TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9336
10 Comments
Jim Harris wrote:
And conveniently located, too.
You mean, in the United Arab Emirates? Pshaw, those guys are our friends. Some say that the UAE has more connections to terrorism than Saddam Hussein did --- prejudiced dolts on the left.
Even without the threat of terrorism (and I'm fairly well convinced that Dubai pays handsomely for the protection of it's pretty new architectural toys.) I hope whomever is managing it doesn't have typical Arab attitudes towards maintenance and upkeep.
Mac wrote:
Stephen says: Remember when the US used to dream big and build big?
Screw the moon! Let's go to Mars! Kinda on and off topic.
lmg wrote:
There's a link to a story on the same page about a related company building a 1.2km tall tower in the same area. That's about 4,000 feet tall.
The pit at Ground Zero had no comment.
Karl Hallowell wrote:
I wonder what the place will look like in 50 years. Will the city grow even larger in that time or will it fall apart? It looks like a huge experiment to me. Will be interesting to see how things turn out.
xraydog wrote:
Just because something is a potential target for terrorism isn't a reason for not building it. I mean there could be other logical reasons not to but that's not one of them.
When we can build a space elevator, that would be a target. Should we not build one because of terrorism?
Karl Hallowell wrote:
Just because something is a potential target for terrorism isn't a reason for not building it. I mean there could be other logical reasons not to but that's not one of them.
Actually yes, it can. As I see it, centralized infrastructure is much more vulnerable to terrorism. Protection and insurance against terrorism increases the cost of that infrastructure to some degree. And the cost may be sufficient to go with an alternate design that is less vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Jim Rohrich wrote:
I agree with Mr. Kohls. It'd be nice to see something like that built in the U.S. Frank Lloyd Wright had a design for a one mile high skyscraper in the late 50s (The Illinois). There are a couple tall towers being built... one in New York City (the Freedom Tower) and the other in Chicago (the Chicago Spire). Both will be over 1500 feet tall.
Fletcher Christian wrote:
It's a really good target for terrorists. It's also a really good target for an attack in response to terrorism. The proposed mile high tower in Jeddah will be an even better one - bigger, and the target would actually be owned by the culprits.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on April 8, 2008 9:55 AM.
And conveniently located, too.
You mean, in the United Arab Emirates? Pshaw, those guys are our friends. Some say that the UAE has more connections to terrorism than Saddam Hussein did --- prejudiced dolts on the left.
Regardless, I think it's an impressive achievement. Remember when the US used to dream big and build big?
Even without the threat of terrorism (and I'm fairly well convinced that Dubai pays handsomely for the protection of it's pretty new architectural toys.) I hope whomever is managing it doesn't have typical Arab attitudes towards maintenance and upkeep.
Stephen says: Remember when the US used to dream big and build big?
Screw the moon! Let's go to Mars! Kinda on and off topic.
There's a link to a story on the same page about a related company building a 1.2km tall tower in the same area. That's about 4,000 feet tall.
The pit at Ground Zero had no comment.
I wonder what the place will look like in 50 years. Will the city grow even larger in that time or will it fall apart? It looks like a huge experiment to me. Will be interesting to see how things turn out.
Just because something is a potential target for terrorism isn't a reason for not building it. I mean there could be other logical reasons not to but that's not one of them.
When we can build a space elevator, that would be a target. Should we not build one because of terrorism?
Just because something is a potential target for terrorism isn't a reason for not building it. I mean there could be other logical reasons not to but that's not one of them.
Actually yes, it can. As I see it, centralized infrastructure is much more vulnerable to terrorism. Protection and insurance against terrorism increases the cost of that infrastructure to some degree. And the cost may be sufficient to go with an alternate design that is less vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
I agree with Mr. Kohls. It'd be nice to see something like that built in the U.S. Frank Lloyd Wright had a design for a one mile high skyscraper in the late 50s (The Illinois). There are a couple tall towers being built... one in New York City (the Freedom Tower) and the other in Chicago (the Chicago Spire). Both will be over 1500 feet tall.
It's a really good target for terrorists. It's also a really good target for an attack in response to terrorism. The proposed mile high tower in Jeddah will be an even better one - bigger, and the target would actually be owned by the culprits.