• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this a cool building? -nr 2

Is the [b]American[/b] building nice/cool?

  • Yes, one of the nicest/coolest buildings I have seen..

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Yes, definetely..

    Votes: 10 50.0%
  • Its ok..

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Nothing special..

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Nah, not nice/cool

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Something else(explain)...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
"It's not easy to be smart in a room full of dumb people".......Maximus Zeebra

Your signature is perfect...I feel for you!

Nice self-ownage.

I find it easy to be smart in any room, especially when it's full of dumb people.
 
Smart in the "eyes" of dumb people....I rest my case

Being smart has nothing to do with how other's view you..

Only total morons blame their own mind-numbing incompetence regarding trying to put together a coherent point, argument, or sentence on their audience.

The odds are quite high that a person who thinks that everyone else is stupid also probably thinks "2 + 2 = I like chicken".
 
It's almost funny to watch Maximus argue against himself. In a different thread he talks about a visually disgusting building and how we all hate it because well. It's North Korean. We don't hate it because it's North Korean. We hate it because it's ugly and even the people building it realized it to the point where they didn't see a need in finishing the ****ing thing for 16 years.

But here Maximus this is a North Korean building/structure I actually like :

Juche Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Juche_Tower.jpg
 
It's almost funny to watch Maximus argue against himself. In a different thread he talks about a visually disgusting building and how we all hate it because well. It's North Korean. We don't hate it because it's North Korean. We hate it because it's ugly and even the people building it realized it to the point where they didn't see a need in finishing the ****ing thing for 16 years.

But here Maximus this is a North Korean building/structure I actually like :

Juche Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Juche_Tower.jpg[/IMG]

Ok, explain to me then how the empire state building(in daylight) is so much more visually appealing than the North Korean building(WITH GLASS ON)..

Look at the voting between the two threads. Its almost bizarre how people favor the empire state building. Now please explain the visual appeal of that vs the north Korean one..

..and I am NOT talking about the inside
where the building is located
the buildings around
how its structured
how feasible it is
the concrete

and so on..

Only about the building and its visual appeal.
 
Last edited:
We hate it because it's even the people building it realized it to the point where they didn't see a need in finishing the ****ing thing for 16 years.

How is that relevant to the visual appeal of the building? And how do you knoz they "didnt see a need" to finish it for 16 years?

As far as I know it was a money issue, and they COULD not finish it.
 
Ok, explain to me then how the empire state building(in daylight) is so much more visually appealing than the North Korean building(WITH GLASS ON)..

Look at the voting between the two threads. Its almost bizarre how people favor the empire state building. Now please explain the visual appeal of that vs the north Korean one..

Where a building is located adds to the overall beauty of it. The Empire State building is located at what has been not only the cultural capital of the world since the 40s. It's architecture one of the finest and purest examples of Art Deco. Add to that the fact that 'The glass' on the North Korean building adds NOTHING to the structure for the most part. It's simply there to cover up and distort. Meanwhile the Empire State building was with the thought that not only should it fit into the overall look and feel of the city it was built in but that it should also be a sign of the power held by this city.

..and I am NOT talking about the inside
where the building is located
the buildings around

how its structured
how feasible it is
the concrete

and so on..

Only about the building and its visual appeal.

Your stupidity knows NO bounds. ALL these things ADD to the visual appeal of a building. SPECIALLY where it is located. That monstrosity in NK is in the middle of nowhere. It is an eye sore. In other word it sticks out like a sore thumb. There is nothing to compliment it. That you're still sitting here arguing that because you think something everybody else finds ugly is cool doesn't make it so.
 
How is that relevant to the visual appeal of the building? And how do you knoz they "didnt see a need" to finish it for 16 years?

Hotel of Doom - Ryugyong Hotel - Pyongyang - Esquire

A picture doesn't lie -- the one-hundred-and-five-story Ryugyong Hotel is hideous, dominating the Pyongyang skyline like some twisted North Korean version of Cinderella's castle. Not that you would be able to tell from the official government photos of the North Korean capital -- the hotel is such an eyesore, the Communist regime routinely covers it up, airbrushing it to make it look like it's open -- or Photoshopping or cropping it out of pictures completely.

........................lol.
 
Your stupidity knows NO bounds. ALL these things ADD to the visual appeal of a building. SPECIALLY where it is located. That monstrosity in NK is in the middle of nowhere. It is an eye sore. In other word it sticks out like a sore thumb. There is nothing to compliment it. That you're still sitting here arguing that because you think something everybody else finds ugly is cool doesn't make it so.

You think I am stupid because the structural soundness and location of the building do not matter in its VISUAL appeal? Thats about the funniest thing I ever heard.

The world really is heading down the drain..
 
That doesnt prove they "didnt see a need".. As far as I have heard it was because of money issues.

Esquire is a magazine I do not trust for unbiased reporting. As far as I have heard neither do Americans in general.

Where did you "hear" this?
 
Sorry, different magazine I am thinking about I believe.

Same sounding name, then again it might be the right one.


I heard it from conservatives in any case..

What I am asking is do you have a source for your claim that they ran out of money?
 
What I am asking is do you have a source for your claim that they ran out of money?

Generally from all media that I have seen talk about the hotel..

The first source I came up with..

North Korea in the midst of a mysterious building boom - Los Angeles Times

construction ceased on the concrete skyscraper in 1992 due to financial difficulties.

And afterall like you people keep repeating it cost like 2% of North Korean GDP, so I think its more likely it stopped by money than that they "didnt see a need to finish it"..

Wikipedia..

cost of construction was US$750 million

There had been some question about whether North Korea had the raw materials or energy for such a massive project.[2] A government official said in 2008 that construction had previously been halted when funds ran out.
 
Thank you.

They probably couldn't find anyone to invest in their ugly building. :rofl

Despite me not liking North Korea, I think the building is nice, probably one of the top 20 skyscrapers I have seen. Judging from the picture. It looks far better to me than the empire state building, even if I like the US far better than North Korea.

The actual reason for this thread was that I read an article in a Norwegian paper about how the work is continuing now, and the picture of the building with a glass facade. I thought it looked awesome, so I wanted to post it here and see if you people found it awesome as well, even thought its North Korean.. But apparently you people seem extremely split on the issue. Some people think its completely awesome while the rest do not like it at all..

I do find that weird if it has NOTHING to do with it being North Korean.
 
Last edited:
the buildings around
how its structured
the concrete

All of these things DO add to the visual appeal.

For example, if you like a more traditional look than the new age glass monstrosities, the Empire State Building having a more visible concrete actually enhances its aesthetics by giving it a traditional look and an interesting dichotomy between the glass and concrete.

Its structure is a HUGE factor of it. For example, I don't mind the triangular shape of the NK building though I'm not a HUGE fan of it, but I hate the structure of the huge glass panel on the front. It seems out of place and makes it end up looking like a rocket ship rather than a building. Back to the Empire State Building, to me the structure of it gives the impression of a water fall, as you go farther down with each different piece jutting out it seems like the concrete is flowing over the building like water from a stream. The structure of the Empire State building adds to its aesthetics for me.

What buildings are around DOES matter. Things are beautiful, in part, due to the surrounding things. Sometimes, something that sticks out hugely from its surroundings can be appealing...other times it seems gaudy and over done. I like the Empire State Building; its size is enough to have a leg up over the other large buildings of New York's sky line. However, if it was in the down town area of my home city:

cityscape_roanoke_sm_600.jpg


I'd probably say its FAR less attractive. Why? Because it would be SO out of place that it would just look weird, not beautiful. It'd tower nearly 60 stories over anything near by. That goes from being large enough to make an impact to just monstrous. That takes away from the appeal.

Talk to any good photographer and they will tell you, the area around what you're photographing DOES matter. Your surroundings play into whatever it is you're making, same goes for the buildings. The Empire State building is a majestically large building amongst other large ones. The one in NK is a gigantic monstrosity amongst run down fledgling smaller ones gathering at its foot like ants looking upon a person.

Additionally, where its built and how its built CAN affect peoples aesthetic views. For example, I know people who generally find designer clothes to be rather unpleasing to the eye. Not necessarily because they're not good to look at, but because for the price that they cost they are not as attractive enough to justify it, thus making it even uglier in their eye as it is wasteful. Now, you can whine, bitch, and complain that that's biased of them but that is part of human nature. We all view beauty differently, and all view it through different criteria's. There is no definite, universal, definition of "beauty" because its impossible to have one. Grossly over the top, wasteful things can be so offensive to the person viewing it that it can easily factor into whether they find something attractive or beautiful.

If it was simply "north korea" that was the issue, then people wouldn't be commenting positively on the next thing posted from North Korea, but its not. For those that have an issue with it for being wasteful, it would not have mattered if it was North Korea of South Africa, such huge decadence and waste in what is essentially a paper tiger of architecture to them is offensive to the senses and makes the thing look ugly.
 
Last edited:
All of these things DO add to the visual appeal..

Those do not matter when its the building I am asking about...

Ok since you cannot get past your bias against North Korea.. What if I manipulate the picture and put the North Korean building in the middle of New York, and the best quality concrete is used on it.. What do you think of it then, the visual appeal?

Thats all I want to know, just look beyond everything else. It shouldn't matter of the building is in Antarctica or paradise. Or if its perfectly in place with a million similar building or out of place because its the only one.. I am just asking what you think of that building, if you think its nice/cool, visually from the picture(blur out the rest with a photo shop filter if you must)..
 
Last edited:
Those do not matter when its the building I am asking about...

Ok since you cannot get past your bias against North Korea.. What if I manipulate the picture and put the North Korean building in the middle of New York, and the best quality concrete is used on it.. What do you think of it then, the visual appeal?

It would look almost as out of place in New York as it would in Pyongyang. Really there's nowhere that it could be that it would look appealing. It would look a little bit better in Las Vegas or in Disney World...but it still would not be a beautiful structure.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Thats all I want to know, just look beyond everything else. It shouldn't matter of the building is in Antarctica or paradise.

Of course it does. Christ The Redeemer looks a lot better on a mountain overlooking Rio de Janeiro than it would in the middle of Battery Park. The Eiffel Tower looks a lot better on the Paris skyline than it would amid oil rigs in Houston. The Egyptian pyramids look a lot better in the desert than they would in Japan. And the Empire State Building looks a lot better in New York City than it would in Madagascar.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Or if its perfectly in place with a million similar building or out of place because its the only one.. I am just asking what you think of that building, if you think its nice/cool, visually from the picture(blur out the rest with a photo shop filter if you must)..

If we're blurring out everything around it, I guess the Hotel of Doom would look OK if I could assume it was made out of Legos and was twelve inches tall.
 
Last edited:
Of course it does. Christ The Redeemer looks a lot better on a mountain overlooking Rio de Janeiro than it would in the middle of Battery Park. The Eiffel Tower looks a lot better on the Paris skyline than it would amid oil rigs in Houston. The Egyptian pyramids look a lot better in the desert than they would in Japan. And the Empire State Building looks a lot better in New York City than it would in Madagascar.

All that doesn't mater when you are only suppose to be looking and commenting on the building.

Unfortunately it seems I didn't use photo shop to blur out the surroundings in hope that people could just view the building and comment it.
 
All that doesn't mater when you are only suppose to be looking and commenting on the building.

Unfortunately it seems I didn't use photo shop to blur out the surroundings in hope that people could just view the building and comment it.

If you had done that some people would be saying they like it, others would say that they don't, and many would be saying "I don't know. With a building like this, it would depend on it's context. I'd have to see what would be around it"

Context matters in architecture. It doesn't make sense to even try to evaluate such a building without a context, which is what you want people to do. Forgive them if they continue to want to make sense while you go off into lala land.
 
Those do not matter when its the building I am asking about...

Ok since you cannot get past your bias against North Korea.. What if I manipulate the picture and put the North Korean building in the middle of New York, and the best quality concrete is used on it.. What do you think of it then, the visual appeal?

Thats all I want to know, just look beyond everything else. It shouldn't matter of the building is in Antarctica or paradise. Or if its perfectly in place with a million similar building or out of place because its the only one.. I am just asking what you think of that building, if you think its nice/cool, visually from the picture(blur out the rest with a photo shop filter if you must)..

And you wonder why people don't respond honestly to your bull****. Its because that's what it is, utter and complete bull****. You're not here for honest discussion, because even when people try to give you the benefit of the doubt you don't read or understand what they say and keep spewing out your same bull**** rhetoric.

Yes, all three of those things play into the building you posted and the building you later tried to contrast it to, the empire state building. Its not about "The best concrete", its about the color, the design, etc. I don't like the huge amount of glass of the one in NK, I like the mix of concrete and glass on the empire state building. NOTHING TO DO WITH NORTH KOREA, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. I like the empire state buildings structure, it looks like a water fall of concrete, it makes it pleasing to me. This thing looks like a ****ing rocket ship and that's not appealing to me in a building. NOTHING TO DO WITH NORTH KOREA, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. The Empire State building does not seem out of place in its environment, thus increasing its aesthetic appeal, the other one looks like an out of place monstrosity. NOTHING TO DO WITH NORTH KOREA, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

If it was in New York I'd STILL not like it. Why? Because I STILL wouldn't like it looking like a rocket ship and I STILL wouldn't like all that glass. The only difference would be the environment would be SLIGHTLY better for it, and its so new age and shiny it'd still feel out of place to a point. As someone else said, Las Vegas I could see with it.

You're not here for debate, you're a hack rhetoric speaker that has your own thoughts in mind and god be damned if you'll ever veer from it. Even when people try to actually enter into intelligent, legitimate, respectful discourse with you you come back with drivel like this. I'm done, enjoy your little game. Everyone knows it, its flawed, illogical, and down right elementary in its presentation. My mistake for actually trying to have an actual conversation with you and expecting you to have even an ounce of intellectual honesty.
 
Once again :

PASS :

2-3-img320.jpg


JucheTower.jpg


FAIL :

ryugyong_hotel.jpg


Both in North Korea. Get it? Got it? Good.
 
Last edited:
And you wonder why people don't respond honestly to your bull****. Its because that's what it is, utter and complete bull****. You're not here for honest discussion, because even when people try to give you the benefit of the doubt you don't read or understand what they say and keep spewing out your same bull**** rhetoric.

Yes, all three of those things play into the building you posted and the building you later tried to contrast it to, the empire state building. Its not about "The best concrete", its about the color, the design, etc. I don't like the huge amount of glass of the one in NK, I like the mix of concrete and glass on the empire state building. NOTHING TO DO WITH NORTH KOREA, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. I like the empire state buildings structure, it looks like a water fall of concrete, it makes it pleasing to me. This thing looks like a ****ing rocket ship and that's not appealing to me in a building. NOTHING TO DO WITH NORTH KOREA, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. The Empire State building does not seem out of place in its environment, thus increasing its aesthetic appeal, the other one looks like an out of place monstrosity. NOTHING TO DO WITH NORTH KOREA, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

If it was in New York I'd STILL not like it. Why? Because I STILL wouldn't like it looking like a rocket ship and I STILL wouldn't like all that glass. The only difference would be the environment would be SLIGHTLY better for it, and its so new age and shiny it'd still feel out of place to a point. As someone else said, Las Vegas I could see with it.

You're not here for debate, you're a hack rhetoric speaker that has your own thoughts in mind and god be damned if you'll ever veer from it. Even when people try to actually enter into intelligent, legitimate, respectful discourse with you you come back with drivel like this. I'm done, enjoy your little game. Everyone knows it, its flawed, illogical, and down right elementary in its presentation. My mistake for actually trying to have an actual conversation with you and expecting you to have even an ounce of intellectual honesty.

I didnt say it had anything to do with North Korea, but judging the visual appeal of a building on the type of concrete on speculate is used, now that really shows something else alltogether.
 
Back
Top Bottom