Revolving Skyscraper

BarcelonAl · Post by **BarcelonAl** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:38 pm

So what do you architecture types make of this then? Revolving Skyscraper in Dubai.

Is is a colossal waste of energy that could be put to better use elsewhere, or a pretty cool innovation and unique selling point?

I'm torn at the moment...

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:19 pm

On the plus side, the rotaion is going to be solar-powered. It's freakin' crazy, but I do kind of admire their ambitions. Looks relatively normal otherwise.

Post by **Mike** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:58 am

Saweet. I suppose that the variety of view would be fantastic. I sort of imagine that it would spend most of its time static though.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:34 pm

wouldn't everyone get dizzy otherwise?

Post by **Mike** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:07 pm

I don't think it would go round like a merry-go-round sort of speed. It would be so slow that a 360 rotation would probably take about 1 day. That way the movement would be undetectable to the eye / ear.

I was more thinking that it would be static because of mechanical failure. Seems like a silly project in one way for 1g planets. Would be great on Mars. ,. . .

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:47 pm

Apparently it's going to rotate at 5mm per second. Then the article also states that it will take a week to fully rotate. The maths don't add up, because I get a radius of about 450m from that. Or I possibly suck at maths?

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:33 am

By that logic of mathematics, a person would lose 150m of view every week.

It is a good idea and I'm all for innovative inventions but I honestly can't see the point of it.

Post by **johnriley1uk** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:07 am

My feeling has always been that nothing should be built that has ongoing costs to maintain above and beyond basic building maintenance. So revolving skyscapers would definitely be out. In 20 years time when the mechanism needs replacing the cost will be astronomical - many times what they will be budgeting for it now. And they won't be able to afford it...

I thought the same when the underground bus station was built at Manchester's Arndale centre. It needed air conditioning to remove the fumes, maintenance cost ?10,000 per annum. I wonder what it costs now? I would have built in in the open air, and those costs would have been zero.

Also, on roads I would put roundabouts wherever possible rather than traffic lights. Roundabouts don't malfunction and continue working in power cuts.

What a revolutionary planner I would be...

Post by **Mike** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:10 am

The Arndale was spectacularly special because they built the main entrance too small for a bus to drive under. This meant they could not manage to drive any buses into the station! Very funny and took a few years to correct. :D

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:13 pm

Roundabouts annoy me, especially the Greyhound and Sainsburys ones in Leigh (*thinks for a moment about nuking them).

I honestly do think they cause more accidents than Traffic lights but then again, Traffic lights can be stressful (but so can roundabouts). I would personally do away with mini roundabouts or a ''circular spillage of paint'' as my gran thought they were for many years. It took us quite some time to get through to her that they weren't.

John Knight · Post by **John Knight** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:22 pm

Mini roundabouts work perfectly well. Its just the fucking idiots who don't understand that we give way to the right in this country. If you struggle with mini roundabouts can i suggest you sell your car or learn to drive but don't pull out in front of me when its my right of way because I won't stop and it will be your no claims paying for my whiplash!

John Knight · Post by **John Knight** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:32 pm

On the subject of roundabouts while i am still feeling ranty.

WTF is the point of putting traffic lights on roudabouts?

Roundabouts have a natural flow that is broadly speaking defined by the weight of traffic approaching them. They are poetry to watch in a sad geek kinda way remind me of fluid modeling. Putting traffic lights on them interrupts their natural rhythm.

I know many cases where the traffic has got much worse following the introduction of lights.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:34 pm

John Knight wrote:Roundabouts have a natural flow that is broadly speaking defined by the weight of traffic approaching them. They are poetry to watch in a sad geek kinda way remind me of fluid modeling.

That's not geeky at all, that's just architecture

John Knight wrote:Putting traffic lights on them interrupts their natural rhythm.

I agree with you on this one, roundabouts with traffic lights intensely annoy me unless it is at the end/start of a busy motorway junctions where I can just about see the point of them. Just. Not much. But just.

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:20 pm

In fairness, I've only ever really seen lights on roundabouts used to avoid traffic backing up onto motorways or other main roads.

I'd forgotten mechanical engineering involved fluid dynamics...some people get to have all the fun. Watching lava lamps is about as far as I get into that stuff.

Post by **Mike** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:44 pm

It is really weird but roundabouts should not work logically. Imagine if you had a roundabout with four exits and a car arrived at each point at exactly the same time, with everyone giving way to the right no one would be able to move. It does not work like that in reality but that is the theory!