no sh1t sherlock

[OwlHoot]

Barring some cleverness, I assume the centre-line is close to the right of the bottom element i.e. it's really just a tower and all the outer is somewhat a shell that hangs off it.

I'd say so, or even a massive central brace or support "plane" (that would be seen sideways on if visible in the picture) sloping from bottom-right to top left, to counter-balance the left-right tendency of the floors.

It wouldn't be so vomit-inducing if it started in the middle of what is presumably the base building and the floors above spread central-symmetrically

[d000hg]

Doesn't the CoG have to lie within the footprint to stop the fecking thing falling over?

Barring some cleverness, I assume the centre-line is close to the right of the bottom element i.e. it's really just a tower and all the outer is somewhat a shell that hangs off it.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Doesn't the CoG have to lie within the footprint to stop the fecking thing falling over?

[d000hg]

Well at least it has space for some significant greenery, unlike this hideous hellish monstrosity!

2021-11-18 The amazing 1,633ft-high 'UPSIDE DOWN' New York skyscraper set to be the second-tallest building in the Western Hemisphere

You might as well put a big billboard on top "come and get us ISIS". Imagine being underneath it in one of those lower buildings.

[OwlHoot]

You need to argue why it would be more eco friendly.

Well at least it has space for some significant greenery, unlike this hideous hellish monstrosity!

2021-11-18 The amazing 1,633ft-high 'UPSIDE DOWN' New York skyscraper set to be the second-tallest building in the Western Hemisphere

[SueEllen]

Joking aside, that's not such a bad design. I've long thought that a more ziggurat-like or "terraced" approach to multi-storey buildings is the way to go, with gardens or parks on the exterior of each level. It's certainly a damn site safer, assuming each level isn't very tall. The obvious disadvantage is the cost of the land required for the larger base "footprint".

You need to argue why it would be more eco friendly.

[OwlHoot]

Surely a giant tulip belongs in Amsterdam?

For London, the best design would be something that looks like a turd?

Joking aside, that's not such a bad design. I've long thought that a more ziggurat-like or "terraced" approach to multi-storey buildings is the way to go, with gardens or parks on the exterior of each level. It's certainly a damn site safer, assuming each level isn't very tall. The obvious disadvantage is the cost of the land required for the larger base "footprint".

[_V_]

Surely a giant tulip belongs in Amsterdam?

For London, the best design would be something that looks like a turd?

[ladymuck]

I'm very disappointed by the lack of comment along the lines of 'there's enough cocks in the city and now they want to build a huge erection'.

[SueEllen]

And it would also verge on being a hazard to planes heading to Heathrow, and air taxis which will soon no doubt be widely used in London

You aren't allowed to circle the sites of London anymore on a commerical flight as there could be a terrorist on board.

You are however allowed to circle "The council of the year" Hounslow or the farmers fields near Gatwick and Stansted.

[OwlHoot]

And it would also verge on being a hazard to planes heading to Heathrow, and air taxis which will soon no doubt be widely used in London

[northernladuk]

Cool looking building but I can't see how on earth they think something that size that has no other purpose than a visitors attraction is seriously going to work.

[BR14]

Such a shame, CUK could have made it it's corporate HQ.

[ladymuck]

Such a shame, CUK could have made it it's corporate HQ.

[BR14]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59253160