SHANGHAI | Shanghai Tower / 上海中心大厦 | 2,073 FT / 632 M | 128 FLOORS

[Biff]

Wow, that building is going to be massive. It is amazing how large the core is and when you see the plans you really get an idea of the circumference of this structure.

Very impressive.

[NYguy]

http://shanghai.urbanatomy.com/index...master-builder

The Master Builder



09 December 2010
Written by JFK Miller

When completed in 2014, Shanghai Tower in Pudong will be China’s tallest building and the second-tallest building in the world after the Burj Dubai. The super-building will dwarf its two neighbors – the Jinmao Tower and SWFC – as it will the Taipei 101, currently the tallest structure in the Far East.

The building will define Shanghai just as the Empire State Building did for New York in its time. The finished tower will complete a government master plan that goes back 20 years to have a set of three super-buildings in the city’s finance and trade zone. It is unlikely that we will see taller than this in Shanghai in our lifetime, at least not in Lujiazui.

The man who designed it, Marshall Strabala, is a rare breed of architect. The 49-year-old American occupies a modern pantheon comprising the likes of Renzo Piano and Lord Norman Foster – architects whose iconic buildings are redefining the world’s cityscapes of the 21st century. If you narrow the field to those architects who have designed super high-rises – over 70 stories or more – then you’re talking about only a handful of people. Between them, Strabala, his former SOM colleague and mentor Adrian Smith and Argentine-American César Pelli have designed the top 10 tallest buildings in the world which have either been constructed or are presently under construction.

Strabala himself has worked on three of them: Shanghai Tower, the Burj Dubai – which at 828 meters is the tallest man-made structure ever built – and the Greenland Square Zifeng Tower in Nanjing, the world’s seventh-tallest building, completed in May this year. On the Burj and Zifeng Tower, Strabala was studio head working under the supervision of Smith, who is credited as the designer of both projects.

“Super high-rise buildings are so special that there are really only a few people who have done them,” says Strabala. “Every architect in the world thinks they can do super tall buildings. The idea of them is easy to come up with. The execution is what separates the men from the boys. I remember Stan Korista at SOM [where Strabala worked for 19 years] saying, ‘You can’t do one of these buildings until you’ve already done one of them because they are so different, so challenging.’ Most architects know everything about a five- or a 10-story building. A 40-story building is marginally different. But once you start getting above 70 stories everything starts to change radically. It is sort of like a doctor who does brain surgery and a doctor who does heart surgery. They’re both doctors, but you really don’t want the heart surgeon working on someone’s brain. You want someone who’s been in there a dozen times working on that grey matter. Even though the heart surgeon understands everything about surgery he’s just not done surgery of the cranium. Architecture is the same sort of thing.”

Strabala was brought into the project in 2006 by Gensler, who appointed him Director of Design after poaching him from SOM before the Shanghai Tower bidding process began. The bid was one of the most coveted in world architecture – all of the 10 or so major international firms were invited to compete as were the top local firms, with the final selection coming down to a choice between SOM, Foster and Gensler, a firm with an excellent reputation for interior design, but not well known for its architecture.

Gensler capitalized on Strabala’s portfolio with the Burj Dubai and the Nanjing Zifeng Tower, for which he had just completed the construction documents, to win the bid and lead the project. Tongji University was selected as Gensler’s local partner and architect of record. As the third and most significant building of the Lujiazui troika, Shanghai Tower would have to complement the two existing buildings.

“We always called it ‘the three brothers’; it was always a composition of three, and we never showed the expert judging panel our building alone, we always showed it in the group. You had the building of the past, the building of the present, the building of the future. The Jin Mao is China of the past, the famous steel pagoda, it references history. The SWFC is the building of the present, that is, the China that accepts foreign investment. Shanghai Tower is a building of the future, a very dynamic form.”

That dynamic form comprises two key components: a glass ‘double skin’ and a vertical twist of 120 degrees.

Rest here...
http://shanghai.urbanatomy.com/index...master-builder

[polishavenger]

Its amazing how inefficient a building like this is with regards to usable floor space vs structural/mechanical space. It looks like almost 50% usable office space to 50% non revenue generating space. The rents in a place like that must be huge, or the construction costs extremely cheap/subsidized. Anybody know what rents go for in this building?

[Onn]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Its amazing how inefficient a building like this is with regards to usable floor space vs structural/mechanical space. It looks like almost 50% usable office space to 50% non revenue generating space. The rents in a place like that must be huge, or the construction costs extremely cheap/subsidized. Anybody know what rents go for in this building?

I doubt the builders have any attention of making money on it, especially if it's being funded by the government. It's jobs and a piece to the skyline, not a piece of real estate. Hardly could China's economy be considered free market, the balance sheets in a project like this have little importance.

"The building will define Shanghai just as the Empire State Building did for New York in its time."

I'm skeptical if anyone will remember it exists in 20 years.

[giallo]

^Well, before even being skeptical, let the building at least be built. I'm mean, how could you possible be skeptical about the impact this building will have within Shanghai when it's barely above ground?
Reading your posts, it seems like you've made your mind up about this building and Shanghai in general. With that bias, I'm skeptical even if this building turns out to be outstanding that you'll give it fair due.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by giallo

^Well, before even being skeptical, let the building at least be built. I'm mean, how could you possible be skeptical about the impact this building will have within Shanghai when it's barely above ground?
Reading your posts, it seems like you've made your mind up about this building and Shanghai in general. With that bias, I'm skeptical even if this building turns out to be outstanding that you'll give it fair due.

Well honestly, you can't possibly claim it's going to be the Empire State Building of Shanghai either...can you? If the writer of the article can make some stupid statement I should be able to say the opposite. Although I do have good reason to believe...to a point. I really don't think it’s going to be the Empire State Building of China. A very tall 2000ft+ twisting building in the heart of Shanghai, yeah, probably.

[hunser]

the jin mao tower is shanghai's esb, at least for me.

cool render by iamnofire2/moyan808:

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by hunser

the jin mao tower is shanghai's esb, at least for me.

I think this is a beautiful tower, but the Jin Mao will always be my favorite of the three.

“We always called it ‘the three brothers’; it was always a composition of three, and we never showed the expert judging panel our building alone, we always showed it in the group.

[Troubadour]

Originally Posted by hunser

the jin mao tower is shanghai's esb, at least for me.

Good call. I'm more of a WFC person myself - it has simple, confident grandeur of the type our old WTC towers displayed - but Jin Mao is definitely more attuned to the soul of China in all its complexity. Shanghai Tower is too amorphous, too abstract to become iconic - its size is remarkable, but nothing else about it elicits any kind of particular thought or feeling. My prediction is that it will seem boring once it's finished and the engineering going into it is no longer on display.

[meh_cd]

I will jump in with those saying that Jin Mao is Shanghai's Empire State Building. It's a classic, and it is the little details that make the building.

I liked SWFC until it was finished. I was left with a sense of "that is it?" Likewise with ICC in Hong Kong. I ended up liking the IFC better overall.

I would agree with someone if they said that the SWFC was like the WTC and Shanghai Tower more like the Burj Dubai.

[kiwi4life]

gotta be one of the best towers after this thing is done

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Onn

I doubt the builders have any attention of making money on it, especially if it's being funded by the government. It's jobs and a piece to the skyline, not a piece of real estate. Hardly could China's economy be considered free market, the balance sheets in a project like this have little importance.



I'm skeptical if anyone will remember it exists in 20 years.

I don't think it's quite the Empire State Building just because China is producing SO MANY gigantic towers, and the ESB was world's tallest for almost half a century.

Still, the only way people forget this building exists is if supertalls become commonplace and if this building is dwarfed by some future nearby projects. That is feasible, but it would mean it's also happening to all the other supertalls we are commenting on anywhere on these forums so it's kind of a moot point if you're making the comment specific to this one. There are lots of manmade structures with very little floor space that get plenty of attention. You don't have to actually live or work in a building to be aware of it and consider it notable - how many people have been inside the Washington Memorial, the Saint Louis Arch or the Statue of Liberty? Those projects are more reminiscent of the goals China seems to have in its supertalls even if China's do have some living space inside them.

On that note, how many people actually worked in the World Trade Center (which by the way was also built by government), or have worked in the Empire State Building, the Transamerica Pyramid or the Sears Tower versus the number of people who know about them because they are tall and architecturally significant?

Actually, I think it's the purely utilitarian buildings purely driven by profit and use that end up being forgotten about as run-of-the-mill office buildings, which is not a bad thing because their purpose was never to be landmarks. Maximum efficiency has never been the main purpose of skyscrapers; mid-rises and low-rises are far more economical when it comes to density and materials, and the densest neighborhoods in the world are full of 10-15 story buildings. Skyscrapers are built for novelty and they are profitable because of their flamboyance and advertising value; actual use comes second.

[muppet]

^good post. The rising cost of building tall often outweighs the maximising after a certain level. The densest or most efficient cities tend to be midrise areas for living, and working.

Skyscrapers have always been about an element of prestige or oneupmanship.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Onn

Hardly could China's economy be considered free market, the balance sheets in a project like this have little importance.

I'm sorry to go a little off topic here but the truth is that China's market is considerably more "free" than any Western market I'm aware of .
That may well be due to an almost total lack of enforcement of regulations or an equally minimal level of government interference ... I don't know. I can tell you though that any business owner in China doesn't worry about being taxed to death on whatever the government can think up next . Nor is there market regulation the same way we think of it in the West . You can start any business you want to here and sell virtually anything that tickles your fancy . There are a few things that you can't openly sell (like porn for example) but you don't have to go far in search of them in the black market anyway .

For good or for bad , China has a very free market . Perhaps it's too free and that's a problem .

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Spocket

For good or for bad , China has a very free market . Perhaps it's too free and that's a problem .

Well no its not because the government has an extremely high level of involvement in the economy, such as central planning, the one child policy, and a high degree of mercantilistic practices (state-run companies). I think what you are referring to is corruption or a lack of rule of law.

[Metranite]

You know what, China?! You can go ahead and have all these groundbreaking new towers of enormous height! We'll just continue to build our publicly assisted Freedom Tower and dream about the past.

[DigitalNinja]

Onn obviously believes he know everything about China and how it's society works.

In a free market economy there is a direct replacement for every item. So if there is an Iphone there will be a Tphone that does the same thing and the items will compete. This cannot happen in western countries due to copyright laws, and how limiting they are for others.

Just as an example in China real iphones are very expensive about twice the equivalent cost as in western countries. (About $1000 american there) Because demand is so high in China they can sell them for this price and still get many sales out of it. But many cannot afford it, ipods are much cheaper, so a Chinese guy invented a case for an ipod touch that adds a phone compatibility to it. A direct competitor to the iphone which would never be approved for sale in western countries.

You also comment on the one child policy, there are ways around that, anyone who has enough money can have a second or third child. The law prevents anyone who does not have the income to support a second child of having one legally. I agree with this, better to have a good life for 1 child than a crappy life for two.

Also better to have the government have some control over the economy, in that they set the price for many needs of people so that many can afford them.

Also lots of countries have state run organizations for example here in Canada I would say we are almost more socialist than China, with our postal system a government company, some power companies are, water, trains, and many many others.

Also this topic is for the building in China Onn, not if you think it will be built or not, or how usable it is. People should be commenting here on the overall design of the skyscraper.

On that note, I think that all three of these buildings will together create an area that will become unique in it's own way. With the Jin Mao representing the past, SWFC representing the present, and the Shanghai Tower representing the future it forms a since of time with sky scrapers. Something that you can look at all three together and you are not just looking at an old building or an old building next to a new one which totally destroys the old one but rather they all feed off of each other to create a tri-skyscraper design.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Onn

Well no its not because the government has an extremely high level of involvement in the economy, such as central planning, the one child policy, and a high degree of mercantilistic practices (state-run companies). I think what you are referring to is corruption or a lack of rule of law.

Ha ha ... okay , well I don't know if you've ever been here but if you want to run a side by side comparison of most Western populations versus the Chinese , you'll definitely find that there is a tremendous respect for rule of law . Enforcement is what I said and yes , corruption IS a big problem here . That has more to do with Chinese culture though because it's considered perfectly fine to gift jobs away to relatives and friends rather than the meritocracy the West has been abandoning for decades .

In any case , the Chinese simply aren't as high-strung about these things and at some point in the future it will be a problem for them . They'll discover why copyright infringement is a definite no-no and why it's worth clamping down on . In the meantime , as I said before , whatever the rules are supposed to be , in practice a market doesn't get much more free than this .

[phoenixboi08]

Thought this was interesting...

[pablosan]

Jin Mao will define the skyline most because it brings the traditional with the modern in Chinese architechture.