Construction began in 1987 but was halted in 1992 [...] resumed in 2008 [to be completed this year].
The unfinished building was not surpassed in height by any new hotel until the 2009 completion of the spire atop the Rose Tower in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
What happened in the early 1970s? It seems like that was the beginning of the decline of American power. Tall buildings construction seems symbolic of that.
It's the same thing as with aircraft carriers - today, smaller, more maneuverable ships (hence the focus on VTOL, as well) and drones are favored over the huge floating islands that are basically sitting ducks.
I think the reason for no more tall buildings is the lack of space in the big cities - nobody's going to build a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere, after all :-)...
Oh God... not that I don't trust the Chinese (they do tend to overpromise, though), but I really hope that building doesn't come down at the first earthquake or fire.
Plus, building it in the middle of nowhere almost guarantees that it will become yet another abandoned property like the famous Chinese "ghost cities" and malls...
Well, the founder apparently was motivated by the whole Sichuan earthquake thing. Article says he wanted to figure out a way to cheaply and easily build tall buildings that were both environmentally friendly and earthquake safe. FWIW, the article says: Broad's design has aced 9.0-magnitude earthquake tests.
Wider, flatter buildings have enormous infrastructure costs, especially with the typical layout with a large building surrounded by an even larger parking lot.
Spreading things out means sewer lines have to be longer, power lines need to go further, and more roads have to be built and maintained to get to these new destinations. Then there's the phenomenon of the more roads you have, the more roads you have to build to get around those roads since they take up so much space themselves, further complicating things.
It doesn't make economic sense on the whole, only from the perspective of a developer that doesn't have to build and maintain infrastructure. The carrying costs are borne by other parties.
> It seems like that was the beginning of the decline of American power.
Or the beginning of the realization that such buildings make little economic sense? After the 70s, local governments were far more reluctant to finance such endeavors ... with no subsidies, building them made even less sense.
Most undoubtedly. Given my non-expert outsider cursory knowledge of North Korea, the hotel will likely never be finished and will remain for show. They'll probably finish the main lobby and a handful of rooms — just enough to give the impression of how grandiose it is. Keeping up appearances.
Also, consider what happens to concrete being exposed like that for two decades. The concrete isn't meant for decades of weather, it's meant to be enclosed. The concrete degrades and becomes unsafe. Same thing has happened with a lot of the Dubai skyscrapers whose construction was halted, and they were only exposed for a few years (so says a Dubai contractor friend).
Just some background info: The new contractor, Orascom [1], has been issued a licence to operate the North Korean 3G Network [2]. Orascom is both a telecommunications and a construction company.
I doubt that their plan is to use the hotel exclusively as a giant antenna, but it's not unlikely that finishing the facade was a political priority, while operating the hotel is not.
