I didnt know that the Petronas towers were overtaken by the Taipei 101 ...

[attachmentid=120858]

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?1241105

The Sears Tower is the tallest out of all of them as the antennas on top reach 530m. Pretty cool diagram though. I wonder how big Canada Tower in London is compared to those other buildings...

kwl

Seattle Bank of America Tower is number 40

The tower at Canary Wharf (One Canada Square) has 50 floors and is 800 feet (244 metres) high.

It is the tallest building in Britain.

that's not a building though, just a section of a building raised up.

also, it seems to count the radio towers for buildings in china, but not others, take a close look at the chart.

i thought to myself wheres the CN Tower but then i read building and not free standing structure. CN Tower stands at 553m/ 1815' btw

I wanna go back to my hometown and see the IFC.

dL

i had the same thought... even back in high school. i was like.. wheres the CN Tower... but it's not a "building" in office terms.. just a structure.

In my opinion, IFC is not that spectacular to be honest.

Sure it's very tall and all that, but Bank Of China or HSBC building has much better decoration and has more futuristic designs.

Sometimes I wish Bank Of China was as tall as IFC... it would rock!

I know, but just because it's in Hong Kong That's all. Haha.

dL

That's a nice picture, I'll save it. Just in case I have to amaze my friends with my knowledge.

Another picture, same source..

Top 6 Under Contruction Buildings/Towers

[attachmentid=120865]

hmmm nice... do u have a pic of just free standing structures that are already built?...

where would the WTC be in comparison to these?

Hehe..Sears Tower still owns them all.

Dubai baby! That's where it's at.

Where is the Freedom Tower ?...

fascinating. interesting to note that only 2 are from the states, and if u cound taiwan as a part of china, 6 of them are in china. doesnt matter where they are, they are all incredible works of engineeering.

The Freedom Tower project looks amazing, the way it's shaped, that's great architecture.

cn tower still hightest man make point on earth

when i was going back to malaysia, i noticed they promote petronas as the tallest twin towers of the world. lol, they still want a 'st

I am not really impressed with the new tower being built in New York. Only 70 stories. The new building being built in Dubai is something that will be breath taking. I can not even imagine something that tall right now. Being on the deck from there is going to be amazing.

looks good in the pictures...but when you are near it its not that impressive

The reason Petronas was and is still such a big deal is because its an icon of what Malaysia did. Their people and their leadership created a beautiful country in very short time--remember, Malaysia is not as rich as the United States-but resources and hardwork was so well utilized, it really IS a big deal.

and LMFAO, we're calling it the Freedom Tower? God, no wonder the world hates us--thats just plain arrogant.

I was wondering where the Freedom tower would be.....wasnt london meant to be building a massive building to compete with the other world structures?

They (SSP.com) might have not yet finished working on the render of the the Freedom Tower.

Also I found this highlighted part suspect:
[attachmentid=120999]

Because CN Tower is 1815 feet, still 39 feet taller. Burj Dubai is going to own them all though.

not strictly a skyscraper as such, but going on 33% taller than the tallest building currently being built / planned (although the final height of the burj is not known, estimates between 120-160 floors) is the solar flue, or sun chimney in rural australia, which has been estimated at 1km tall, and it has a better use than enslaving poor finance workers inside elevators for most of the day.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/ed...12001BA833?open

http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/th...lar_chimney.htm

"wasnt london meant to be building a massive building to compete with the other world structures?"

i doubt it, it seems we can't build anything for ourselves any more, although alot of our engineers and architects work on the largest constructions in the world, including skyscrapers. there was enough trouble filling the canary warf buildings for a while after they opened, and if anything it made us realise people want smarter buildings rather than taller buildings. If you look at the likes of the proposed London Bridge Tower or 30 st Mary's Axe you'll see buildings that are as much of a challenge to build as the taller buildings purely to attain a more pleasing building, and one that suits the 'olde worlde' feel of the city. There've been a couple of semi psycho-phallic designs that've been cancelled probably because of their lack of feasibility as much as bad design, especially green bird but other than that the skyline will be pretty much unchanged and flat for the time being.

having recently been to china and seen the mass tracks of construction going on there i can't help but think the lack of a similar scale of development in london has to be a good thing.

the burj dubai is simply astonishing. imo some of em are real fugly

Perhaps you missed the "over 2000 ft" comment in the top right?

I read about that but that is so boooring. I mean
1. You cant probably get near the top.
2. Even if you did the view would be useless as it'd be plain with no real population close enough.
3. No jaw dropping architecture.

I'd fly to Dubai just to get on Burj Dubai. (when its ready)


Perhaps you should read the entire article at Wiki. There is no mention that the antenna would be over 2000ft. Also when completed (2009), Freedom Tower will not be the tallest by any means:

Burj Dubai (2008) - 2300 ft

i dont understand the first picture. from the look of it the sears tower is taller then the one in malaysia. Why do they measure the two points in malaysia and not the antennas on the sears tower.

Dont be silly, that image is their image and it clearly states in the upper right that "New antenna will broadcast television and radio signals from over 2000 ft". Since you are arguing based on the claims and facts illustrated in that picture, if it is factually accurate then its claim is therefore correct.

Furthermore you werent comparing it to Dubai, you were comparing it to Taipei 101. Wiki also states 2008 for its completion date not just 2009.

Who's trying to be silly ?

1. You are asking me to believe one hack job of a picture with no facts, proofs to back it up.
2. Its Wikipedia, an enthusiast encyclopedia. Students are getting owned silly for referencing to it.


1. I wasnt comparing it to Taipei 101, I was comparing it to the CN Tower.
2. When they are not sure, why should my personal bias make it complete a year earlier ?

[attachmentid=121018]

well. dont ask me to read the entire WIKI article to find out where they said over 2000 then. and did I not state that "if it is factually correct then its claim is therefor correct?"



1. which is still not the Dubai tower and 2000 > 1815
2. why should your personal bias make it a year later?

1. there's talk of observation platforms on the top
3. you're saying a structure that size; 1km isn't jaw dropping? it spanks all other structures with pants down, and that's not to mention the unfeasibly large greenhouse that'll be built around the bottom.

it's all a matter of perspective. I don't see office buildings as being as interesting or as visionary as the people that build and finance them say they are, or as worthwhile as a purpose built, zero emmission power station that can provide enough power for 200,000 homes (24 hours a day) "and will abate over 900,000 tonnes of greenhouse producing gases from entering the environment annually"

perhaps if the likes of america and china were so ecologically astute we wouldn't be so ******.

I think they don't count the antennae on the Sears tower because they weren't part of the original structure.

Thats what I'm saying .. it wont be the tallest because Wiki claims it in one picture and then doesnt back it up.


Frankly, the circular chimney-like tower architecture it isnt jaw dropping even if its huge. Look how Malaysia advertises the Petronas Towers, Canada the CN Tower etc., because of their unique architectures. How would Australia advertise this ?

Like this:
[attachmentid=121022]

Sorry, I'm not good at paint. Point I'm trying to make is that while it is a good project that I'd like to watch on Discovery but nothing as interesting that I'd want to visit.



Agreed 100% on that.