Saudi Arabia to get world's tallest (Kingdom Tower)

datadyne007

datadyne007

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,894
Reaction score
271
News broke on all the outlets today. Architizer made the best post about it.

"Because what the world needs now is another glass-clad tower in the desert, right?"

Kingdom-Tower-From-the-Water-565x800.jpg


Architizer said:
We wrote back in April of a rumored mile-high skyscraper, one “Kingdom Tower,” being planned by Saudi Arabian developers in Jeddah. At the time, the firm involved, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, emailed us a strong denial of the existence of such a project, saying, “AS+GG is NOT involved in the design of a ‘mile-high’ building.”

What they are involved in is the design of a 3,280-foot building, according to a press release sent out this morning. That’s about 2,000 feet short of a mile, but the tower will still be the tallest in the world when it’s completed. It’s also 630 feet taller than the Burj Khalifa. Because what the world needs now is another glass-clad tower in the desert, right? Let’s get to the facts! Here’s a handy list of our favorite tidbits regarding the Kingdom Tower:

* The project was announced today by King Abdullah’s son, Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, who wears cool shades and is also the world’s 5th richest man.
* There will be 59 elevators. Some of them will travel at 10 meters per second.
* At floor 157, there will be a 100 foot-wide circular “sky terrace” for the penthouse. You know, for the flying cars! Meanwhile, we’re renting out our homes to meth dealers for an extra buck.
Click to expand...

More images here: http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/26753/kingdomtower/?utm_source=facebook_towerlink_8211/
 
I'm already tired of oil countries swinging their dicks at each other trying to show off.

I never knew how horrible the base of the Burj Khalifa was until the other day. It's absolutely freakin' massive at the base, and to top it off, it's a tower in a park. I think we've already far exceeded the practical size of building....
 
Practicality: When buildings get this tall, elevator cables are too heavy (magnetic elevators may make this problem go away), the cost for the building is not practical.

Which would someone like me rather see (I usually look at this from an environmental point of view with saving as much land and taking up the least amount of space possible being the better environmental choice) would I rather see one tall building that eats up money to build? Or a city of 2-4 floor buildings. The 2-4 floor buildings would in the end provide more floor space rather than build one large tower. So practicality is not the reason for these towers, but instead to get the architect or firm's name out there as well as the cities and attract tourist to "the world's largest tower." It all comes down to money, nothing else.
 
What is the tallest actually useful building in the world today? (My guess is that it's still one of the two Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.)
 
Ron Newman said:
What is the tallest actually useful building in the world today? (My guess is that it's still one of the two Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.)
Click to expand...

Petronas lost their title a while ago...Burj Khalifa has the title for now.
 
Ron Newman said:
Ed: but I said useful building.
Click to expand...

You may not think its useful, so be it. But it's still the tallest in the world with no other building under construction or planned that comes within 300 to 400 feet or so of its height.
 
I think this is fantastic news. Monopolybag you put it perfectly from a city design standpoint, and I don't disagree with you. However, these buildings are exciting, and it is precisely this reason why they are contemplated, not because they are practical or necessary. New York and Chicago are what they are because of their buildings, and they put skyscrapers on the map over a hundred years ago not because they had to necessarily but because they could, and they did, and they remain a significant symbol of commercial might and progressive attitude. One cannot deny other countries a chance at trying to do the same thing merely because it makes no sense from any perspective other than that of the commercial boaster. These are technological and engineering feats of great proportions, and people have been building like this forever to draw attention and significance to their locales.

I didn't know Kingdom Tower was a secret, as I believe it has been chronicled in the CTBUH journal for at least several months if not a year. Previously it was referred to as Jeddah Tower. Perhaps it was just the details that were fuzzy until now. There is also another tower, Ed, that was at one time planned to exceed the Burj Khalifa known as the Al Burj (also in Dubai) but the developer (Nakheel) placed that project on hold because of the financial markets and economic realities that precluded a viable tenant mix. I'm sure that tower is not news to anyone, but I wanted to mention it just for the record because you said no other tower was "planned" that came close to Burj Dubai. This tower is, I believe, still planned if the economy ever allows it.

Ron - I'd say the tallest useful structure in the world is the Tokyo Sky Tree (a broadcast antenna with observation deck reaching over 2,000 feet tall). I assume your comment is based on an implication that the Burj Khalifa is mostly unoccupied at this time, which I suspect is the case. If you mean just skyscrapers, probably Tapei 101 exceeds Petronas. It definitely is taller, so the only question is which structure(s) is/are more "useful." I tend to think Tapei 101 is probably as useful (in the sense that it is occupied) as the Petronas Towers are, so that would be my answer to your question. One of the tenants for Tapei 101 is the 'Boston Consulting Group.' I think Shanghai Tower has a good chance of surpassing Tapei 101 as the tallest 'useful' building in the world when complete. It will be the second tallest in the world after Burj Khalifa, but is at the center of a much larger urban area and is therefore much more likely to be occupied than the BK is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top