Russia just completed the Lakhta center, the tallest skyscraper in Europe with 462m

>Spending millions to build a useless skyscrapers for """prestige"""

Attached: 1529685764380.png (817x443, 34K)

>a buttplug
what de fugg :DDD

>any building that doesn't look like this is a waste of money

none of you all answered my question, why couldn't the french german or brits build something so big and amazing? they aren't declining world powers, arent they?

Attached: Wine-Press-Hall-by-Burkhard-Architekten_dezeen_1.jpg (468x352, 56K)

This building is triggering my OCD.

Attached: 66754563635.jpg (263x192, 5K)

Looks absolutely terrible. What a waste.

Yeah because those Russians are based! MAGA

They have people who don’t die from rampant aids and tuberculosis though

Sadly, no TIGERS

>only 462m
LMAO

Attached: troll-a-the-tallest-structure-ever-moved-by-mankind-7.jpg (586x693, 69K)

feel like stuff like this is very bread and circuses

>name massive oil platform "Troll"
Very good, Norway!

skyscrapers are prestige projects that insecure countries do unless you don't have a space to build horizontally.

literally anything great builded in your country is from a time with rampant aids and tuberculosis

so many small minded yurofaggots in this thread, russia is strong and the future

>UK

because we have a small airport very close to the centre of London that limits the height we can build to

Also there are these silly regulations to maintain the line-of-sight to St Paul's Cathedral from various points in and around London, which restricts where we can build them (and is the reason we have several slanted towers).

I say scrap both of the above

based

The fact that not one of the buildings surrounding is even a 10th of the height of this tells you that it's a state-backed vanity project rather than a commercially viable build.

Because contrary to popular belief, other than being landmarks and huge waste of resources tall buildings don't make any sense.

Especially in a region like St. Petersburg where you aren't really short on space.

because the local populace hate skyscrappers

>cities where there are buildings taller than the main cathedral

Attached: drake.jpg (1420x946, 53K)

Abandoned building for gopniks to base jump off in 20 years.

Is it actually profitable or is it literal dickwaving?

What are you even talking about?

Ideally nobody should be building skyscrapers, but insecure peoples still think making "le tallest pile of shit" will impress others.

>look at our empty building!
wow nice

Attached: 1539628379254.png (657x527, 35K)

>couldn't
skyscrapers are forbidden by law except in Frankfurt

prestige is always profitable

>His country can't building more than 500m
ahahahahahahahahaha

Attached: seoul.jpg (1000x562, 67K)

>none of you all answered my question, why couldn't the french german or brits build something so big and amazing? they aren't declining world powers, arent they?

Yes, they are declining world powers. Also, there is no technical or financial reason why the tallest building in Europe couldn't be built in France or Germany or wherever- but why would they? They might be declining, but at least they don't have massive inferiority complexes like Russians or Arabs or Chinese. Nobody is impressed by that shit except for backwards savages.

These Anons get it.

>ethnic majority of his country lives in shitty blocky apartments like the niggers and arabs in europe
Embarrassing

>Nobody is impressed by that shit except for backwards savages.
Nah, it's pretty cool. It might not be the most impressive thing anymore but it's in no way a bad thing either. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just mad.

TROLLED

>counts crane booms towards height

Attached: 1514521028632.png (757x632, 349K)

3 billions for that ugly dildo? Here in Brazil we can build the same thing for 1/10 of the cost.

>british architekt
>british contruction corp
>paid for/with gazprom aka german money
the only russian thing about this were probably the low skilled construction workers

Attached: 1533381514175936547.jpg (1200x828, 186K)

>the only russian thing about this were probably the low skilled construction workers
Those are tadjik, not russian

Looks great desu

It really isn't

Attached: zlryUMmz4_c.jpg (1500x1000, 145K)

??? that's a pretty big house and the owner has a lot of place to keep farm animals, u jelly?

Honestly, if they were actually taken care of, those wooden shacks would be more attractive than the glass-and-steel modernist pieces of shit in the background.

Attached: 153954996818831876.jpg (864x1080, 139K)

Because the United Kingdom isn't a real country

The tallest point is the flare stack where they burn off all the waste gas though, not the cranes.

Attached: 1200px-Troll_A_Platform.jpg (1200x900, 141K)

That's fantastic
God I love skyscrappers

Because skyscrapers are New World -tier barbarism

I won't let my animals live there

wow Russia strong

What are those wooden buildings used for?

It's a permanent part of the construction.
And it's actually functional unlike the benis-extenders "antennas" or "spires" on most tall buildings.

Didn't they just build some hideous skyscraper in Tampere?

"No no, don't look at the beautiful churches or Jugendstil, look at THIS instead!"

Skyscrapers are a costly, outdated notion pursued mostly by developing countries thinking they have something to prove, especially idiotically if surrounded by low density development. Evenly developed medium density cities > low density cities with a few pointy things in the middle.

Attached: Downtown_Los_Angeles_California.jpg (2048x1536, 1.24M)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha

Sorry but only Europeans west of Poland and Finland get to talk shit about the New World.

We don't talk about T*mpere
and besides 50meters is hardlya skyscraper

I guess they have to store the AIDS somewhere.

Attached: hiv-death-rate-globally.jpg (500x375, 46K)

>tfw no /arch/
fucking hiroshitma

Attached: 1527078232142.jpg (1641x1080, 1.28M)

the ones in the foreground are abandoned sheds

this is just wrong desu

Where land prices are very high skyscrapers make eminent sense - they make sense in Manhattan, Hong Kong, Central London etc.

They don't make sense in some suburb surrounded by commie blocks lmao

Why did they build a 462m skyscraper this close to a bunch of dilapidated sheds? Shouldn't the property values in the area be much higher to warrant the construction cost of such a building?

You're right, there are a few instances in the world of intensely populated areas where skyscrapers do make some sense, however these are the exceptions to the rule, and I just didn't wanna draw out my post going through exceptions where the rule might not apply. The broad statement remains correct.

Land in Petersburg is very expensive, that's the only reason Gazprom built it

sorry but yank opinions are automatically discarded

that's a big building

Small wooden buildings are used to store tools. Shovels, balalaikas, rakes, etc.
Or for animals. Chickens, guard dogs / bears, ducks, etc.

Wasn’t your country third-world tier less than 100 years ago? Literally colonized like Africans too?

>Why couldn't France, the UK or Germany do this?

Because we don't want to.
It is not even allowed in many places which is a good thing.
Pic is the skyline of the mayor city of a 3,5 million metropolitan area. Tell me it misses these glas dildos.

Attached: Nuremberg_l.jpg (2126x1385, 528K)

This.

Attached: igor5-15091808085708_2.jpg (700x688, 116K)

now we just need 100 or so more of those spaced around earth to turn it into a morningstar

You guys have huge sheds.

Jet fuel melts steel beams, use timber next time.

Attached: timber.png (958x1499, 637K)

> 3,5 million metropolitan area
you mean small rural shithole town
you can't just count all of the 300 surrounding villages and call it a megacity faggot

How sturdy is this even? I mean I know Europe has some great engineers but they had to modify the timber someway

Eeeehhhhh, not aaaaalwayss...

Sufficiently. Of course you're never going to challenge any height records, but 99.999% of buildings in the world don't exceed highrise heights anyway.

Fireproof you say...?

Attached: vv.jpg (460x680, 37K)

Post Norwegian skyscraper

Gook dicklet waving

*cockblocks your path*

Attached: D4989F97-A8D4-4816-A77C-0EBA918F3175.jpg (800x1200, 173K)

Attached: _file=B02133121138CAF6E2DB27CDD294248F21455470.jpg&dh=532&dw=800&t=4&.jpg (800x532, 70K)

pretty cool

Attached: 1527512959785.jpg (870x603, 87K)

This is so much better than lakhta center.

okay that looks miserable but at least those landowners will probably be pretty wealthy soon

The bureaucrats who will dispossess them*

I think those landowners sold the land when construction began.
There really is a very expensive land.

I believe it's not my task to educate an amerimutt with ignorance as great as the mount of everest

you're new world, and new money
hollow on the inside, plastic on the outside

impregnated with distilled german butthurt

Buildings above 100m are generally not approved as there is little use for such buildings even in Oslo, and it ruins the skyline. Oslo has a general ban on new buildings above 42m, but exceptions have been made. The horrendous 200m tall World Ocean Headquarters (pic related) is planned to be built in the outskirts of Oslo within the next 5 years, but it will probably be downscaled to half that height when the politicians are done with it. The current tallest buildings in Oslo are 117m and 111m, and they're hated by about half the city, so buildings taller than those seem unlikely. OP is Danish though, but I'm gonna assume you already knew that.

Attached: worldoceanheadqurters_rendering-full3_(c)aker.jpg (1080x1500, 261K)

shame it's in Russia

from the top view its a literal star of david

>Why couldn't France, the UK or Germany do this?
>The building was designed by Tony Kettle, author of the design, while at RMJM
lmao we literally did though

Attached: CAM ON.jpg (360x351, 26K)

no wonder it looks like dildo