BERLIN | The Berg | 3,281 FT / 1,000 M | VISION - Page 2

R@ptor · #21 Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 11:38 AM**

Possible as in 'Is modern technology advanced enough to construct something like this?' - YES

Possible as in 'Would they find someone that would actually pay the 150 or 200 billion it would probably cost to build something like this?' - NO

LMich · #22 Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 11:52 AM**

What exactly would be the point of this? I'm not sure I understand.

vid · #23 Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 12:25 PM**

Better than a strip mall... I guess...

Alpha · #24 Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 4:33 PM**

I will not say it is impossible to built. I would realize it as hollow structure of reinforced concrete with elevators inside. But would it be well possible to stabilize the mud on the inclined parts until plants are grown? And can one rule out that mud slides will not occur? Of course one can use nets for stabilizing the mud, but would this give a nice appearance to the mountain?
And what about the durability of the structure? How great is the danger of corrosion damages that may be not detected?

Alpha · #25 Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 4:40 PM**

Nevertheless, the existing artificial Monte Kaolino is surely a bit unique as it is the only mountain you can go up by boat ( there is a cable car using vehicles looking like boats) and go down by ski in summer without freezing!

M.K. · #26 Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 7:37 PM**

Ok, if those are in 'skyscraper' category, then mine excavations are as 'negative skyscrapers' as well, like Gold mine Serra Pelada and the ones in Africa. If Skyscraper means altitude, then the water Jet of Jeddah before and the one still in database Jet D'eau (recently updated), the other in US are valid as well, like the monument Fresh Kills Landfill . I really do not understand people laughing from me before when they now are stepping in the same own tail. Should i laugh now? My turn? So the Abu Simbel artificial mountain is valid as well, Babel tower of earth, The Dune in Latvia are in database and are artificial mountains.... This discussion was once started from Tim, never a conclusion from owner the site. I really do not care about them in database, i was always flexible in that, but my point is: Why for some members can be included and others not? A general consense for everyone should be and maybe everyone respecting this consense of course.

mthq · #27 Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 8:12 AM**

btw The Berg would not be the first artificial hill or mountain inside the city of Berlin. After the second World War, the Allies built a hill rising 80 meters in the former West that was made up of the rubble from over 400,000 destroyed buildings from the Battle of Berlin.

Teufelsberg

MolsonExport · #28 Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 3:26 PM**

Perhaps it would be cheaper to just move Berlin to the Bavarian Alps.

Spocket · #29 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 8:18 AM**

^Better yet , why build new when they could just buy an old , run down mountain in the Alps and move it to Berlin ? I'm sure they could talk the salesman down to something reasonable.

Indescribable · #30 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 4:41 PM**

What!?

Nowhereman1280 · #31 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:48 PM**

I would LOL if they built this and it gave Berlin an epic LA sized case of thermal inversion, trapping all the smog in the city.

MolsonExport · #32 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:56 PM**

Instead, how about building a 1000 metre deep hole? With the tagline: Get down to Berlin?

Bootstrap Bill · #33 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:59 PM**

Would it be possible to design this "mountain" so that it had a useable interior? Perhaps it could be used for warehouse space, or maybe something like a power plant or hydroponic garden?

MolsonExport · #34 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 6:13 PM**

I know what to do, Berlin. Go and take that Ryugyong hotel from Pyongyang. Less than 1000 metres, but nevertheless a mountain (of concrete)

source: smokehound.com uploads.

Fill it with Kimchee (Korea's pickled cabbage...really not too different than Sauerkraut).

Bootstrap Bill · #35 Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 5:31 PM**

I just had a crazy idea. Build it as a theme park. The mountain could house something like Disney's Matterhorn or Expedition Everest rides, maybe a hotel or two,, some restaurants and shops and a ski lift to the top. Something like this could draw millions of tourists to Berlin.

mthq · #36 Posted **Nov 28, 2009, 8:49 AM**

^I'd run from Berlin if they did that.

photoLith · #37 Posted **Dec 6, 2009, 11:06 PM**

Absolutely retarded, who in their right mind would want to create a friggen mountain in the middle of a flat lying city? The geology of the region does not look like this at all, its like false advertising or something. And Im sure if it were built, it would not look natural whatsoever.

deja vu · #38 Posted **Dec 28, 2009, 5:59 PM**

Taken From the "Berg Manifesto"

12 November 2009

"While big and wealthy cities in many parts of the world challenge the limits of possibility by building gigantic hotels with fancy shapes, erecting sky-high office towers or constructing hovering philharmonic temples, Berlin sets up a decent mountain. Its peak exceeds 1000 metres and is covered with snow from September to March…Hamburg, as stiff as flat, turns green with envy, rich and once proud Munich starts to feel ashamed of its distant Alp-panorama and planners of the Middle-East, experienced in taking the spell off any kind of architectural utopia immediately design authentic copies of the iconic Berlin-Mountain."

source:http://www.archdaily.com/40755/the-b...ld/#more-40755

This proposal is extremely flawed and devoid of logic. I find it hard to believe that any other city would be envious of Berlin for having this artificial pile. According to the manifesto, other cities will be clamoring to construct their own imitations of that mountain, which is itself an imitation of nature. Has architecture really been reduced to creating imitations of imitations? The architecture of Disneyland is more honest than this proposal. Granted, the English translation of the manifesto doesn't help the project's cause a bit, but seriously, where are these herds and flocks of wild animals coming from that would populate this "decent mountain"? Or would they be artificially implanted into the area as well? This would be a waste of money, time, space, and resources. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

deja vu · #39 Posted **Dec 28, 2009, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I know what to do, Berlin. Go and take that Ryugyong hotel from Pyongyang. Less than 1000 metres, but nevertheless a mountain (of concrete)

Fill it with Kimchee (Korea's pickled cabbage...really not too different than Sauerkraut).

What they should really do is build that fake mountain in Pyongyang directly on top of that monstrosity of a building. Just bury the whole thing.

village person · #40 Posted **Dec 29, 2009, 7:27 AM**

I'm sure they could get West Virginia to send a mountain over. They apparently have plenty to spare. Maybe it could boost the whole economy of the Appalachians, becoming the powerhouse of artificial mountain relocation all over the world!