Highrise vs. Lowrises

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

How important is height to a city and how does each contribute to both skyline and streetscape? This thread was created to continue the conversation started on page 717 on the 1 WTC thread.


Famous Highrises


The Empire State Building:New York,USA

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/...3bd0c9ff_b.jpg

Shanghai World Financial Center:Shanghai,China
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/...0b9b5519_o.jpg

Willis Tower:Chicago,USA
http://xemanhdep.com/gallery/tallest...uildings17.jpg

2 International Finance Center:Hong Kong,China

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/3...fb800426_o.jpg

Taipei 101:Taipei,Taiwan

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MilWaifJbT...25281%2529.jpg

Nanjing Greenland Financial Complex:Nanjing,China

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04D2118F.002C


Famous Lowrises

Guangzhou Opera House:Guangzhou,China

http://www.bustler.net/images/news2/...rs_2011_01.jpg

Chongqing Opera House:Chongqing,China

http://shafir.info/shafir_images/10A..._1%5E1920x.jpg

Copper Union Building:New York,USA

http://static.worldarchitecturenews....cooper3big.JPG

Disney Concert Hall: Los Angeles,USA

http://www.audioease.com/Pages/Press...l_exterior.jpg

London City Hall:London,United Kingdom
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/...33c1bb33_o.jpg

Aldar HQ:Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates

http://www.escapism-online.com/admin...1277386034.jpg

[JDRCRASH]

Well, obviously not having high-rises isn't detrimental to a city's success. But what i've noticed is that several the world's famous cities that aren't known for high-rises make up for it by having spectacular old age architecture. Cities like LA don't have that.

[Innsertnamehere]

success of a city isn't about whether the buildings are tall or short, its how they meet the street thats important. the building must have retail, and be close to the street with no surface parking, and a sidewalk not separated from the street by grass. in other words, no suburban shit. of course, old, historic buildings did this the best, as there were no such things as cars in the days of their creation.

[Kanto]

Well, in my opinion height is very important, because that is what catches your eye when you look at a city. All buildings can be seen if you stand directly in front of them, but only tall buildings can be seen if you are far from them. I think a city needs at least one giant building to look good.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

success of a city isn't about whether the buildings are tall or short, its how they meet the street thats important. the building must have retail, and be close to the street with no surface parking, and a sidewalk not separated from the street by grass. in other words, no suburban shit. of course, old, historic buildings did this the best, as there were no such things as cars in the days of their creation.

I agree with all of that. However, taller buildings make a lot of sense in some places (e.g. places with great transit options).

@Kanto: So you're saying you like they way a city with tall buildings look. That is pretty unrelated to the function of a city, wether it is growing in size and/or economy and the quality of life in that city.

[mannybrown]

What I like about tall buildings in a city is that they give the city a very visible center that can then be used as a reference point to navigate around. They can serve a similar function to church steeples in medieval Europe, where streets often had no names, and people navigated purely by these visual landmarks punctuating the cityscape. However now with cities being several times larger then their medieval counterparts they demand landmarks several times taller to provide the same function. This extreme height then can backfire and create streetscapes in the "center" that are perpetually in shadow, and potentially anit-pedestrian a la the Equitable Building. This can be mitigated by mandating setbacks like those carried out by many art deco buildings in the 30s, but that can also manifest itself as the entire building being setback like the Seagram building, and its countless other copies. This detached the building from the street, created a dead 'urban plaza', and rendered the street lifeless and vacuous.

Interestingly I find that as long as the street is not completely light-less, tall buildings are not inherently anti-street. The street friendliness and bombastic skyscraper architecture are not mutually exclusive. Tall buildings can be both visually striking in the cityscape, and pedestrian friendly in the streetscape.
It is all about how the building meets the ground. The most obvious way of allowing for a engaging street, is to provide rich retail on the ground floor, and creating a inviting (whatever that means) lobby, and perhaps populating the street with cafes, and eateries that spill out onto it. Skyscrapers can work for the street.

Another great benefit of tall buildings is their ability to almost overnight give a city a new identity. Taipei, Dubai, and believe it or not Paris, all benefited from the new notoriety gained from a tall building (or a "tower"). While I generally dislike the planning and extravagance of Dubai, it is undeniable that Burj Dubai (or whatever it is now) has had a value greater than its real estate (mostly empty) in marketing and publicity. While established cities may not need this publicity, cities trying to attract new development and importance may find it essential. The skyscraper reflects the perceived value of a city, more value, the taller the building.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Guangzhou Provincial Museum:Guangzhou,China


http://photo2.bababian.com/usr553405...Daw5AikA==.jpg

Bank of America Tower: New York,USA


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/...32a5faa6_o.jpg

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by mannybrown

What I like about tall buildings in a city is that they give the city a very visible center that can then be used as a reference point to navigate around. They can serve a similar function to church steeples in medieval Europe, where streets often had no names, and people navigated purely by these visual landmarks punctuating the cityscape. However now with cities being several times larger then their medieval counterparts they demand landmarks several times taller to provide the same function. This extreme height then can backfire and create streetscapes in the "center" that are perpetually in shadow, and potentially anit-pedestrian a la the Equitable Building. This can be mitigated by mandating setbacks like those carried out by many art deco buildings in the 30s, but that can also manifest itself as the entire building being setback like the Seagram building, and its countless other copies. This detached the building from the street, created a dead 'urban plaza', and rendered the street lifeless and vacuous.

Interestingly I find that as long as the street is not completely light-less, tall buildings are not inherently anti-street. The street friendliness and bombastic skyscraper architecture are not mutually exclusive. Tall buildings can be both visually striking in the cityscape, and pedestrian friendly in the streetscape.
It is all about how the building meets the ground. The most obvious way of allowing for a engaging street, is to provide rich retail on the ground floor, and creating a inviting (whatever that means) lobby, and perhaps populating the street with cafes, and eateries that spill out onto it. Skyscrapers can work for the street.

Another great benefit of tall buildings is their ability to almost overnight give a city a new identity. Taipei, Dubai, and believe it or not Paris, all benefited from the new notoriety gained from a tall building (or a "tower"). While I generally dislike the planning and extravagance of Dubai, it is undeniable that Burj Dubai (or whatever it is now) has had a value greater than its real estate (mostly empty) in marketing and publicity. While established cities may not need this publicity, cities trying to attract new development and importance may find it essential. The skyscraper reflects the perceived value of a city, more value, the taller the building.

I could not have said it better myself!