Comments on: City in the Sky: Futuristic Flower Towers Soar Above Modern Metropolises

By: Mekova

Mekova — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:36:49 +0000

Why a lotus flower? the thing should consist of 3 main buildings (2 legs and a neck) and the flower thing should be the tail of an ostridge. If you want to stick your head in the sand, you might aswell do it correctly…

By: tc1967uk

tc1967uk — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 05:31:25 +0000

Beautiful, though the London shot makes me think of the alien walking machines from War of the Worlds…

By: dee r

dee r — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:52:00 +0000

Gee, how convenient…when they’re done with their trash and their serfs, poof, over the side…NOT.

Do we really need an eerie for the 1/2%?

By: rorynow

rorynow — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:57:49 +0000

A LOTUS FLOWER, is a point of purity and absolute free of faults. This architectural body is a muck of a pretty form. It is iconically undesiable to others below. Its bad enough that one luxor hotel building in las vegas blinds and cooks people passing. This monstrocity will develope countless issues. 1. Glass needs to be aborbing not reflective. 2. Airspace over other realty address’s? What? 3 natural disaster anyone? If you build up to the heavens, God will tear it down like the Tower of Babel. 4. The shade from the sun will affect plant life below.

By: guydauncey

guydauncey — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:48:37 +0000

As a lotus design at ground level, this is really beautiful.

But as a “stand above” high-rise it’s going to degrade the space for everyone living below it, and cast a constant shadow, quite possibly not only of light but also of resentment at the 1% who will live up there, if they can stand the winds.

For beauty, Grade A. For functionality, Grade F.

By: MARKHAMERS

MARKHAMERS — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:56:53 +0000

sorry, but the future does not mean exaggerate something and place it SOMEWHERE

By: the sculptor

the sculptor — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:48:59 +0000

very innovative idea. yes there are questions but Somebody has to let go and move into new concepts.

By: brook

brook — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:11:54 +0000

Beautiful standing alone, but in the context of society this is a failure. The design soaks up light at the expense of all below it. Why? The designer wanted to make something cool, not solve any problems. I agree with @anothervoice.

By: rrockman

rrockman — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:09:03 +0000

Strange, I thought the music was one of the most beautiful things of the presentation video!
Anyway, I like this concept very much. In particular the fact that the three buildings seem connected on top, from the tips of their “petals”. To reduce the shadow projected below, I would make at least the most external part of the flowers in some transparent material, perhaps also equipped with semi-transparent solar cells.

By: zakaz

zakaz — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:44:01 +0000

A groovey concept for regenerating areas, buildings similar to this could just spring from sites earmarked for redevelopment. like bulbs popping out the earth and growing through the old city. I would have them in different stages of development/growth like a city that has had seeds and bulbs planted underneath it and has the resultant bursting through very organically all over the show.

By: Leon Kaye

Leon Kaye — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:40:24 +0000

Apologies, we corrected that typo.

By: pleadianqueen

pleadianqueen — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:57:32 +0000

What if some of that glass was replaced with solar panels to power night lighting and any other power required system that might required . Love the concept!

By: anothervoice

anothervoice — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:11:36 +0000

So then, we elevate the wealthy and the “evolved” to shining lily pads in the sky while the poor get to bathe in the smog that sustains them below? That’s a great marketing spiel.

The “sad” tower bridge is a mite older than 1994. If you must disparage the other to elevate your own, you’ve lost the proposition.