ROTTERDAM | De Rotterdam | 149 M / 489 FT | 41 FLOORS

R@ptor · #1 Posted **Feb 12, 2011, 3:20 PM**

Height: 149.1 meter (489 feet)
Floors: 41
Use: Office / Hotel / Apartments
Cost: approx. €350 million (US-$ 475 million)

Official website: www.derotterdam.nl

Architect: Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA)

Start: 14 December 2009
Finish: Mid-2013

Render:

http://207.44.228.231/marin/De%20Rotterdam17.jpg

http://207.44.228.231/marin/De%20Rotterdam16.jpg

http://207.44.228.231/marin/De%20Rotterdam15.jpg

http://207.44.228.231/marin/De%20Rotterdam.gif

Green & Blue: Offices
Yellow: Apartments
Orange: Hotel

R@ptor · #2 Posted **Feb 12, 2011, 3:24 PM**

By Eric Offereins from SSC

http://i55.tinypic.com/htagia.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/161xj00.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/2vslxqa.jpg

R@ptor · #3 Posted **Nov 20, 2011, 1:05 AM**

By 'MBarendse' from SSC

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3430/dsc03322zt.jpg

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3691/dsc03321i.jpg

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9449/dsc03323to.jpg

JayPro · #4 Posted **Nov 22, 2011, 12:55 AM**

The cantilevering in the apartment section of the building looks downright treacherous. Matter of fact, I've always been somewhat disturbed when seeing tower renders that feature this element.

Can anyone here point me to or educate me as to the potential hazards involved and/or how they're avoided? Demonstrating a chic trend in skyscraper design that apparently A) puts human life in potential danger and B) sacrifices common-sensical engineering safety standards isn't worth the risks that I perceive to exist.

Rico Rommheim · #5 Posted **Nov 22, 2011, 12:58 AM**

I'm impressed to see Rotterdam embracing highrises so much. Why so?

kenratboy · #6 Posted **Nov 22, 2011, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

The cantilevering in the apartment section of the building looks downright treacherous. Matter of fact, I've always been somewhat disturbed when seeing tower renders that feature this element.

Can anyone here point me to or educate me as to the potential hazards involved and/or how they're avoided? Demonstrating a chic trend in skyscraper design that apparently A) puts human life in potential danger and B) sacrifices common-sensical engineering safety standards isn't worth the risks that I perceive to exist.

You cannot be serious. You don't think this will not be just as safe as any other building out there? How often to high-rises, even when built in countries with sub-standard materials and practices, fail in a way that causes casualties? Sure, it happens, but not exactly something I would worry about.

JayPro · #7 Posted **Nov 22, 2011, 8:14 PM**

All right then...

Let me recast my inquiry so as to hopefully obtain a more helpful answer, my heartfelt thanks for the gratuitous sarcasm notwithstanding:

How, from a standpoint of physics for dummies, can this particular engineering feature be presented to someone--like me--as a design element that won't leave me asking any question at all ever again about its long-term structural stability?

I mean, can anyone explain to me how something like, say, the ridiculously pregnant overhang for the cancelled 5WTC tower can be deemed safe? Apropos of this thread, then, can I look at the apartment section of the project and be assured that the same explanations/rationales would apply here as to there?

If the intent to help me answer this in an informative way isn't out there, I'll simply leave it alone and not risk further derailing the thread topic.

Jstaleness · #8 Posted **Nov 22, 2011, 8:20 PM**

I did like building blocks when I was a kid. This reminds me of adult versions of them.

R@ptor · #9 Posted **Dec 10, 2011, 10:06 AM**

By 'Skyscrapercitizen'

http://oi41.tinypic.com/j77213.jpg

De Rotterdam - hoogwater by Hipstagirl 2011, on Flickr

isaidso · #10 Posted **Dec 10, 2011, 1:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

I'm impressed to see Rotterdam embracing highrises so much. Why so?

It's partly due to a strong Dutch economy, but also history. Rotterdam was one of the hardest hit cities during WW2 so the rebuilding coincided with the rise of the modern skyscraper. It's why Rotterdam looks so new compared to other European cities. The old city was largely destroyed.

I had a 1950s apartment block backing on to my Victorian row house in London. I often wondered why there weren't Victorian row houses there instead. My parents explained that they were destroyed in WW2. When you see a new building in a heavily built up old area of a European city, it's often a clue that a bomb once fell there.