Talk:Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid

message: I personal think it would be incredible thing to live in, at least to see. Anyway i would not set foot in it until it has been there for at lease ten years because i wouldn't know how the sea floor would take the support beams. But when they get that structure completely built I would like to see before I die.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.128.125 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Person Remarks

message: I think it's a stretch to claim that it would answer Tokyo's space problems.  Tokyo has a population of 12+ million and the metropolitan area of 30 million.  Adding less than one million living spaces would only help alleviate the problem.  I suggest that a more feasible way would be to simply make more efficient use of existing space by building higher (which is now possible).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanmackinnon (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: But would it 'answer the problem'

message: 6,575 feet tall? carbon nano tubes super strong and light weight, will be able to hold 750,000 people. people on moving walk way will travell about 3 - 6 MPH.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.32.167 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  shimizu pyrimad 

message: This article seems to me to be presenting the subject as though it is a project that has a good chance of being attempted. As this is really just a cool idea and not a project the Japanese government will actually plausibly be working on, the article should probably be rewritten to reflect this and make it clear to the reader. --OGoncho (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Nowhere in the article does it say who came up with this dream. Shameful. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  And who exactly proposed this fanciful idea? 

message: 14 times higher than the Great Pyramid at Giza [...] The structure would be 730 meters above mean sea level
Well, as the Giza pyramid is well over 100 metres, where does this 14 times higher come from? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the kind of subject where we can expect consistent numbers from reliable sources, because it's a fairy-tale rather than an actual building. It's probably better to either remove contradictory claims, or to put them in context ("According to Discovery Channel..." etc). bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much all the math in the article is terrible. A square with 2000m perimeter has 500m sides and therefore 0.25km^2 area, not 8km^2. I'd remove the wrong parts, but considering that entire section is unsourced I can't tell which parts those are. --99.42.90.37 (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Japan uses the metric system, so does TRY 2004 mean that it's 2004 meters tall? 209.188.131.206 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: Perimeter of the foundation above ground would be 2,000 metres. Which means that one side is 500 meters. Then the area should be 500 m x 500 m = 250,000 square meters. However, the article continues that the area of the foundation is 8 sq kilometers. Can somebody explain this. I think the figures are totally wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanbugay (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perimeter and Area 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420134301/http://www.binisystems.com:80/try.html to http://www.binisystems.com/try.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120825041721/http://www.shimz.co.jp:80/english/theme/dream/try.html to http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/try.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any source confirming start of construction in 2030 and finishing it in 2110?
--178.183.178.72 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  construction timeline 

message: Please remove this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:FEB:C200:955F:353F:2244:8C8A (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Construction started 1996' is simply not true 

message: I have added some more reliable news sources for the sake of helping this page become more notable. Hopefully this might help get its multiple issues tag removed sooner or later. User:Sidney Stencil 20:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New citations added