HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    Kingdom Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Jeddah Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 1:11 AM
Gjm137 Gjm137 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29
JEDDAH | Kingdom Tower | 3,303 FT / 1007 M

Remember, this is not a vision, this is a proposal!



«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.




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!!

Last edited by Gjm137; Jul 21, 2007 at 1:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 2:42 AM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,596
Please.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 2:50 AM
Pandemonious's Avatar
Pandemonious Pandemonious is offline
Chaos Machine
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,289
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.
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m2346

Last edited by Pandemonious; Jul 21, 2007 at 3:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 3:01 AM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Hazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,245
Doesn't Saudi Arabia have a weird floor limit? Because Kingdom Centre is about 1,000 feet tall and it only has 41 stories.
__________________
Strobe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 3:05 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,119
Its their money....

^^^- I think the height limit is only Riyadh.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 5:34 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,827
yea...my ass.
__________________
"Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most." from The Death And Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 8:20 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 629
If they are really serious about it, they gotta redo the design...
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 6:31 PM
BigDan35's Avatar
BigDan35 BigDan35 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 669
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.
__________________
"I'd like to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather....not screaming in terror like the passengers on his bus."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 6:50 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is online now
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,566
^I'm not sure why you seem upset by that?
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 6:57 PM
Capsule F Capsule F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 16th and green
Posts: 1,681
I think they have the will, money, and capability to build something like this. I hope they do, it will shut Dubai up forever.
__________________
New York is the greatest city in the world, but Philadelphia is the greatest city in America. - Collin Colsher
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 7:57 PM
Untitled's Avatar
Untitled Untitled is offline
Back in the Windy City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 232
Someone, somewhere, someday, is going to build a mile-high tower. But this ain't it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 8:25 PM
malec's Avatar
malec malec is offline
Rrrraaaahhhhh!!!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,069
[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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 10:37 PM
Pru Pru is offline
Contemplator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDan35 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 4:52 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 37,203
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.
__________________
I like the Raleighs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 5:35 PM
Pandemonious's Avatar
Pandemonious Pandemonious is offline
Chaos Machine
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,289
[QUOTE=malec;2964765]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandemonious View Post
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..
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m2346

Last edited by Pandemonious; Jul 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 7:53 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
oops.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,084
ØØ

Last edited by Tom Servo; Oct 31, 2007 at 1:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 8:05 PM
AltinD's Avatar
AltinD AltinD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DUBAI
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
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 ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 8:12 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,596
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 12:10 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post
i'm so sick of these stupid proposals!!
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 View Post
Unless you think that only a box is a representatiton of Architecture ...
Better a box than what SOME cities are passing for architecture these days.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 12:23 AM
Thskyscraper's Avatar
Thskyscraper Thskyscraper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 655
That almost looks EVIL!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:02 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.