style of building.

Speaking of weird towers... The Arlington (aka Pepto Towers) [sounds like a really bad RCT scenario] lol ;) is a strange one. It's all [B][COLOR=Magenta]PINK[/COLOR][/B]glass!!! It's a new condo highrise in Downtown Charlotte: [url]http://www.emporis.info/en/wm/bu/?id=100727[/url]

Also, that night shot of Hearst Tower is killer. Looks like an old New York skyscraper from that angle at night.

Natelox · #33 12-18-2003, 07:33 PM

jimmycoasterman, the problem with Dubai is that the city has no style to it. It's like las vegas, looks like it was thrown together by a two year old. It would appear there are no restrictions what-so-ever on their buildings, and this, in my opinion creates an ugly city with ugly buildings.

SoSweet, that's not a favorite.

General Public, I strongly disagree with your statment. Yes, the towers get a lot of recognition because of their height, but they symobolized New York because they had a style that matched the older buildings. And their height just drew attention to that style. On top of that, their height alone, the ablity to be seen from miles away, creates a landmark effect, creating a central icon for new york.

SoSweet · #34 12-19-2003, 05:37 AM

[QUOTE=Natelox]
SoSweet, that's not a favorite.
[/QUOTE]

That IS my personal favorite. I THOUGHT that is what this post was about.

And here for clarification are the reasons it is my favorite.

1. The first obstacle it had to overcome is being build on sand. As a result they used a mat foundation as there is nothing solid for it to be built on.

2. Riyadh is a city without building resources. Everything had to be manufactured a great distance away and shipped in for the construction of the buildings. In most cities in Europe or the US yes you do have to ship things in but not to the extent of this area. This was actually a HUGE problem in the construction of both buildings.

3. The suspended sky walk between the two spires was nothing short of miraculous when you consider that the tops of the towers are subjected to winds reaching near hurricane force when the area is hit with the many sand storms Saudia Arabia is prone to. No to mention the significant temperature range these buildings are subjected to in a 24 hour period in a harsh desert climate.

4. And last if you disagree with its classification as a sky scaper.....it is the tallest skyscraper in the world under 50 floors.... and ....Kingdom Centre is the winning building of the Skyscrapers.com Award 2002, selected as the "best new skyscraper of the year for design and functionality".

Riyadh will never be the site for the great skyscrapers of the world like the Sears Towers or the WTC. The environment alone will never allow for the construction of any structure of that magnitude. Riyadh however has demonstrated that they have a style unto their own and I have yet to see anything else like it in the world. For modern style structures these two are incredible IMO.

Natelox · #35 12-19-2003, 08:26 PM

SoSweet, first off, I never disagreed with it's classification as a sky scraper. But my major problems with it are it's look. It's pretty ugly. The building is also a waste of money in terms of building material used and space provided. Why put a giant hole in a buliding when it could be used for more space? It also invites stuntmen to try flying planes through which is a large safety hazard. As for the hurdles the designers had to overcome, many bulidings around the world have many hurdles they must overcome. I don't see how the "the more difficult it was to build, the more I should like it" theory works.

just my opinion.

eleadem1128 · #36 12-19-2003, 10:35 PM

My Favorites:

Flatiron Building
New York City
[url]http://members.ams.chello.nl/zkosc/flatir.jpg[/url]

Tribune Tower
Chicago
[url]http://www.gommage.com/tribune.jpg[/url]

Atlanta Westin
Atlanta
[url]http://mathpost.la.asu.edu/~hai/atlanta/westin.jpg[/url]
(Circular and Silver Building)

Atlanta Marriott Marquis
Atlanta
[url]http://marriottse.com/images/ATL/properties/ATLMQ/topimage2192_66.jpg[/url]
(While not stunning from the exterior, the internal atrium is stunning)
[url]http://www.travelhero.com/Graphics/PropImages/20/20137-01.gif[/url]
[url]http://www.carriedobro.com/gallery/dcown14.jpg[/url]

Andy Hodgson · #37 12-19-2003, 11:15 PM

I must say that my birth city (Charlotte) has two of the nicest skyscrapers around--the Hearst Tower and BofA Tower.

Also, I must say that I LOVE skyscrapers, especially the neo-gothic style skyscrapers. Here in Memphis there are two AWESOME neo-gothic skyscrapers, the Sterick Building and the Lincoln American Center. The Licoln American Tower is a 1/3 replica of my favorite skyscraper, the Woolworth Building. Also, I think its interesting that the Sterick Building was built to resemble a wedding cake. Memphis also has the best looking baseball stadium, home of the Memphis Redbirds (a Stl Cardinal farm team).

**Wes** · #38 12-19-2003, 11:22 PM

[QUOTE=eleadem1128]My Favorites:

Flatiron Building
New York City
[/QUOTE]

I've always liked that building, but never knew what it was called. lol :)

General Public · #39 12-21-2003, 07:47 PM

[QUOTE=Natelox]General Public, I strongly disagree with your statment. Yes, the towers get a lot of recognition because of their height, but they symobolized New York because they had a style that matched the older buildings. And their height just drew attention to that style. On top of that, their height alone, the ablity to be seen from miles away, creates a landmark effect, creating a central icon for new york.[/QUOTE]
Style that matched the older buildings? I don't undestand. If you're implying that they blended in with towers like ESB and the Chrysler Building, then I am totally lost.

That is, if you can say they have "style." Until 9/11, they were widely chided for being two giant boxes. They were part of the skyline, but that's about it IMO.

birdie311 · #40 12-21-2003, 08:05 PM

[QUOTE=bgwfreak]

And as far as ugly...

The BellSouth building in Nashville is pretty stupid looking. Looks like a Tim Burton Batman building gone horribly wrong. *:-) ;)[/QUOTE]

Here in Nashville it's known as "The Batman Building." It's not a Tim Burton Batman building gone wrong, but infact is just plain Batman.

Natelox · #41 12-21-2003, 08:23 PM

General Public, there is [I]a lot[/I] more to New York than the Empire State Building and the Chyrsler Buliding. There are many, many smaller buildings that were there first. These were are the buildings, that IMO, define New York. The World Trade Center easliy matched the style of these buildings, yet in a modern way.

General Public · #42 12-21-2003, 08:24 PM

[QUOTE=Natelox] Why put a giant hole in a buliding when it could be used for more space? It also invites stuntmen to try flying planes through which is a large safety hazard.[/QUOTE]
They had this problem when the Gateway Arch was built. Then cameras were installed and pilots were slapped with heavy fines.

But really, that's not much aof a reason to not design a building with an opening in it, especially with the Middle East's "no-nonsense" justice system. ;)

Anaconda · #43 12-23-2003, 11:25 PM

My personal favorite is the Chrysler-its just beautiful. Then comes the WTC Twin Towers, then Empire State. John Hancock also ranks in there as well, as does Washington Monument (Hey, if CN Tower and Eiffel Tower get mentioned, I gotta give a shout out to DC's tallest structure) and I like the Transamerica Pyramid as well.

Least Favorite: Sears Tower (U-G-L-Y, it ain't got no alibi, its ugly, yeah yeah its ugly). Petronas-not a big fan of their spires or the design. New WTC-don't like the twistiness.

Pantera Psycho · #44 12-24-2003, 01:39 AM

That Kingdom Center building looks absolutely awesome, couldn't compliment it enough, absolutely amazing. The others I like are the Sears Tower and that diamondback building in Chicago as well as the Chrystler building in NYC. Also, that tower in London looks really cool to me.

My less favorites are the Amaco building in Chicago as well as the twin towers in NYC (cool that there were those two giant buildings together, but not a fan of the box structure).

Nitro1118 · #45 12-31-2003, 01:16 AM

Well, I just came back from NYC for the first time since pre 9/11, and I couldn't believe how much different how much I missed those buildings. They may not look like much in an articular aspect, but they just fit in NYC. What made them special was they were twins, they had almost a chrome covering, they were amazingly tall and wide, and the inside was just beautiful.

Then again, I always gave my favorite skyscraper nod to the Empire State Building. It symbolizes NYC, and it is amazing to see it through trees and buildings from over 20-30 miles away.

twistytie · #46 12-31-2003, 02:13 AM

I don't know if you'd really call it a skyscraper, but the Wachovia Building in Winston-Salem is the butt of many jokes in the area. It kind of looks like a...giant one-eyed snake (do you catch my drift?). Apparently the architect created it to be a blooming flower, in honor of his mother. It's cool from an architectural aspect...

Sorry about the pic, it's sucky. I couldn't find any other good ones. Oh well, you'll all just have to imagine the rest of the dick shape.

[URL=http://www.richmangalleries.com/images/WachoviaCenter.jpg]Giant Wee-Wee[/URL]