I changed accounts.I didn't say that I'd resort to violence. I said that a personal victim of 9/11 would, and I would be neither surprised nor disapproving, within reason.
I wouldn't say that a personal victim of 9/11 would resort to violence. And I'd definitely disapprove. Jackassery is no reason to resort to violence.
edited 14th Dec '11 7:18:32 AM by kay4today
I changed accounts.I'd certainly respect them more if they didn't.
That building looks pretty darn wonderful. I'd live in it. While I can sort of see an explosion, I don't really see why we have to enforce our "Too soon" weepings over there. It's not like most of us will ever see it first-hand. But God damn, that whole idea is amazing!
Illusionary DominanceGiven that it's called "Cloud" I assumed it was meant to invoke the image of the towers piercing through a cloud. You know, a rain cloud. Normal, boring clouds. I think it looks pretty cool. Wouldn't have thought of 9/11 at all if the article hadn't been named that, and even then it took some prompting from the thread.
I guess I have this liveblog thing. Warning: Touhou
So, we basically have to wait for all the 9/11 victims and their family to die before we can move on? That's some serious horseshit right there. You know what we did after the Murrah bombing? We built a memorial and then went back to our daily lives. There's no reason why they can't do the same.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
I changed accounts.I didn't say they shouldn't move on. I don't know if you read what led up to that, but basically, somebody made a cavalier, "I don't care who I offend, we should do it!" comment. The point is, there's a difference between things like this, where it's pure coincidence combined with overreaction, and, say, somebody directly and thoughtlessly joking about it or shoving it in their face. Like I said, this would be horrible if it was intentional, but I sincerely doubt it is, and in that case it should simply be ignored.
I'm the one who started this whole thing. To sum, I was being a inconsiderate douchebag. Hypersensitivity doesn't justify such behavior, after all. (I have this feeling that you people will never live this down, not that I can blame anyone...)
edited 14th Dec '11 8:01:22 PM by dRoy
Nemesis@d Roy: you've apologized, and I'm not sure anything else is required. The idea that 9/11 means that no paired towers can ever be constructed anywhere in the world is pretty laughable, and this is a manufactured controversy.
A brighter future for a darker age.
I changed accounts.I should hope not. Multi-tower designs are cool.
Maybe they could make the clouds closer to the top. That'd make the "breaching the clouds" look a bit more obvious too.
The Infamous Trev-MUNWell. From the outset, the outcry over this is somewhat more understandable than it was for the Starbucks poster that involved a dragonfly flying around two cups of fruit smoothies. Considering that, though, I don't think my idea to move people's minds away from 9/11 imagery would help (that is, paint the building in such a way that the "tower peeking through the clouds" motif becomes obvious).
^^No, the point is to maximize its accessibility to every floor, since it's a market/community center place.
NOT THE BEESI'd be mildly concerned about stability issues since locking two tall buildings together that high can cause some hella nasty cross forces. Like, not that I'd be expecting it to fall in on itself for no reason — I'm assuming professional architectural engineers are gonna have a somewhat better handle on it than my passing knowledge — but an earthquake is gonna hit that thing a hell of a lot harder than your usual scrapers. Not to mention if we insist on building a wombly experimental skyscraper I'd rather it not be in a city known for being in shelling distance of North Korea. On the aesthetics, I kinda wish they'd make the cloud less blocky, just because that kinda looks absolutely hideous from below and it makes my subconscious want to push everything back into place. But 9/11 comparisons are kinda WTF.
edited 19th Dec '11 11:24:31 PM by Pykrete
The Infamous Trev-MUN
On the aesthetics, I kinda wish they'd make the cloud less blocky, just because that kinda looks absolutely hideous from below and it makes my subconscious want to push everything back into place.Heh. Considering this is supposed to be a sort of "city-within-a-building, " they should have taken a page or two from Sim City 2000's Arcologies ...
Love those crazy buildings. You really want to impress people, build one of those things.
HarlotWhile the architecture firm in charge of the project should have seen the resemblance, and then perhaps modify the design to avoid controversy, the idea of a building within a cloud is really cool. Although I'd be scared witless to be in one of the units that seem to just stick out from the main building.
edited 20th Dec '11 3:19:04 PM by Junfez
At the end of the game, both the king and pawn go back in the same box.
The Paedofinder General
While the architecture firm in charge of the project should have sort of seen the resemblance, and perhaps modified the design to avoid controversyWhy should they have to modify it? They don't live in the US, it has been 10 years since 9/11 and you can't keep making sure you never have two tall objects next to each other for fear of complaints by over-sensitive people.
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!
^^The parts that stick out aren't residential. They're for shops and stuff.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.