INCHEON | Incheon Tower | 2,001 FT / 610 M | 150 FLOORS | SITE PREP - Page 2

Fabb · #21 Posted **Apr 25, 2010, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrightguy0

very cool to see this get built. Now, is it just me or does it look like someone built the new One World Trade Center in the background of the last pic?

It's the North East Asia Trade Center.
Not exactly the new WTC but same idea. Here it's a triangular base that becomes a smaller triangular top.

OneWorldTradeCenter · #22 Posted **May 30, 2010, 10:27 AM**

Who the hell changed the status. It is still proposed. All sources, including CTBUH and Emporis report that.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #23 Posted **May 30, 2010, 1:53 PM**

never rlly did like the towers massing

vpauzuolis · #24 Posted **May 30, 2010, 3:42 PM**

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...480186&page=23

vpauzuolis · #25 Posted **May 30, 2010, 3:45 PM**

Changed it back to "Proposed".

Zerton · #26 Posted **Jun 1, 2010, 6:24 PM**

The reason for skyscrapers is a lack of space, which they don't have in that location. Placing towers like this is anti‐urban.

Spocket · #27 Posted **Jun 2, 2010, 12:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton

The reason for skyscrapers is a lack of space, which they don't have in that location. Placing towers like this is anti‐urban.

Huh ? That doesn't make sense . If the reason for building towers is a lack of space (correct) and they don't have any space at the proposed location , then how is that anti-urban ?
I'm pretty sure you meant that there was plenty of space at the chosen location but even then , no , you'd be wrong . In Asia the idea is always to give people a feeling of having space. The reason we like the idea of high-density in most of the world is because , among other thing , we are too low-density. South Korea is not a low-density country.

Zerton · #28 Posted **Jun 2, 2010, 1:53 PM**

No one is going to walk to this building; there is no pedestrian integration with the city. It is making the same mistake as America's satellite suburban office parks but just on a much larger scale.

I think the design itself is very nice but the site is a very unsustainable approach that I believe will end up being a problem for Asian countries using this model.

Below is one proper manner to do an 'tower in the park' idea. It is part of the urban fabric, not pointless grass fields crisscrossed by large highways and Las Colinas (see Dallas) style artificial ponds.

http://michaellee826.wordpress.com/

OneWorldTradeCenter · #29 Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 4:23 PM**

I read some newspaper articeles and contributions at Skyscrapercity, that this project appears to be dead, or even is close to be cancelled. Might be, that the height will be reduced to about 200m.

northbay · #30 Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 5:15 PM**

i agree with zerton. great architecture but bad site planning.

NYguy · #31 Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

I read some newspaper articeles and contributions at Skyscrapercity, that this project appears to be dead, or even is close to be cancelled. Might be, that the height will be reduced to about 200m.

That horror should never see the light of day.

Onn · #32 Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 9:14 PM**

The design looks better on paper, I think, than in practice. I'm not surprised it's canned though, all the supertall proposals in South Korea are or are headed that way. They would never need that much space combined among them in 100 years. I figrued this was going to happen quite some time ago.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...123_71376.html

OneWorldTradeCenter · #33 Posted **Oct 3, 2010, 1:03 PM**

After I talked with CTBUH's database manager I think I will change the status of that one to "stale-proposal" (and Hyundai Global Business Center) very soon.

scalziand · #34 Posted **Sep 3, 2011, 7:57 PM**

http://www.portmanusa.com/project.ph...A1%B9%E7%9B%AE