Talk:Dynamic Tower

Name of tower

Why have they named it after Leonardo? Greswik (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the architect, David Fisher, is an Italian-Israeli. The name must come from his love for Italy. The problem is that the official website uses the name "Dynamic Architecture Building." There is no mention of "Da Vinci" there. But if it was used by the architect, I am sure it would have something to do with Da Vinci being an innovator, and this building being an innovation. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a very good reason. Does anyone know anyting about why this named has been used? I think there should be some words about in the article. Just "love for italy" seems a bit thin. Greswik (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the reason, in this article. Mr. Fisher said, "'The concept was born in the city of Renaissance-Florence, Italy and now it will come to life for the first time in Dubai, the city of the future.'" But then later it mentions Leonardo Da Vinci, but does not explain the reason for the name. It just says, "[Fisher] said that a 'tower in motion,' which may be aptly called as the Da Vinci Tower-after the great Italian innovator, artist, scientist and philosopher Leonardo Da Vinci-would cost at least $350 million..." Another reason could be that Mr. Fisher became an artist in Florence, graduated from the University of Florence, then later taught architecture there. Since much of his history is connected to Florence, it would seem natural to name a tower after another person that is also connected to Florence, Leonardo Da Vinci.

I hope that helped. But I am sure that there is another source that explains the reason for the name in further detail. The problem is that I cannot find it. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretensiousness explains it pretty well! Although that's the sort of speculation that's better left out of the article. Also, it would be nice to use the expression "would" instead of "will", as it's just a proposal. See the tone used in Proposed tall buildings and structures, it has nothing to do with this. 84.90.16.195 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

January 2008 changes

I have reverted some of the changes made by 192.139.245.254 (talk · contribs) on 28 January 2008. Theses changes dealt with the removal of "wind" and "prevailing winds." The turbines in the tower will not be the conventional wind turbines. These turbines will be between the floors. The movement of the floors will spin the turbines; therefore providing energy for the tower itself. Please see the sources provided for more information. I also added "in the vicinity" to show that the tower will not just have an overabundance of energy, but will be exporting it. I hope that made sense. If you want to discuss the issue further, or disagree with the changes I made or what I wrote above, please feel free to respond. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that "the movement of the floors will spin the turbines" is incorrect. The building's movement will be powered by the turbines, making it impossible for the turbines to be powered by the buildings movement. The turbines are vertical wind turbines, according to cited source #6 (as of this writing). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

The page needs updating - according the most up to date BBC article it's now 80 storeys and therefore a lot taller. Source. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• this is getting ridiculous, there's no project announced, no draft, no confirmation of site or even just the minimum requirements for this project. I suggest this be removed or deleted as it's just vaporware.Choronzon (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Building Under Construction Tag

This tag is inappropriate, the building is proposed, not NOT -NOT- under construction, nor even designed beyond conceptual ideas. Proxy User (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So remove the tag. No need to get worked up about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not worked up at all about it, just don't want to see it back until (*if*) they start pouring concrete. Proxy User (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added Template:Future building as this is what should have been there, instead of the construction template. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article to reflect both the proposed status, and the new announced future construction date (according to latest sources). Not sure, if that is sufficient to remove the 'outdated' flag. 85.179.80.27 (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Last Part makes no sense.

The last paragraph or so in the article makes no sense. It sounds as though the workers will be ground up and used as lube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.11.45 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not innovative at all. Independently rotating floors was already been built

The Dynamic Tower claims to be the first building to have its floors to rotate independently through a central axis is wrong. The first building of this kind has been built in 2004 the city of Curitiba in Brazil and it is called Suíte Vollard (Vollard Suite). --Pinnecco (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats not the same at all. It just has internal floors rotating, as common in restaurants. But it does apparently have the advantage of actually existing beyond a brochure. M Holland (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

so many miss understanding in the info. of this project you will find numerical conflict in the articles about this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.153.129.87 (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Energy generation statistic gives no real information.

The kilowatt-hour is a measure of energy. By giving the energy produced by the building without specifying the amount of time it takes to generate that amount of energy (per second?, per year?, over the course of the building's lifetime?), no real information about the energy generation capacity of the building has been given. Jabaste (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

5 average american houses

What does "5 average american houses" mean? What is an average american house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameki (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

where can i find the right info.'

one cant find the right info of the projet about the no. of floors the wattage output they said it will complete this year where is that building in Dubai now !!! it is not completed yet ! you can see numerical conflict when you read diferent articles about this tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.153.129.87 (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)