Skyscraper of the dead! Is there any other bld with more freak use than this one?

Trantor · #1 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 1:39 AM**

Cemitério Memorial (Necrópole), in the city of Santos, Brazil (Memorial Cemetery / Necropolis)

The city of Santos is located at an island (kinda like NY, it views the ocean, but is separated from the continent by rivers) and is surrounded by mountains. The lack of space for cemeteries convinced entrepeneaurs that a VERTICAL cemetery would be an welcome solution. And they REALLY MEANT VERTICAL.

its just a render. Its u/c still and construction is slow moving... zombie walking pace of construction...

atl2phx · #2 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 1:59 AM**

LOL - this should be added to the 'most intimidating scraper' thread.

Rufus · #3 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 2:10 AM**

Did you hear about the new luxury condo tower going up? People are dying to get in!

the urban politician · #4 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 3:37 AM**

I'm guessing that nearby developers won't have to put up with a lot of NIMBYism from this place

Kevin_foster · #5 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus

Did you hear about the new luxury condo tower going up? People are dying to get in!

^ Hahah

Derek · #6 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 3:48 AM**

Joking aside, how tall is this building?

Tom In Chicago · #7 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 5:23 PM**

cool!

Steely Dan · #8 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 5:31 PM**

what a phenomenal waste of resources. millions of people in this world don't even have a proper structure they can call home, and yet now folks are building skyscrapers for the dead useless corpses of the well-off to rot in.

can anyone explain to me why cremation wouldn't be the more intelligent and moral route to go in this situation?

(and yes, before anyone brings it up, i loathe cemeteries as well for the exact same reasons).

Austinlee · #9 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 5:39 PM**

Take the one way elevator up to heaven....

Anyway, since this is SKYSCRAPER-PAGE.com, I would imagine a majority of people on this board would love to be placed in this building after death.

HomeInMyShoes · #10 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 6:05 PM**

I think we've found the setting for the next Ghostbusters movie.

Put me in the cremation pile and bury the ashes in the backyard or hike me up to Amber Ridge and let me off. There's probably laws against that, but it just seems like a better choice for future generations.

FrancoRey · #11 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 6:15 PM**

Wow. Creepy AND a waste of resources. How tall is it though? 350 feet?

Did anyone notice the city name too? Santos (saints)...more religious than not.

brickell · #12 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 9:36 PM**

I've always wondered why this hasn't happened before in big cities. Waste of resources or not, people still want a place to remember their loved ones. Wouldn't you rather do it in Manhattan instead of all the way in Queens?

Swede · #13 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

can anyone explain to me why cremation wouldn't be the more intelligent and moral route to go in this situation?

Because in most places that goes against tradition/religion. That can change relativly fast though; 100 years ago cremation was illegal here but now about 90% do the cremation thing.

Trantor · #14 Posted **Nov 7, 2007, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what a phenomenal waste of resources. millions of people in this world don't even have a proper structure they can call home, and yet now folks are building skyscrapers for the dead useless corpses of the well-off to rot in.

really pal... only poor people are buried in vertical cemiteries, where people get buried in those drawers.

"well-off" people get buried in big cemeteries with lots of green around. Kinda like american suburbs for the dead.

since dozens of thousands of people get buried in these vertical cemeteries, the construction price is paid quite fast.

Quote:

can anyone explain to me why cremation wouldn't be the more intelligent and moral route to go in this situation?

because cremation is NOT enviromentally friendly. When you bury someone, basically, the corpse becomes food for the lowest levels of the food chain and nutrients to the ground.

when you CREMATE someone, you spend lots of energy from gas/oil and SPEW CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere!

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickell

I've always wondered why this hasn't happened before in big cities. Waste of resources or not, people still want a place to remember their loved ones. Wouldn't you rather do it in Manhattan instead of all the way in Queens?

look how isolated this highrise is. Almost hidden by a hill.

NOONE in a highrise would like to look through their window and see a cemetery.

I guess it would certainly devaluate a lot the area where it was built.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

Wow. Creepy AND a waste of resources.

I disagree. Cremation is more of a waste of resources and it POLLUTES.

Quote:

Did anyone notice the city name too? Santos (saints)...more religious than not.

the city was founded 500 years ago, so I doubt there is any relation and all.

spyguy · #15 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 2:07 AM**

Weird. There was a similar proposal (well fantasy really) to convert Chicago's old post office into a huge mausoleum, if anyone remembers.

By the way, it would be terrible to have to work in a 30 story building full of grieving families and corpses everyday.

LivingIn622 · #16 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 3:49 AM**

This thread seems dead. How long can you talk about a building be put to indifferent usage.

JManc · #17 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what a phenomenal waste of resources. millions of people in this world don't even have a proper structure they can call home, and yet now folks are building skyscrapers for the dead useless corpses of the well-off to rot in.

can anyone explain to me why cremation wouldn't be the more intelligent and moral route to go in this situation?

(and yes, before anyone brings it up, i loathe cemeteries as well for the exact same reasons).

absolutely agree.

scalziand · #18 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 4:27 AM**

The building itself doesn't look too bad.

Dr. Taco · #19 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trantor

because cremation is NOT enviromentally friendly. When you bury someone, basically, the corpse becomes food for the lowest levels of the food chain and nutrients to the ground.

when you CREMATE someone, you spend lots of energy from gas/oil and SPEW CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere!

when you breathe, you spew carbon dioxide (oh no) into the air. "Pollution" is an embarrassingly bad argument against cremation. Making campfires is as "bad" as cremation according to you.

It takes Carbon and Oxygen for a human to grow from a fetus to full-grown. about as much as is released when the body is burned.

With all that said, I have nothing against this building. It is indeed a terribly creepy idea, but if its the wish of the dying, and the money is there, then there's no reason why not to. But man, talk about creepy...

peanut gallery · #20 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 8:56 AM**

Keep in mind too that when people are buried, they're not dumped into a hole in the ground to decompose as quickly as possible. They are pumped full of chemicals and sealed in a metal container to preserve them as long as possible. Not a lot of worms getting fat on corpses these days. So factor in all the effects of making the chemicals, dumping them in the ground, resources and process to build caskets, dumping those in the ground and the incredible waste of the land itself.