My point is that when you asked why a place would continue to build office towers “when its economy is in a slowdown and many companies are relocating to Shanghai” you might just as well have been describing Taipei. Moreoever, Hong Kong, whose commercial districts are considerably more crowded than Taipei’s, has much more of a demonstrable need for ultra-high buildings. And at least in Hong Kong such a skyscraper probably wouldn’t mess with flight paths.
You also mentioned unemployment and office vacancy in Hong Kong; well, they’re not so great in Taipei either.
in particular, the Hsinyib[/b] district has the lowest office occupancy rate of Taipei’s main areas (top is Minsheng / Dunhua) because rents there are considerably higher per ping.
That’s before Taipei 101 is built.
Even more worrying for the backers, many of the multinational companies who invested in the project and were offered discount rates in return have said they won’t move there because the rates are still too high.
Cranky and others are right in noting that the economics of this building don’t seem to make sense, leading me to believe that project is going forward more out of national pride than any other consideration.
When Taipei 101 was first conceived, Taiwan had grand hopes to become Asia’s financial center in a plan called APROC. The building’s charter, in fact, requires that 60 percent of its tenants be financial companies. But what are the chances of meeting that goal? Asian financial powerhouses have made it clear that they are not interested in basing their operations in Taipei. And there’s not enough domestic demand to meet the goal, either.
Who, exactly, will rent space there? It’s going to be a financial catastrophe.
242.24.130
The flight paths have already been resolved long ago. If it wasn’t, Taipei 101 would be Taipei 33 1/3. I’m not sure what multinationals you’re talking about, Salmon, but from all the articles I’ve read it seems like it’s mainly backed by Taiwanese firms. Have you guys even checked out the link I posted above? Some of the forum members posted articles about the building. Here’s an excerpt:
"…But will it make money? That seems to be the question on everyone’s mind right now. Lin is unfazed by speculation that the building will turn into a replica of Malaysia’s Petronas Towers, which are reportedly nearly half empty. “We will be full within 12 months of opening,” he says. And rents? “A slight premium to existing premium grade space in Taipei.” And return on investment? According to Shen, it will take 17 years.
There are obvious concerns over how many international firms are going to come knocking. But as Lin points out, rents in Taipei are already about two-thirds of Hong Kong’s, so the addition of the world’s tallest building to Taipei’s skyline should no doubt help catch their attention.
On the local side, it helps that one of the TFCC’s shareholders is the Taiwan Stock Exchange, which will move its headquarters to Taipei 101 when it opens. Throw in fellow shareholder Chinatrust, and Lin says about a third of the office space is already spoken for.
There are plenty of skeptics who raise an eyebrow at such confident claims. Few, however, doubt one central fact: when this building is finished, it will be the best available office/retail space in Taipei."
I don’t really care about the economics. It’s really neither yours or my concern. Leave it to the investors; it’s their money afterall. Yes, it probably is partly due to national pride. Is that so wrong? If the govt. and private sector wants to shell out dough to build this not for economic sense but out of sheer pride, let them. I’m proud, and I just care that Taipei will have the world’s tallest!!! Woohoo!!
For what other reason except national pride do you think the Petronas Twin Towers were built?
Though this is a rethorical question the answer would be a clear “none”.
That said I think they are rather impressive (not necessarily pretty) and so I imagine will be the 101.
Actually most Taiwanese people don’t even know that will be the tallest building world or don’t seem to care, at least the ones I know.
I’m always telling people about it and they have a blank look on their faces. I’ve heard the theory that Taipei basin will liquify if a quake epicentres in this region. Fortunately people BELIEVE quakes epicentres are very rare in the Taipei county region, every ten thousand years or so. However how much history is there of the Taipei region? Only reliable history probably goes back to the Japanese occupation.
We are only 100 miles away from one of the most geologically active region in the world
The fact is I’m scared cos I was on ChungSiaob[/b] Dunhua during a quake that epicentred off Ilan and a load of windows from an office block nearly killed me and I had to run onto the road. The Starbucks I’d just exited had a load of bricks fall right in the entrance. One block down a car was crushed from falling debris. So people, IT CAN HAPPEN. The ground was convulsing under me and that was an earthquake centred 100-200 miles away.
When I went out to Neihu and Tianmu areas later I could see NO quake damage, no obvious windows broken , nothing. This leads me to suspect the sandy basin of Taipei is very unsteady and this is where the major damage will be in a local epicentred earthquake—da na na na da na na na- the downtown area. With the packed population it would make a big one in San Francisco look small.
In that case who knows what the hell will come down, but due to the attention that 101 building gets I guess it should be better built than most.
For everyone’s reference, I suggest reading this German site, excellent info on all skyscrapers around the world, including planned skyscrapers.
My opinion on skyscrapers in Taiwan, it’s vain, given the current economic conditions and geology. For example, the Tuntex Tower in Kaohsuing has office spaces occupied only up to 20th floors, all above spaces were empty. I was in Kaohsiung in April and the dpet store on the ground levels was ready to shut down.
As for Taipei 101, do you refer to Taipei Financial Center? There’s no way I would work in the building, as Haobaba said, the Hsinyib[/b] district lies near the faultline, they’ve got to be nuts to have a skyscrapers around there. During Abien’s mayoral term, he only approved 80 stories, looks like Ma got paid off and let it go higher, after the earthquake in the spring, the construction was put to a halt, apparently there’re some structural defects which required some further inspections before the construction could resume.
Overall, in Asia Pacific regions, skyscrapers over 80 stories aren’t appropriate, BTW, the Petrona Towers are sinking, looks like part of the landbase in Kuala Lumpur are gaseous, I’ll research a little bit more on this.
Vincey, I don’t know where you get your facts, but most of it is just plain erroneous! I’ve never, ever heard that the Petronas is sinking. If they were, I’d bet they’d be front page news all over. There was nothing wrong with TFC101 structurally. They stopped construction to make sure it was structurally sound, which it was (except for the cranes that fell), and they will continue adding to the height in September when they get new cranes. The fault line in Hsinyib[/b] has been inactive for thousands of years. And did you know that the Tuntex building also has a hotel, which is located ABOVE the 20th floor? So to say the building is empty above the 20th floor is bull. So please check your facts before you share them with others, for surely many will too easily believe them.
BTW, I had already posted that skyscraper.com link up above. And they haven’t been doing a good job of updating their pics and info on skyscraper projects in Taiwan and around the world.
The official name of the TFC is Taipei101. The fault in question lies about 200 meters to the southwest of the building, and according to geologists hasn’t been active for about 40,000 years, and isn’t likely to see any more as it is an inactive fault.
The cranes fell down because the crane company didn’t accurately calculate the forces of an earthquake at that height, and the stresses on the bolts holding them to the structure failed. The structure withstood the quake without any problems. It is designed to withstand all but the strongest quakes possible, which means that anything that would topple Taipei101 would leave just about nothing else standing in the city.
The mall at the base of the building is just about full of all kind of name brand shops. I don’t know the status of tennants for the upper part, except for the restaurant, viewing platforms, etc. Buildings like this are always a gamble in that respect because you have no idea what the economic situation is going to be like in a few years after the thing is completed.
IMHO that has been a rumour only. The soil in KL or Malaysia is in general very soft as from what I have seen and heard there. That’s why the Twin Towers have piles going down 115 meter which also makes it earth quake proof though there are virtually none in Malaysia. Well, better safe than sorry …
There is no such thing as an earthquake-proof building. There is, however, the ability to make a building earthquake-resistant. No matter how well you construct a building, there will always be an earthquake that can take it down.
As far as the standards on locally constructed buildings go, I’m as skeptical as most of the more cynics on this board. I’ve seen craftsmen using standards that are pretty pathetic in comparison to what I’m used to. It’s not hard to understand how so many buildings have fallen in the past few years that should not have. The big quake four years ago registered relatively small in the Taipei area. There was absolutely no excuse for the SungShan Hotel collapse from a quake that registered less than 4.5 in the Taipei area.
However, the Taipei 101 building is being built with international guidelines and standards. There are too many European and North American corporations and insurance companies investing in this project to allow some betel-chewing yokel to dump Taiwan beer cans in the cement mix.
That being said, I still wouldn’t feel safe in this building. But I wouldn’t feel safe in ANY skyscraper. It’s a simple fact that earthquakes happen everywhere. The day will come when some place like New York is hit with a sizeable tremor, and their relatively non-existent earthquake measures will have their buildings falling like dominoes.
On top of that, many of you are right in pointing out that the composition of soil in Taipei makes it easy for the phenomenon of “liquification” to happen (where seemingly solid ground takes on the properties of mud while the earth is trembling.)
But how come nobody is afraid of being caught in a fire in one of these buildings? I’ve spoken to firemen in the US and Europe who would never work in these buildings because of that.
That design makes it look like God’s pull tab or zipper pull, Maoman. Since I will probably still be here when and if Taipei 101 is opened, I will probably go up it, but definitely not on the first day. I think if fate has a sense of humor, it would be that on the first day that this disaster-ridden building opened that something awful would happen. Or even more ironically… on the second day.
Come to think of it, maybe I won’t go up after all.
The Shanghai one is taller and far more stylish, I would say. I liked the shape of 101 until I saw those hideous green windows they are putting in. Not unlike many of the hideous green tiled floors one finds here. Oh well, Taipei will have a double award; world’s tallest and ugliest building.
Now I can’t be bothered chasing up info, but whatever is the worlds tallest building is about to be shat on by an Australian gov approvred project to build a nuclear power plant somewhere near Ayres Rock, apparantly almost 1km taller than the Kuala Lumpar thing. Sure, you won’t be able to be able to climb it, but hey, who wver climbed the twin towers anyway.
It’s a structure not a building. The difference between the two is that a building can be occupied by offices and apartments, but a structure doesn’t have any permanent residents. The Eiffel Tower is a structure. The Sears Tower is a building. The thing in Australia is going to be a structure. Taipei 101 is going to be a building. Those would be the facts. The CN Tower is the largest free-standing structure in the world, but the Petronas towers are the world’s tallest buildings even if the CN tower is bigger…
Besides, I thought that it was going to gather solar energy and was going to be a big thumb to the nose toward the US and our oil-grubbing ways. Imagine, Americans calling ourselves the most developed nation in the world but still using the same energy source as we did over 100 years ago to fuel our vehicles. Okay, I am not going to get off-topic.
the thingy in Australia isn’t a nuclear power station, more like a solar power station, the sun heats up the air in the base and is drawn up the tower bit to drive turbines
the tallest structure used to be a transmission mast in Poland, now it’s one the USA but I wouldn’t call them buildings… you can’t go in them or anything
tallest building awards are also open to interpretation. There’s:
most floor levels above ground
highest occupiable floor
highest bit of building proper
highest point (including aerials)
which is why more than one building can claim to be the world’s highest. When 101 is done it’ll be highest on certain counts and not others.
