Ultrapolis
Weekly Forecast & Review
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
© Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project – May be used freely with proper
attribution. All other rights reserved.
Council
on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Formally Ratifies Khalifa Tower’s Status
Burj Khalifa World’s Tallest for Years to Come
In a follow up to our brief of February 24, denoting Dubai as city with the world’s tallest skyline, partly as a result of the completion of the Khalifa Tower, we report that the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has made a formal recognition of this development. Following is an excerpt of their press release:
Chicago, 11th March
2010 – The Council on Tall
Buildings and Urban Habitat has received and examined detailed drawings of the
Burj Khalifa submitted by building owner Emaar, and can now confirm the
official building height at 828.00 meters (2,717 feet), as well as the title of
“The World’s Tallest Building”. With the official completion of the building on
January 4th, 2010, the Burj Khalifa surpassed the previous “World’s Tallest”
(Taipei 101) by 320 meters (1,050 feet), an unprecedented increase of 61%. The
Burj Khalifa has become the 16th building to hold the title of the “World’s
Tallest” and stands an additional 773 meters higher, or 15 times taller, than
the world’s first “tall building” (the Home Insurance Building completed in
Chicago in 1885).
Until the 1990’s, the world of tall buildings was dominated by the North American continent and the United States in particular. In 1990, 80% of the world’s tallest 100 buildings and nine of the tallest ten buildings were located in North America. Two decades later, these numbers have fallen to 35% and two respectively. This trend is the result of a dramatic (and continuing) increase in tall building construction in both Asia and the Middle East. The Burj Khalifa becomes the third consecutive “World’s Tallest” to be located outside North America.
China
Talks Tough to Google
In a follow up development to our January 13 brief on
Google’s response to a Chinese cyber-attack on its web servers, Google
announced that it will stop censoring its search results on Google.cn, its
China search engine, within weeks. The company is still trying to find a
way to work out a solution with China, but so far Chinese authorities have
responded angrily to Google’s announcements, and as we previously predicted,
Google will find itself having to withdraw: either from Google.cn, or from its
stated position. And either way, Google will find itself between two
losing options: lose market presence in the world’s largest Internet market, or
lose its reputation as an ‘ethics before profits’ company. One advantage
that Chinese consumers currently do have with the Chinese Google search engine
is that the censored finds are noted in the search results as ‘censored,’ so
Chinese users know that a result has been blocked. With the main Chinese
homegrown search engine, Baidu.cn, search results do not display
censored/blocked sites at all, essentially hiding the censorship process from
the users. Google
accounts for 36% of search revenue in China, while Baidu, Inc. accounts for
58%. Microsoft is poised to take advantage of Google’s moral quandary,
unencumbered by the same moral concerns. The most likely choice to be
made by Google is to strive for a face-saving compromise the Chinese will
accept, even if it means only a cosmetic concession from China. However,
the Chinese have their own face-saving to consider, and will not be
particularly interested.
China
Talks Tough to U.S.
In a rare speech by China’s top government official on Sunday, March 14,
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao uttered blunt words for the United States, accusing
America of moves that “have violated China’s territorial integrity.” The
tough talk followed U.S. approval of weapons sales to Taiwan, and a very
discreet White House visit by the Dalai Lama. These weapons sales have been
routine since the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 which obligates
the U.S. to provide defensive weapons, among other security assurances.
Presidential meetings are also not new, but for President Obama’s postponement
of a meeting in order to not anger the Chinese prior to his China visit, and
China’s unusually strident response to both issues.
China
Talk in Context of Last 12 Months
Other recent developments last year and this year: For the first time
ever, Chinese financial authorities lectured an American president on America’s
need to put its economic house in order, during President Obama’s visit last
November. In April 2009, U.S.
intelligence officials disclosed that foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon's $300
billion Joint Strike Fighter project -- the Defense Department's costliest
weapons program ever, whereby the hackers were able to copy and siphon off
several terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems, making it
easier for an adversary to disable the jet fighters in combat. Similar
incidents have also breached the Air Force's air-traffic-control system in
recent months, as well as computers used to control the U.S.
electrical-distribution system, and other infrastructure. While unproved
(or not publicly acknowledged as proved), the intrusions have been deemed by
intelligence sources as all having originated from China. Unfortunately,
all these developments have received less news coverage, and less American
public interest, than topics like the Oscars or Tiger Woods.
Second Mexican War Draws Near
Already at Our Doorstep, American Consulate Deaths Herald
Spillover
The recent murders of U.S. consulate officials and
relatives in Juarez bring the Mexican drug war ever closer to spilling over into
our border states. Annual deaths in Mexico related to the confrontation
between drug lords and Mexican authorities newly determined to curtail them,
exceed those of civilians and U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan put
together. Looks to get worse before it gets better.
ObamaCare Poised on Edge of Historic Precipice
House Leaders and White House Determined to Pass at All Costs
The political battle currently underway in the halls of
the U.S. Congress, frequently described as a virtual ‘hand-to-hand combat,’ is
very close to call. The new weapon brought into the theater is the “Slaughter
solution,” whereby Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's
health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on
the bill. The calculation is that once passed, the public will soon
forget how the law passed, or perhaps will give a pass to those who vote yes on
the changes, even though they voted no on the original legislation, and never
technically voted yes on the whole bill. That this measure is being even
considered signals with unmistakable clarity that there is no political price
the President and the House leadership is not prepared to pay in order to pass
the transformative healthcare reform legislation. Likewise, the opposing
side is also pulling out all the stops to prevent this legislation from
passing. Both parties have announced unusually harsh measures that will
be applied to any of their members who vote with the other side. Whether
it passes this time, it is inevitable that this will eventually pass.
Will it pass now? Were there someone other than Nancy Pelosi at
the head of the Democratic side of the fight, we would say unequivocally
yes. But, as it is, the number of evenly balanced factors makes this one
impossible to call with certainty. Nonetheless, we still give ObamaCare a
51% of passing this year.
Celebrity Historian Misunderstands History, But Feels Good
Tom Hanks Morally Equates WW II Powers, and WW II to War on
Terror
In an interview in the Times edition of March 15, Tom
Hanks was quoted as follows:
Back
in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that
believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living
was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were
different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on
today?"
(Read more: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1969606-4,00.html#ixzz0hq774UBw)
This remark is surprising, coming from the narrator of a documentary on World War II. This point of view is typical of those who fancy themselves as open-minded and fair in a way superior to their fellow compatriots, and above national identity, whereby emotional self-gratification is of a higher interest than dispassionate reasoning. Of course, the primary Japanese motive was power, not racial animosity, and ours was defense of our human, economic, and sovereignty interests. That’s why the Japanese, unprovoked and allied with the European Hitler, savagely attacked the Chinese, their cultural and racial cousins, in horrific ways that are well documented; and why Americans allied themselves with the Chinese ‘yellow, slant-eyed’ people, who also believed in ‘different gods.’ It is also a fact that U.S. captured Japanese prisoners returned home in good health, faring far better than the walking skeletons we got back.
Just as this moral equivalency does not apply to World War II participants, it also does not apply our fight against terrorism today. To paraphrase comedian Dennis Miller, to notice that the 9/11 hijackers were all Arab Muslims is not racial profiling, ‘it’s being minimally observant.’