What is Digg?53 Comments
- Zique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15"The luminous (and very phallic) design proposed by Pelli Clarke Pelli"
Sheesh, nowadays everything that isn't a square-shaped glass cube gets called phallic. - asskicker32, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8this was in the chronicle yesterday here.
Or here if the a href doesnt work. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/07/MNTMRD67A1.DTL
And yes, San Francisco is better than your city. - Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9That's kind of an ugly color to choose...
- deskattire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Build it -- Build all of them. Anything we can do to make it so we are living in a sci-fi future world.
- clark24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Why are skyscrapers seen as not being green in the first place? It is better to have a single 100-story mixed use building than a hundred single story buildings spread out all over the place. To me, building vertically makes more sense and in the end could result in a much "greener" city. It's a much more realistic option to take public transportation, drive a smart car, ride a bike, or even walk to most places when things are much closer together.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4is it Earthquake Proof?
- RedNote, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Cities are gonna look so goddamn awesome in about 100 years.
- axiomflash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4green skyscraper isn't an oxymoron. skyscrapers may not seem very environmental, but creating very densely populated cities is the most environmental thing we can do as a population.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nuke it. The gov'ts of the earth must not let the robot menace complete New Eden...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3it'll be green until some ***** bum takes a dump on the sidewalk outside
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Pure hype, will be a net user of power, etc.....
- EridanMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It is a valid point... Especially in that neck of the woods, there is a certain 'round-peg, square-hole' sense going about all this.
That said, I'm sure it will "Meld" in with the rest of the city quite quickly... They said the same about the TA Tower and the BofA when they went in.
Personally, as long as they confine all this growth to SoMA, I'm perfectly happy with it... its one of those things that will be great to visit, great to have on the skyline, etc - I'm just glad I'll be looking at it and not trying to commute through it;) - Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And per capita, one of the lowest net users of power, and infrastructure, in the US.
Remember, it takes a lot of infrastructure to support "self-sufficient" housing out in the boonies. High density is much, much more efficient, even if you're doing your electricity generation elsewhere. - clark24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Also, a smaller footprint on the ground allows room for more parks, trees, etc.
- corevette, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2that last design looks like it'd fit better in china
- cl0n3x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Green Skyscraper an oxymoron? Nah; now Microsoft Works and the Genius Bar at Apple, those are oxymorons.
- EridanMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Making a building earthquake proof is relatively trivial, as long as you operate as that as a design constraint from day-one of the engineering.
Modern Skyscrapers are among the safest places to be in an earthquake regardless of the height, simply because you know that the engineers who designed the buildings spent a lot of time thinking about the possibility... unlike older buildings built in the 30s-70s... with them, its a crapshoot. - Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1RTFA.
- dudley14144, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1These pictures will be the last we see of this concept unless Arnie backs the floundering high speed rail system. He's left it out of the budget before and wants to do it again. Californians will be stuck using conventional transportation unless something changes. What a pity.
- willow0285, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I get it, AriaStar. I think all the building designs are lame and out of place with the current San Francisco skyline. Whichever option is ultimately chosen will be significantly taller than all the other buildings in SF, and will permanently alter the SF skyline. I'm not a fan of any of them.
- brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe the cost has something to do with it?
The Petronas Towers cost $1,600,000,000
yet are "only" 88 stories tall.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/petronas_towers.html
The cost had to come from somewhere, and I suspect that most of it came from the enormous quantity of materials needed. - AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The designs are pretty, but somehow, despite the attempts at making a green building, it seems out of place with the harmony of San Francisco, like it's trying to steal the attention rather than co-exist. Locals will know what I mean, everyone else will think I'm nuts.
- derwarnochfrei, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Will it blend?
SCNR :-) - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Cool... I'm phallic!
- cactus476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I prefer the color purple.
- brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't like the term "earthquake proof" nor the concept of it being trivial. Consider the elaborate costly pendulum technology used in modern skyscraper designs. These are not Trivial.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1to be honest i wouldnt mind a huge ass skyscraper in our skyline, although im more worried about the city getting muni to ***** work properly and extend it into chinatown/stockton to relieve a lot of the 30/9x/45 crowding which is BEYOND ridiculous. they also need to be using the money to add more underground trains, trying to get on a train at 530 any day of the week is ***** hell. also ***** the muni pigs.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This will never be built. This is the same city which has knocked down more roads than they've built in the last 20 years.
The city will never approve a building that dominates the skyline like this.
Great Skidmore Owings and Merrill design though. - brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Think the words “Green Skyscraper” are an oxymoron?
Absolutely!
1) Think of the enormous steel beams required for every floor just to support the weight of all the floors above. Skyscrapers are the SUVs of architecture.
2) The ratio of outer surface area to inside volume this hurts thermal efficiency. Especially when the outside surface is glass.
3) Where do the occupants park? In parking structures because parking lots would take up too much space! Where is the efficiency in that?
These factors don't even take the enormous cost per square foot into account. Elevators, Windows, Steel, etc. This stuff adds up fast.
As much as I view the concept of building upward as a pretentious "look at me" attempt by city planners and businesses.
I dugg the article anyway for the beautiful photos. - quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thats funny cos the country is a joke to san francisco, and pretty much all the other big cities.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1mirror please
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Why does it seem like word press goes down faster than a 2 dollar whore?
- zekt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You'll be able to see it all the way from Colorado as well.
- champ2486, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Earthquake Test! -oh he's good
- 8270369, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I've been told crews come in at night and hose some streets with water and bleach because the poop 'n puke situation there is so bad.
- robojerk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Is soylent green, green??
- brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are we talking about the same city that cheers a Steroid taking baseball player?
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. - quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1i think youve mixed up SF with the rest of america.
- TeamRocket, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1How fit; building like the shape of a giant penis
- Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Because it will prevent very environmentally unfriendly new construction from being built out in the suburbs?
- maximil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Way to go San Francisco -- your rot and molding is showing
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I don't know why they still want to build so high building in SF...
This is the highest building so far in the world:
http://www.rankthehot.com/_Burj_Dubai_Now_the_Tallest_Building_in_the_World_Pictures - octophobic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Super Green?
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2SMUG ALERT!
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Green? You mean environmentally friendly? That would be a way cooler way for people to describe things if you ask me, but hey, what do I know?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0This is so horrible. Do you know how many animals were living in the soon-to-be footprint of that building?? They are going to be homeless. This disgusts me.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1San fransico is a disgusting ***** hole of a city for the most part.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2dammit, you beat me to it. I was going to say "buried as inaccurate, building not depicted as green".
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is