Post wrote: Cities occupy a very small part of the total area you can have. Why build a large spike in the Ground that half of the time won't be Earthquake proof and eats a Uberwatt of power when you can build a couple of city blocks with the same resources?

Once again, morale, and a general show of the architectural skill and inovation of the Human species. Something we can look at and say, "Wow. We're good."

Oh, so it's just to help our self-esteem? Wow, aren't we shallow people.

yep, thats humanity for you :D

Sounds about right. Why, what race do you want to fall into?

Sentynel wrote: Yes, I understand that, but my point is it could be done more efficiently with less money. The taller a building gets the more expensive it gets, and with buildings getting taller and taller, it's getting more and more expensive to build new ones. Money that could achieve more spent otherwise.

Where are you getting your figures for a space elevator from? We're nowhere near being able to build one.

Sometimes, if the government was trying to revitalize the economy, a huge pointless expensive building could be justified.

Or you could use the money to revitalise the economy, rather than gambling on some massive pointless building..

That would be too logical for an adult to think of.

Tall buildings make me feel slightly depressed.

Post wrote: Cities occupy a very small part of the total area you can have. Why build a large spike in the Ground that half of the time won't be Earthquake proof and eats a Uberwatt of power when you can build a couple of city blocks with the same resources?

Hope the government & the constructors think like you.
How tall should buildings be according to you'll guys?

It's not a gamble. If you build a building you have to hire so many different people, and even after, you need people for maintenance and to run whatever happens inside.

And after, these people pay taxes and the government get its money back.

So build a National Park or something.

Luciene wrote: It's not a gamble. If you build a building you have to hire so many different people, and even after, you need people for maintenance and to run whatever happens inside.

And after, these people pay taxes and the government get its money back.

Oh please. Taxes on the workers won't pay for the building for decades. The money would be much better invested in something that pays off directly. Building a bloody great building gambles on people wanting to come put something in it, and if you're building it to try and revitalise somewhere there's likely a reason it's dead beyond "not having a whopping great building in".

You get more tourism for tall buildings. Especially if they're pretty.

There's this one they're building in my area, that's supposed to look like Marilyn Monroe, they had a design contest or something.

Hello.
Tourism yes.
But buildings are constructed for office space.
The Burj Dubai has the first-ever Armani hotel in it.
That'll make some money, believe you me.
There's also a good deal of space above the twently floors of the hotel for anything.
Mostly residences (whcih sold out within eight hours of them being on the market).
Regardless, the entire twenty billion dollar project is part of the Ruler of Dubai's plan to build up his country, so that when the oil run's out his country still has a cash cow.
Smart man.

Luciene wrote: You get more tourism for tall buildings. Especially if they're pretty.

There's this one they're building in my area, that's supposed to look like Marilyn Monroe, they had a design contest or something.

There's plenty of other things with far more tourist value you can build for much less than "bloody massive building!"
Sure, the businesses may eventually make enough profits to recoup the costs of said bloody massive building, but for how much cheaper could they have built the same ground area of office space within which they could do the same work to make the money that much faster? (And indeed, arguably more efficient cos the workers don't have to spend minutes in/waiting for lifts every time they come or go..)

In some places building flat isn't all that practical. Dubai's getting pretty crowded.

And was it Japan, that built an airport or something on the water? But I think it's sinking.

Price of oil is skyrocketing here. It's not as practical to live in Surburbia anymore. We need buildings.

Sure, in some places there's physically not enough space. By all means build tall buildings there (though I still disagree with trying to build the "tallest ever!!). It's places where there's loads of space that massive buildings are REALLY daft.

But the view is nice from tall buildings. And if they can do it, why should we stop them? Dubai has enough money, that's not really a problem.

And mankind's been building tall pointless thing for centuries, people still go to see the pyramids. If we didn't have the leaning tower of pisa, galileo wouldn't have anyplace to throw things off of. If we didn't have the tower of london, bartimaeus wouldn't have anyplace to be imprisoned in, etc.

Sure, if they have the money to burn let them. It's just not a good idea.

"People have been doing it for ages so it MUST be a good idea!" is the worst argument ever.

*shrugs* That's obviously not really what I meant, but ok...

Maybe you think it's show-offy, but to some people these kind of things are an art form. Testing the limits of human skill and ingenuity and all that.

Look at Satlin's plans for the Palace of the Soviets - completely beautiful, extravagant. Except for the part for he used slave labor to try and build it.

And then found out that it would sink into the mud and fall in the river.

Yet, there are still architectural triumphs that are admired by people still today: The pyramids, the Taj Mahal, St. Peter's, the hanging gardens, etc.