Saudi Prince Waleed due in Oct

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Well I shall tread on laymen terms here.
Iajdani is right, its still not economically feasible
for 35+ storeyed highrises. Though it is possible
to build those. Problem lies with the unfortunate
bedrock complications. The highest being 36
and another 40+ storeyed being built in CTHG.

Structures are still built on RCC grids in place of
steel structures. Which is another problem . Though
we are seeing changes nowadays such as the Glass house
being built right now.

He did not speak of the cost being the reason for having no high rise.

As far as problems of building any type of building, it is well known.

But then everything is possible.

Petrona Towers and Bacbay Reclamation proves the point.

That is of course, if you have the money.

If you don't, then there is no dearth of excuses why it cannot be built!

 

[integra]

@damiendhorn,
its called the restrictions from the civil aviation authorities act.
If it wasn't for those fools then dhaka highrises would have crossed
60 storeyed by now.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

@damiendhorn,
its called the restrictions from the civil aviation authorities act.
If it wasn't for those fools then dhaka highrises would have crossed
60 storeyed by now.

To use layman terms, Air traffic is controlled by 'air funnels' wherein entry and exit is through specific corridors.

And it is also controlled through service ceilings.

Near airfields, not even four story buildings are allowed in India.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

Recently lots of satellite town with high rise building near the border line of dhaka city has been planned by government and private companies to ease the housing crisis. As it is outskirt of the city it will be cheaper but will come with all modern facility. Money now a days seems no problem to people.

Here is an example... Omega Island near Purbachal...

 

[TopCat]

He did not speak of the cost being the reason for having no high rise.

As far as problems of building any type of building, it is well known.

But then everything is possible.

Petrona Towers and Bacbay Reclamation proves the point.

That is of course, if you have the money.

If you don't, then there is no dearth of excuses why it cannot be built!

I dont understand your whinning.

Even if you have money you dont want to invest if that investment is not commercially competitive.

Considering the cost of building high rise your competitior will build 5 building for the same cost with similar floor space.

Even New York does not want to build twin tower anymore because they dont find buyers for the floor considering the cost. You think New York does not have money but your Calcutta does?

 

[integra]

If you don't, then there is no dearth of excuses why it cannot be built!

Well if anyones interested,
to go above 20 floors one needs the clarification
from 42 authorities. Don't understand why is it still so complicated.
The most annoying are Fire services and civil aviation authorities.
Stupid bureaucrats.

 

[TopCat]

Well if anyones interested,
to go above 20 floors one needs the clarification
from 42 authorities. Don't understand why is it still so complicated.
The most annoying are Fire services and civil aviation authorities.
Stupid bureaucrats.

Why not? Once you have money and plan and your do everything right then there should not be a problem getting those permission.

Fire Service is a must.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I dont understand your whinning.

Even if you have money you dont want to invest if that investment is not commercially competitive.

Considering the cost of building high rise your competitior will build 5 building for the same cost with similar floor space.

Even New York does not want to build twin tower anymore because they dont find buyers for the floor anymore considering the cost. You think New York does not have money but your Calcutta does?

Please disabuse yourself from the idea that I am whining.

I am merely correcting falsehood being pandered to satiate vainglorious assertions.

Once again, you are trotting out high quality garbage about real estate development.

If what you are saying is right, then there would be no high-rises anywhere!!

 

[integra]

Why not? Once you have money and plan and your do everything right then there should not be a problem getting those permission.

Fire Service is a must.

I don't think you have experienced the hassle.
'Cos if you did then reply would have been something else!
Though its true some clarifications are being synced
right now to streamline the process.

 

[TopCat]

I don't think you have experienced the hassle.
'Cos if you did then reply would have been something else!
Though its true some clarifications are being synced
right now to streamline the process.

Most of the time I seen people just dont fullfill all the requirements and rely on bribing the officials for their discretionary decission.
Hassles lies within themselves.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

New York skyscraper to rival Empire State Building

City council approves plans for tower only metres shorter than iconic landmark

Thursday 26 August 2010 10.32 BST

New York city council yesterday shrugged off objections from the owners of the 102-storey Empire State Building and gave the go-ahead for the construction of 15 Penn Plaza, a 67-storey building proposed by Vornado Realty Trust.

The new skyscraper, described by Vornado as "an outstanding addition to New York's skyline", will be built two blocks away from the Empire State Building, which has stood largely unobstructed in midtown Manhattan since 1931.....

New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, had dismissed objections to the building.

"Anybody that builds a building in New York City changes its skyline. We don't have to run around to every other owner and apologise," he told a news conference on Tuesday......

It was the city's tallest building until the construction of the World Trade Centre in 1970. After the twin towers were destroyed in the September 11 attacks, the Empire State Building again held the title of New York's tallest building, but will lose it when One World Trade Centre is completed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/new-york-skyscraper-empire-state

The report is of 2010.

You must keep abreast with the times and not be in a timewrap and totally ignorant of what is happening around the world.

And then boast of your ignorance!

NY is building skyscrapers even now and so is Calcutta.

Therefore, your stating the NY is not building skyscrapers because of those odd excuses you are fond of trotting out that are laced with vainglorious kiteflying about Bangladesh is total and unmitigated garbage and the product of feverish imagination that add uselessly to the posts only to eat into the bandwidth.

 

[damiendehorn]

You appear to be a Hopalong Cassidy.

You people don't even read the post and just take off as the fastest gun in the West!

I replied to the post that stated it is not possible to build high rise in Dacca.

I say it is possible.

You reply meandering into redundant and irrelevant baat cheet about alluvial soil and earthquakes and then append a link that proves my point that it is feasible to build high rises in Dacca and is being done!!

So, you want to argue for the sake of arguing and with total irrelevance to say that I am wrong and then append a link to prove that what I am saying is right.


When one is in a war, one does not go all around the country testing soil. Or do they? One has a general idea based on the movement of war matériel. Another irrelevant issue being cranked in without logic.

I hope you are aware that one reclaimed land from the sea, skyscrapers have been constructed. Take Backbay Reclamation for instance.

Are you aware that the 1476m high Petrona Towers has been built on the alluvial soil?

If anyone wants to build skyscrapers on any type of soil, one has to incorporate earthquake proof engineering.

Lastly, skyscrapers don't come cheap to build! So, what are you trying to convey by telling us that building skyscrapers are expensive?

You link proves my point that high rises are possible in Dacca and are being built.

So, what is your point?

Some way to squeeze in some propaganda about Bangaldesh by hook or by crook, even though I find no reason why high rise is not possible as was being propounded by a BD poster?

Have you gone senile? Have you read anything at all?

First you try to recall you asked the question why we don’t have super tall’s like Mumbai, here’s a reminder ...

A rather lame excuse!

What is it made of jelly?

Tell us the difference in the soil.

What sort of ground does Mumbai sit on and what sort does Dhaka sit on, hence your answer on alluvial soil and a simple explanation of the law why you can’t have super tall’s in Dhaka.

Now I know, this is difficult for you to understand, but try to keep up. There are lots of tall buildings in Dhaka but until the law is changed and the airport(s) shifted out of Dhaka, you can’t have these super tall’s.

As for “propaganda about Bangaldesh”, do you think I would bother, with you? Your myopic view towards us will never change; you spend most of your time trying to denigrate Bangladesh. Try using what’s left of your time in this world more constructively (in other words get a life).

 

[TopCat]

The report is of 2010.

You must keep abreast with the times and not be in a timewrap and totally ignorant of what is happening around the world.

And then boast of your ignorance!

I was talking about twin tower 100+ storyed building... Sometimes i wonder.. what you are.?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I was talking about twin tower 100+ storyed building... Sometimes i wonder.. what you are.?

Merely educated.

Ah yes, twin towers.

Was twin towers discussed when you said not feasible to build high rise?

And did you mention twin towers.

Calcutta has 100+ skyscraper that you are talking about in comparison to Dacca?

You are slippery than an eel!

And fibbing all the way!

 

[damiendehorn]

I was talking about twin tower 100+ storyed building... Sometimes i wonder.. what you are.?

I think the word is senile, bless it was bound to happen. Just be gentle with him.