HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 5:08 PM
mountsac mountsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Bull. Sears Tower and John Hancock were built by entirely private interests, and Chicago Spire, if built, would be the same. The government doesn't build them here.
well then scratch 'countries' and insert 'cities.'

i guess my point was that the size of the country (by area), in my mind, isn't a valid way to generalize why people build supertalls. read the post i was replying to, in which it implies that samll countries build less "international" looking skyscrapers becuase they want attention, and countries like the US and china build supertalls that look "international" because they don't have to worry about being in the spotlight.

btw, i'm from chicago. can't wait till 3/26 when shelbourne releases the final version
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 5:47 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
I'm quite sure you'll find sprawl wherever you look that's not in Europe or Asia.

In fact, that would seem to be what this is, sprawl in Edmonton:
See, you are looking at the layout of the roads and not the houses. Sure roads are architecture, but you're blinding yourself by it. Actually take a look at the houses and not the roads - because the same sprawl happened in Paris as it did in London, Vienna and Prague when they were growing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 6:18 PM
holladay's Avatar
holladay holladay is offline
Bombshell Vintage
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,249
ok xelebes, you seem bent on defending sprawl. maybe some cities have bigger lot sizes while others smaller, maybe some cities build more golf course communities, maybe some cities build lots of cul-de-sacs while others very few, maybe some cities build more townhouses, and maybe some cities have a preponderance of McMansions. ill give you all of that.

but, i ask, what difference does any of it really make? if you build a lowe's in phoenix you might cover it in stucco and put a little row of tiles on top, whereas if you build it in atlanta it will probably be brick with some stucco trim. if that's 'city branding' then certainly it is only the lowest common denominator type of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 10:40 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,134
But exactly, how would you make it different?

We are naturally going to move out in some degree. Car-centric or not, it is going to sprawl. Building up is going to happen similar - but does throwing some glass, concrete and steel here and there make the denominator any better?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 11:15 PM
holladay's Avatar
holladay holladay is offline
Bombshell Vintage
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,249
well i wouldn't say that iconic towers are the ideal solution. but as phallic and ego-assertive as they are, towers are better than sprawl. sprawl de-localizes individual cities and destroys the subtle qualities of scale, texture, use, material, etc. that otherwise define them. towers, at least, identify a place.

as for better solutions, i think the answer on a broad-scale could lie in planning reform that encourages a sort of 'self-build' program, wherein individuals are more involved in the design and development of new projects in their communities and zoning could be made much more flexible to provide for projects that deviate from conventional models. on a small-scale, there has to be increased importance on better materials, details, and design quality. this can only be achieved by reprioritizing our goals when we construct new buildings and will require a (not impossible) social revolution of sorts. i like to think of this as 'responsive development' - buildings that propose new additions to the city which actively try to engage existing conditions and build on them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 11:51 PM
anm anm is offline
maverick
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Planet Earth, Sun, Milky Way
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
...In nations like US, Russia, China, Hong Kong the supertalls don't really reflect any sort of other cultural influences...
Hong Kong is not a nation and is in China.
__________________
Russia , St. Petersburg, Moscow , Moscow's skyline , Moscow IBC, Moscow projects & updates, Moscow metro, Moscow Parks and Estates

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2007, 12:30 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by realm0854 View Post
well i wouldn't say that iconic towers are the ideal solution. but as phallic and ego-assertive as they are, towers are better than sprawl. sprawl de-localizes individual cities and destroys the subtle qualities of scale, texture, use, material, etc. that otherwise define them. towers, at least, identify a place.

as for better solutions, i think the answer on a broad-scale could lie in planning reform that encourages a sort of 'self-build' program, wherein individuals are more involved in the design and development of new projects in their communities and zoning could be made much more flexible to provide for projects that deviate from conventional models. on a small-scale, there has to be increased importance on better materials, details, and design quality. this can only be achieved by reprioritizing our goals when we construct new buildings and will require a (not impossible) social revolution of sorts. i like to think of this as 'responsive development' - buildings that propose new additions to the city which actively try to engage existing conditions and build on them.
Maybe, but from the looks of it - I see around 20 to 50 different developers making things around here devoted to suburban development. Of course, some, if not many, of these include apartments, townhouses and rowhouses. Of course, I think Edmonton is a lot more compact than others because there isn't that many people who make more than what a tradesman makes.

*shrug*

All I know is that the houses are architecturally different than elsewhere. Developers still don't deviate all that far from what has been tried and tested, giving a culture of architecture to develop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2007, 12:14 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by staid_leming View Post
I am currently writing a paper on city branding, why cities do it, and the effects it can have on local comunities. Genrally using supermodern architecture instead of architecture linking to local cultures and ideas.

im quite interested in this topic and i thought i would share it with you guys, to see what views you have - if i use any of them in my paper you will be refrenced
You probably already finished your paper; but you should look up the "Bilbao Effect" if you haven't already - the Guggenheim museum that was built in Bilbao, Spain & designed by Frank Gehry. It turned what was an otherwise decrepit & failing industrial town into an internation arts city - but the museum was the cornerstone of a greater city plan of supporting the arts.

You don't have to design an entire city - it is quite noticeable to simply change part of it, kind of like giving it a facelift. The other part is marketing... and that's why starchitecture is so great at what it does: it's got flash, it's got bling, and draws a huge amount of attention to itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2007, 9:35 PM
Altauria's Avatar
Altauria Altauria is offline
Resident Composer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 607
Depending on the city, there could be a multiplicity of styles, like New York and Chicago that have had many 'phases' crunched into the 20th century of modern urban design.

Whenever I'm driving around Chicago, there does seem to be a particular look to everything. What first comes to mind as Chicago's brand (this is my personal reaction, of course, not everyone elses) is an elegant, and somewhat simplified, art-deco/prarie style combination with clean lines. However, when getting past that, many others come to mind, like the imposing black "boxes" like the Sears, Hancock, Daley Center, IBM, etc. Of course one cannot forget the gothic revivals of the Tribune Tower and Wrigley building. And of course, there are the Sullivan and Burnham Chicago school styels with large arched entry ways and incredibly ornate designs and the buildings bases. The interesting thing about all these wildly different styles is that they somehow share a common.....vibe, or flavor. I don't know what it is, but somehow one can easily discriminate a building in New York and one in Chicago, even if they were from the same era and style.
__________________
Fear is the mind killer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.