SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   JEDDAH | Kingdom Tower | 3,303 FT / 1007 M | ON HOLD (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=135116)

Gjm137 Jul 21, 2007 1:11 AM

JEDDAH | Kingdom Tower | 3,303 FT / 1007 M | ON HOLD
 
Remember, this is not a vision, this is a proposal!

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...an/Jeddah1.jpg

«Middle East» multi-millionaire Saudi Prince Al-Walid Bin Talal Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, chairman of Kingdom Holding company intended to establish real-estate projects in Saudi Arabia at a cost of 75 billion riyals (20 billion dollars) in each of the Saudi capital Riyadh and Jeddah, to announce full details of in the last quarter of this year.


and Prince Al-Waleed, that the two projects would be the first real estate project in Jeddah real estate and investments totaling about 50 billion riyals (13.3 billion dollars) located in the north of the city, and specifically North el sailing, as would multi-use, so the center will be longer commercial tower in the Middle East. in addition to the housing towers multiple designs, and buildings dedicated and fully equipped offices, and Cornish miles confer on the project more vital, pointing out that the project would alter the map of the city of Jeddah and landmarks to him while .

explained Prince Al-Waleed, and who was speaking on the sidelines of the prize honoring «public personality in the world of business» by BusinessWeek magazine shrimp and Kingdom Holding Company for the prize «most distinguished company», that the cost of other real estate project in Riyadh amounting to 25 billion riyals (6.6 billion dollars). The words of a huge project consists of a park, a hotel, in addition to more than 10 thousand residential units designed according to the latest designs and contemporary requirements.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...an/Jeddah2.jpg
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...an/Jeddah3.jpg

The Jeddah project will be a 1 600 meter high tower, the tallest in the world.
Exploring urban issues facing 21st century, The Mile High Tower offers a fresh perspective on an idea that has been debated by architects for a century"1 mile =1600 M . Exploding land values, growing populations and expanding economies are placing extraordinary burdens on many culturally rich, but land deprived Asian regions. In response to these pressures we have proposed a vertical city. In conceiving the tower as a vertical city, the design team has integrated technological, architectural and urban planning strategies into a single structure that breathes with urban complexity. The scale of the building and the scope of the program force the reevaluation of current skyscraper precedents for form, purpose, infrastructure, transportation, structure, and sustainability.

Architecture and engineering have traditionally treated structure as static—the building frame was constructed to be strong and heavy enough to resist all anticipated loads. The Mile High Tower proposes a lighter, dynamic structural system that actively responds to forces placed upon it. Controlled by wind detecting sensors, stabilizing aileron-like fins run the length of the tower frame and modulate their position to control resonant motion and building drift.

The separation of the structural frame and the building envelope enhances the quality of the interior space by providing an abundance of natural light and ventilation. Equipped with wind generators, photovoltaic panels, a heliostat, and sewage treatment facilities, the tower attains a high degree of sustainability with minimal environmental impact.

Approaching the tower as a theoretical project has proven liberating, freeing the design team to seek new solutions to technical problems, to find creative approaches outside the present financial climate, and to implement environmentally sustainable strategies that will enhance the next generation of ultra-high rise buildings. Our paradigm is the human body. This near-future tower incorporates structural and climatic systems that, like the human body, respond dynamically and efficiently to forces placed upon them.

Pickard Chilton company have done the skyscraper design, plus other specialized engineering firms for structural, infrastructure and traffic design, cost and time planning!!

Lecom Jul 21, 2007 2:42 AM

Please.

Pandemonious Jul 21, 2007 2:50 AM

Seems far more like a vision to me than a serious proposal. Isn't this part of Kind Abdullah Economic City? I don't recall the plan ever calling for a building even remotely as tall as this.

Also.. it says it will use a heliostat (I am assuming they intend to use it for lighting), which typically is barely capable of bringing light down more than about 15-20 floors at maximum in a tower 1,600 METERS tall.. a laughable concept at best. I'd also like to point out that tooling in photoshop for a few seconds.. the tower in that rendering has a height ratio of over FIFTEEN TO ONE... almost DOUBLE what is considered the UPPER END of what is economically feasible for a supertall building (Note: I didn't say it was impossible to build). This sounds more like they were doing some feasibility studies to me, which have many obvious non-feasible components...

The tower in that sketch reminds me of the proposal for Samsung Togok Tower, but morbidly tall

I am gonna go out on a limb and say this will not be built AND is not a serious proposal.

BrandonJXN Jul 21, 2007 3:01 AM

Doesn't Saudi Arabia have a weird floor limit? Because Kingdom Centre is about 1,000 feet tall and it only has 41 stories.

WonderlandPark Jul 21, 2007 3:05 AM

Its their money....

^^^- I think the height limit is only Riyadh.

NYC2ATX Jul 21, 2007 5:34 AM

yea...my ass.

PuyoPiyo Jul 21, 2007 8:20 AM

If they are really serious about it, they gotta redo the design...

BigDan35 Jul 21, 2007 6:31 PM

That is so stupid. A 5,000 foot tall tower? Seems like everyone is trying to build a taller tower than the next person.

By the year 2050 the norm will be skyscrapers proposed at a "miniscule" 3,000 feet tall. No one will even bat an eye.

SD_Phil Jul 21, 2007 6:50 PM

^I'm not sure why you seem upset by that?

Capsule F Jul 21, 2007 6:57 PM

I think they have the will, money, and capability to build something like this. I hope they do, it will shut Dubai up forever.

Untitled Jul 21, 2007 7:57 PM

Someone, somewhere, someday, is going to build a mile-high tower. But this ain't it.

malec Jul 21, 2007 8:25 PM

[QUOTE=Pandemonious;2963929]the tower in that rendering has a height ratio of over FIFTEEN TO ONE... almost DOUBLE what is considered the UPPER END of what is economically feasible for a supertall building (Note: I didn't say it was impossible to build).QUOTE]

Offtopic but could you explain to me something I've never been able to understand? How come there exists such a precise height to width ratio limit for supertall towers? Surely this limit only applies to office use or something where an insane amount of people are in the tower at one time and so the building needs a huge amount of elevators. What would be the limit then for an upper class res tower like the Chicago Spire which definitely doesn't need as many elevators?

I ask because people always talk about this limit when there are tons of supertall towers getting built with a ratio of 10:1 or even more. The Chicago Spire looks really thin, all those crazy tall res towers in Dubai as well, etc

Pru Jul 21, 2007 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDan35 (Post 2964646)
That is so stupid. A 5,000 foot tall tower? Seems like everyone is trying to build a taller tower than the next person.

By the year 2050 the norm will be skyscrapers proposed at a "miniscule" 3,000 feet tall. No one will even bat an eye.

But if and when that were to happen -- it wouldn't be a bad thing, right?

Because of course change the numbers and that statement fits for any of the past twelve decades....

Re The Jeddah proposal, It's possible that vertical cities will be desirable one day. Cuts down on travel times and we may be faced with environmental issues that make it pretty necessary one day.

KevinFromTexas Jul 22, 2007 4:52 AM

This comment isn't really aimed at this tower specifically, but I've become bored of super tall towers that have no design basically. All they are is a super tall rod. Where's the architecture in that? Where's the design? I realize of course that if a building is super tall, say 2000 feet or more, then why worry with much detail? I can certainly understand that for the building's facade, but still, give us something that has some shape to it and actually has presence on the skyline that distinguishes it from other towers so that people can say something about its design other than, "It's the pointy one."

And yes, I understand that only certain shapes work at certain heights, so it's not always an architectural reason for their blandness, but an engineering one, which in some cases can't be avoided. But I've seen a certain pattern develop with these types of projects. I hope they branch out a little more to make them more interesting. This is where I applaud Burj Dubai, since it's not merely a super tall broomstick.

Pandemonious Jul 22, 2007 5:35 PM

[QUOTE=malec;2964765]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandemonious (Post 2963929)
the tower in that rendering has a height ratio of over FIFTEEN TO ONE... almost DOUBLE what is considered the UPPER END of what is economically feasible for a supertall building (Note: I didn't say it was impossible to build).QUOTE]

Offtopic but could you explain to me something I've never been able to understand? How come there exists such a precise height to width ratio limit for supertall towers? Surely this limit only applies to office use or something where an insane amount of people are in the tower at one time and so the building needs a huge amount of elevators. What would be the limit then for an upper class res tower like the Chicago Spire which definitely doesn't need as many elevators?

I ask because people always talk about this limit when there are tons of supertall towers getting built with a ratio of 10:1 or even more. The Chicago Spire looks really thin, all those crazy tall res towers in Dubai as well, etc

Yes, there are towers that approach larger ratios than the roughly 8:1 (for concrete and/or composite structural systems) that is the higher end I speak of, however.. they are not yet built. CS will have over 9:1... but it is designed more like a mast-like tower (A-la 7SD, the top of the burj is more like just a huge mast like tower also, since the floorplate outside that is so small, but BD has an ENORMOUSLY wide base where the three petals flare out). This concept has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with floor loads, elevator space, or use of building. In fact, an enormously tall building due to height to width ratio, typically will have such a huge base that even a conventional elevatoring system is sometimes possible. This concept of height to width for a supertall buildings is more to do with the building resisting the overturning forces of the wind. It is a simple concept.. a building is so tall, it has so much wind blowing on it, and somehow all of that wind load must be redirected down into the foundation. If a building is too tall and too thin.. that becomes approachingly economically unfeasible given the amount of extra strcture that must go into it... also affecting other aspects of the useability of the structure in the process. It is not some "precise" number as you describe it but can very depending on many factors..

Tom Servo Jul 22, 2007 7:53 PM

ØØ:rainbow:

AltinD Jul 22, 2007 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 2965313)
This comment isn't really aimed at this tower specifically, but I've become bored of super tall towers that have no design basically. All they are is a super tall rod. Where's the architecture in that? Where's the design? I realize of course that if a building is super tall, say 2000 feet or more, then why worry with much detail? I can certainly understand that for the building's facade, but still, give us something that has some shape to it and actually has presence on the skyline that distinguishes it from other towers so that people can say something about its design other than, "It's the pointy one."

And yes, I understand that only certain shapes work at certain heights, so it's not always an architectural reason for their blandness, but an engineering one, which in some cases can't be avoided. But I've seen a certain pattern develop with these types of projects. I hope they branch out a little more to make them more interesting. This is where I applaud Burj Dubai, since it's not merely a super tall broomstick.

Unless you think that only a box is a representatiton of Architecture ...:rolleyes:

Lecom Jul 22, 2007 8:12 PM

Design-wise, I believe BD has the ultimate supertall design. Its cascading setbacks cascade and wrap around each other, getting thinner as they go higher until they reach some distant pinnacle way up in the sky. Its design just screams "world's tallest", and leaves you satisfied with this humanity's achievement. However, the flat tops of Al Burj and, to some extend, this guy, no matter how ridiculously tall above the ground and even above the top of BD they may be, design-wise just don't project "you just can't build taller than this".

Alliance Jul 23, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands (Post 2965862)
i'm so sick of these stupid proposals!! :hell:
a mile high?! sorry but i don't see buildings making it past 1k ANYTIME soon (50years)
and why is it that all these INSANELY tall buildings are in the middle east? they have all the space in the world, they have no need to build so retartedly tall. i mean, tokyo, yeah, but in the middle of the desert?

Dude...you're from Chicago...we have all the flat space WE need.

Its just rich boys and thier pissing contest toys, tyring to prove that their both urban and modern (none of which are really convincing messages).
Quote:

Originally Posted by AltinD (Post 2965871)
Unless you think that only a box is a representatiton of Architecture ...:rolleyes:

Better a box than what SOME cities are passing for architecture these days.

Thskyscraper Jul 23, 2007 12:23 AM

That almost looks EVIL!


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.