âThe aesthetic is meant to be East-meets-West, showcasing a balance of modernity and tradition.â
Fuck meâŚhelluva design concept. The sheer brilliance of those two juxtapositions, must have took them all of, what, three minutes to come up with?
And they got that magic word âsustainabilityâ in there.
How the hell do you make a skyscraper âsustainableâ?
Just as long as it doesnât look like 101.
Itâs going to be known as the 102, right?
Apparently itâs expensive and tall too.
Wow. Underwhelming
For some contrast, check out this interesting piece on Nan Shan Plaza (the chess board âqueenâ next to the Taipei 101 âkingâ), designed by Yasuhiro Sube from Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Jisho Sekkei:
I have not stepped foot in there, but the modesty of Nan Shan Plazaâs design certainly catches my attention.
Guy
The rents seem incredibly cheapâŚ
Whatâs cheap? Compared to Singapore and Hong Kong everything is cheap.
Whats even the point. I like skyscrapers but this one is uninspired to say the least.
Whatâs the point of building one shorter than 101?
Is Agora Tower almost done yet? Can anyone post a recent pic?
Yeah, the article points that out. The rents are less than I expected thatâs all.
Not just âcheapâ but âincredibly cheapâ you say. You must be a rich rich man.
Take away from the article to me is the lost opportunity of 5 years that Taipei 101 was the tallest building in the world. Should have hired a decent world class marketing and branding firm to put Taiwan on the map (or did they?). Something like what the Philippines did with the âItâs more fun in the Philippinesâ ad campaign.
You got me
A skyscraper that combines office/retail and hotels should be fairly energy-efficient. You can share much of the equipment (boilers, chillers, pumps, etc.) because office and retail are busy during the day and the hotel is busier at night. Also, the overall surface of a skyscraper is usually less than that of low-rise/low-density buildings, so there is less heat/cooling loss. I just wish they wouldnât build the whole thing using glass - that just negates a lot of the energy savings you could getâŚ
sure, I get that - but thereâs a world of difference between âefficientâ and âsustainableâ. The latter term has really lost all meaning, but originally it referred to a system that had zero net impact on the planet (or as close to zero as physics allows you to get). These days it just gets slapped onto any project where the designer has given more than three minutes thought to resource efficiency.
Exactly. You donât see these people scooping up their own shit and using it for manure in their gardens
Recent high-tech glass performs pretty good at energy saving levels.