# Battle for the world`s tallest skyscraper



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

yeah right ... if all the nasa dreams/plans would be realistic, we would have had a permanent base on the moon back in 1991 ... Look how hard it is to keep that spacecenter running, i think we'll sooner see that thing drop in orbit than we'll ever see anything human bigger than a house in space again


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

AcesHigh said:


> the tallest structures will be the SPACE ELEVATORS, about 30 THOUSAND kilometers tall... their top will be attached to a meteor probably, in geosynchronious orbit.


Uh no! Do you even know how long that would take to construct? Oh, only about 50 years! Also, were you too stupid to realise that there are bits of space junk that fly past earth at around 30, 000 kilometres per hour? Your "space elevators" would not even last an hour in space. And anyway, if you were to attach it to a meteor, it would be invulporised by the sheer speed of the meteor itself.

The tallest structure in the world will be the Enviromission Solar Tower, which will be built in AUSTRALIA!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Dubai will sure have the world's tallest if they can successfully build The Burj.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The military owns the airspace above a certain height, so there is technically a limit to how tall skyscrapers can be.


----------



## Skyman (Jan 4, 2006)

At constant growth of density of the modern megacities the height in mile is actual


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Indica said:


> I was reading in the Dubai form that there is a rumor that Nakheel is planning a mile high building. They took it serious, and hired several structural engineers from around the planet to see if its even possible.. every one of the structural engineers claimed that its completely possible to go that high.. theoretically, they can build that high right now even with some tweaking of the tech required to go up that high.. its just going to cost too much to build, and then maintain!


With that in mind, there is no place else better than Chicago!


----------



## urban_phx (Apr 13, 2006)

I think it would kind of be kool to build really tall skyscrapers next to really tall clifs then supports could be put in the side of the clif like start at the bottem on the grand canyon and some of them are like a mile high


----------



## germantower (May 23, 2006)

i am an architect.There is no physical limit for skyscrapers.But only economical limits.


----------



## Modernization (Apr 3, 2006)

germantower said:


> i am an architect.There is no physical limit for skyscrapers.But only economical limits.


economical limits such as....?


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

^^ money


----------



## germantower (May 23, 2006)

only money sets a limit for skyscrapers.And i dont think that the burj Dubai will ever work efficient.


----------



## germantower (May 23, 2006)

Modernization said:


> economical limits such as....?


a scraper is just profitable to a height of 500m.Everything what is built higher ,costs more than you can earn with it.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (Oct 9, 2004)

Actually a 500m building is not economically viable. I heard somewhere that a building becomes not eco viable around 300m.


----------



## WhiteMagick (May 28, 2006)

germantower said:


> a scraper is just profitable to a height of 500m.Everything what is built higher ,costs more than you can earn with it.


That's what I was thinking when they started announcing all this megatowers liek the Burj and FS. They must have found a way to make the money needed to support this megatowers or else they are doomed projects so why would they build them? Something's fishy


----------



## joosh8888 (Apr 1, 2006)

wot about that 4km high one they wanted to buid in tokyo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X-seed_4000.jpg

this is bigger than mount fuji!!!!!


----------



## vipermkk (Feb 12, 2006)

battle of skycrapers currently belongs to third world countries.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

^^ Yeah, like Detroit, New Jersey, Bronx and favella style LA neighbourhoods are exactly what a "first world" country is all about.


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

joosh8888 said:


> wot about that 4km high one they wanted to buid in tokyo
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X-seed_4000.jpg
> 
> this is bigger than mount fuji!!!!!


ummmm... thats a VISION not a proposed tower.. its unlikely to be built in this century but probably the future.


----------



## bmorescottamanda (Apr 25, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> i think 1500m will be the roof , the maximum after it will not human.....


That's a good height I think.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

CrazyCanuck said:


> Actually a 500m building is not economically viable. I heard somewhere that a building becomes not eco viable around 300m.


It depends on loads of things. If I were to build a 700m tower with 1000 apartments each going for 5 million then it would be no problem.


----------

