ATLANTA | Development Thread V

[sevensixtwo]

I think the next business cycle is going to surpass most expectations for Atlanta. We're going to emerge as a much more competitive city. I have to reject the notion that Paris' success has something to do with their lack of skyscrapers. Why cant Atlanta try to fill in all the spaces while throwing in as many tall buildings as possible? Soon there will be some very good fill around 12th & Ptree with only taller buildings. 1010, Phase II, Phase III, MO, 1100 Ptree. What's wrong with attempting to maintain this density all the way over to the new bridge, One Atlantic and whatever goes in those lots on the south side of 14th & Ptree. I say put most of the midrise below North or above 17th. Leave the space between for awesomeness.

[GTviajero81]

Just a side-note, I would like bring up that even venerable cities such as both Paris and London have embraced the concept of high-rises, particularly with respect to the former, the La Défense district in which many skyscrapers are located...

[plorenc]

I don't think I'm coming through effectively. I don't really have a direct problem with skyscrapers (except for some structural inefficiencies I mentioned in a previous post), but with the environment which is created around them. I'm arguing for the sake of livability, walkability and sustainability. This is the reason why Paris and Savannah keep coming up--they have all of the above in large quantities. Building lots of skyscrapers may seem like a good idea now, but it is definitely not the best long term strategy. Everyone's economic forecast is based on a scenario where the same current conditions apply.

I realize I'm taking a somewhat unorthodox approach here, but I just cannot accept that our cities can retain the same form without a key component that allows it to work--cheap energy. I think that most on this forum realize that suburban sprawl is utterly obsolete without it, but don't realize the mutual relationship between sprawl and ultra dense city cores.

Because I cannot effectively communicate the relationship, I'll include some Léon Krier drawings from Architecture of Community.








An excerpt:

"Most of the problems of our settlements have a single root cause, namely that, instead of growing organically by means of the multiplication or duplication of autonomous quarters, twentieth-century cities suffer from various forms of mono-functional overexpansion, which create chaos in terms of their structure, use and appearance. In addition, monofunctional overexpansions can cause the critical imbalance between center and periphery.

1)Urban centers tend to overexpand vertically. This phenomenon leads to an excessive density of buildings, activities and uses, which in turn results in an explosion of land values and rents.

2)Suburban peripheries are overexpanding horizontally, driven outward by the low cost of land, result in very low densities of buildings, uses, and activities.

These two forms of hypertrophy [support] each other. The resulting functional problems are interdependent and cannot be solved in isolation." (Krier, 99)

Also, an interview, if you're interested: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3112092

[cybele]

Originally Posted by gttx

And my point is, in a real city (like Atlanta), there doesn't have to be this either/or dichotomy. Maybe this part of the city will have 10 60-story buildings - we just have to give it time to materialize.

Well, we're totally on the same page with that. It just seems to me that the focus has been so heavily on highrises in Atlanta (particularly in Midtown and Buckhead) that the tremendously urbanizing effect of dense, street-friendly midrise building has been overlooked a bit.

[briantech]

Originally Posted by plorenc

I don't think I'm coming through effectively. I don't really have a direct problem with skyscrapers (except for some structural inefficiencies I mentioned in a previous post), but with the environment which is created around them. I'm arguing for the sake of livability, walkability and sustainability. This is the reason why Paris and Savannah keep coming up--they have all of the above in large quantities. Building lots of skyscrapers may seem like a good idea now, but it is definitely not the best long term strategy. Everyone's economic forecast is based on a scenario where the same current conditions apply.

I realize I'm taking a somewhat unorthodox approach here, but I just cannot accept that our cities can retain the same form without a key component that allows it to work--cheap energy. I think that most on this forum realize that suburban sprawl is utterly obsolete without it, but don't realize the mutual relationship between sprawl and ultra dense city cores.

Because I cannot effectively communicate the relationship, I'll include some Léon Krier drawings from Architecture of Community.








An excerpt:

"Most of the problems of our settlements have a single root cause, namely that, instead of growing organically by means of the multiplication or duplication of autonomous quarters, twentieth-century cities suffer from various forms of mono-functional overexpansion, which create chaos in terms of their structure, use and appearance. In addition, monofunctional overexpansions can cause the critical imbalance between center and periphery.

1)Urban centers tend to overexpand vertically. This phenomenon leads to an excessive density of buildings, activities and uses, which in turn results in an explosion of land values and rents.

2)Suburban peripheries are overexpanding horizontally, driven outward by the low cost of land, result in very low densities of buildings, uses, and activities.

These two forms of hypertrophy [support] each other. The resulting functional problems are interdependent and cannot be solved in isolation." (Krier, 99)

Also, an interview, if you're interested: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3112092

I agree with you that as fossil fuels get more expensive, atlanta's suburban model of growth is going to come to an end very abruptly, and people will collapse back into the city centers to be closer to things.

How in the world you translate that to "we can only make it if we build short squat buildings" is beyond me.

What has more population density per square ft: 50 floors of condos or 15 floors of condos?

If we're talking about reducing energy consumption by getting people living closer in the cities, its kind of a no brainer that the taller you make the buildings, the more people will be able to live in them.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by briantech

I agree with you that as fossil fuels get more expensive, atlanta's suburban model of growth is going to come to an end very abruptly, and people will collapse back into the city centers to be closer to things.

How in the world you translate that to "we can only make it if we build short squat buildings" is beyond me.

What has more population density per square ft: 50 floors of condos or 15 floors of condos?

If we're talking about reducing energy consumption by getting people living closer in the cities, its kind of a no brainer that the taller you make the buildings, the more people will be able to live in them.

There seems a myth circulating around that the taller a city becomes, the more energy efficient it becomes and the less infrastructure it needs.

There is in fact a reverse bell curve for infrastructure needed: too low density and short (as with suburban sprawl) and your infrastructure becomes too spread out and unnecessary, too tall and the amount of infrastructure needed per square foot increases exponentially. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?

"The city is paying a lot, and sometimes it does impoverish itself -- which is apparent when you see the wastelands of parking that the skyscraper creates around itself. The taller the building goes, the more it needs to be supported underneath. If you don't have the support it starts to be parasitic on the surrounding area. If you do have the support, fine. But it's extraordinarily expensive, and the ridiculous thing is that there's no reason for this expense. Why pay for it? You're paying for it because it's a totem -- it's like Northwest Coast totem poles. It's a religious totem from the mind of Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier. We're worshipping and building these totems because they have become part of our culture."

"The disadvantage is that a skyscraper is like a tree with leaves -- what you see up top represents something even bigger down below. The skyscraper has to be fed. It exists as a concentration of nodes in the network -- the electricity, the sewage, the transport. So there's a concentration of nodes there, and when you concentrate nodes things become singular. Too many, and the thing becomes unmanageable. You have to invent more and more technical solutions in order to take care of this over-concentration of the network."

(http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000732.html)

In addition, the amount of energy expended for construction and operation of skyscrapers also increases as it gets taller.

"The skyscraper as a concept is a product of the industrialized age, made possible by cheap energy and raw materials. The amount of steel, concrete and glass needed to construct a skyscraper is vast, and these materials represent a great deal of embodied energy. Tall skyscrapers are very heavy, which means that they must be built on a sturdier foundation than would be required for shorter, lighter buildings. Building materials must also be lifted to the top of a skyscraper during construction, requiring more energy than would be necessary at lower heights. Furthermore, a skyscraper consumes a lot of electricity because potable and non-potable water must be pumped to the highest occupied floors, skyscrapers are usually designed to be mechanically ventilated, elevators are generally used instead of stairs, and natural lighting cannot be utilized in rooms far from the windows and the windowless spaces such as elevators, bathrooms and stairwells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper#Sustainability

The sweet spot, where infrastructure is the most efficient and the least energy is expended, is in the 4-7 story range, which is exactly why I'm advocating that.

[sevensixtwo]

Yeah Im just really having trouble getting on board with the idea that Skyscrapers are too inefficient. BoA is a bad example of street frontage but look at some more modern buildings: 12&M, Spire, Viewpoint, even Metropolis. 999 is going to be revamping it's street frontage soon. Not too many building plans have an excessive area planned around their base. Sovereign for example. I dont think being butted right up to the street is out of the scope when we talk about tall buildings. When (if) Viewpoint Phase II, III go up, the whole block will be covered with a wide sidewalk going all the way around. Then the open space is on top of the expanded parking structure.

And the cost of infrastructure? I dont see how doing dramatic upgrades on an empty lot is less cost effective than having to replace the older stuff under a 7 story building after so many years. And the more high tech, deep infrastructure we install the cheaper it becomes to do that on neighboring parcels.

[alleystreetindustry]

Originally Posted by GTviajero81

Thanks! As someone raised in New York City, ire is raised by out-of-towners referring to Manhattan Island as 'New York City'. In their defence, however, New Yorkers in the outer boroughs do refer to Manhattan as 'The City' but we implicitly recognise the five components of NYC.

yes, i am sorry. i meant the island of manhattan. and although i havent lived there (but have visit a couple times), my best friend from the les gave me that same habit. new york city is manhattan, new york are the five boroughs, and new york state is clearly, the state.

he labels atlanta the same way. i am from the city (midtown), and he is from the outer boroughs (east point).

[cybele]

I was heading into the city the other night for dinner and that Tishman building has a very striking "swoop" to it.

[skapunkskatedude]

Blah blah blah, tl;dr

I suppose i'll say this; skyscrapers CAN be efficient, more so than low rises. It means that more people live in one area, can move around a smaller area to get to more stuff, and don't require a car. And these buildings can be built rather cleanly.

As for London/Paris/Atlanta, London and Paris were both cities with ancient histories. Not saying that those buildings are necessarily present still (though they can be), but the grids and filling in those cities are from those times. Atlanta on the other hand is a modern city, and fairly unique (mainly because of the sprawl), and therefore i have no reservations as to what goes where, so long as something does go everywhere. I like skyscrapers as much as any one else on this thread, but lets face it, they ain't all gonna be supertalls. I'll be happy with 10 stories in between.

[tdawg]

Actually, Manhattan is referred to simply as "the city" here, never "new york city." It's like on the weekend (i live now in astoria, queens), if i'm heading into Manhattan where my gyms are, I just say i'm heading into the city to work out. Just like if you lived in Dunwoody, you would refer to going into Atlanta as going into the city.

[joecool]

Originally Posted by skapunkskatedude

Blah blah blah, tl;dr

I suppose i'll say this; skyscrapers CAN be efficient, more so than low rises. It means that more people live in one area, can move around a smaller area to get to more stuff, and don't require a car. And these buildings can be built rather cleanly.

As for London/Paris/Atlanta, London and Paris were both cities with ancient histories. Not saying that those buildings are necessarily present still (though they can be), but the grids and filling in those cities are from those times. Atlanta on the other hand is a modern city, and fairly unique (mainly because of the sprawl), and therefore i have no reservations as to what goes where, so long as something does go everywhere. I like skyscrapers as much as any one else on this thread, but lets face it, they ain't all gonna be supertalls. I'll be happy with 10 stories in between.

I totally agree. I think we need some major filling in with some nice 10 story buildings. If we start getting all super tall it will just not look right. Our skyline already looks too spaced out as it is. Maybe if we could start getting some of the development that Buckhead keeps getting in the city to fill in....

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by skapunkskatedude

Blah blah blah, tl;dr

I suppose i'll say this; skyscrapers CAN be efficient, more so than low rises. It means that more people live in one area, can move around a smaller area to get to more stuff, and don't require a car. And these buildings can be built rather cleanly.

Seriously? Is no one taking into account the force of gravity?

The higher you build, the more you have to compensate for gravity by building stronger foundations, more water pumps and other internal infrastructure, not to mention the equipment required to counteract the force of gravity to build the tall buildings. Building a skyscraper is not a zero-sum game; the higher it gets, the amount of energy expended exponentially increases. Even if you have a relatively energy efficient skyscraper, it will always end up using more energy than a shorter building due to the problems caused by the force of gravity alone.

Also-let's not make the mistake that a dense, pedestrian environment can only be a consequence of tall buildings. First of all, Paris' density eclipses New York's even though it does not have skyscrapers throughout. Second of all, how do you suppose anyone got around cities before cars and skyscrapers?

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by plorenc

There seems a myth circulating around that the taller a city becomes, the more energy efficient it becomes and the less infrastructure it needs.

There is in fact a reverse bell curve for infrastructure needed: too low density and short (as with suburban sprawl) and your infrastructure becomes too spread out and unnecessary, too tall and the amount of infrastructure needed per square foot increases exponentially. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?

"The city is paying a lot, and sometimes it does impoverish itself -- which is apparent when you see the wastelands of parking that the skyscraper creates around itself. The taller the building goes, the more it needs to be supported underneath. If you don't have the support it starts to be parasitic on the surrounding area. If you do have the support, fine. But it's extraordinarily expensive, and the ridiculous thing is that there's no reason for this expense. Why pay for it? You're paying for it because it's a totem -- it's like Northwest Coast totem poles. It's a religious totem from the mind of Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier. We're worshipping and building these totems because they have become part of our culture."

"The disadvantage is that a skyscraper is like a tree with leaves -- what you see up top represents something even bigger down below. The skyscraper has to be fed. It exists as a concentration of nodes in the network -- the electricity, the sewage, the transport. So there's a concentration of nodes there, and when you concentrate nodes things become singular. Too many, and the thing becomes unmanageable. You have to invent more and more technical solutions in order to take care of this over-concentration of the network."

(http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000732.html)

In addition, the amount of energy expended for construction and operation of skyscrapers also increases as it gets taller.

"The skyscraper as a concept is a product of the industrialized age, made possible by cheap energy and raw materials. The amount of steel, concrete and glass needed to construct a skyscraper is vast, and these materials represent a great deal of embodied energy. Tall skyscrapers are very heavy, which means that they must be built on a sturdier foundation than would be required for shorter, lighter buildings. Building materials must also be lifted to the top of a skyscraper during construction, requiring more energy than would be necessary at lower heights. Furthermore, a skyscraper consumes a lot of electricity because potable and non-potable water must be pumped to the highest occupied floors, skyscrapers are usually designed to be mechanically ventilated, elevators are generally used instead of stairs, and natural lighting cannot be utilized in rooms far from the windows and the windowless spaces such as elevators, bathrooms and stairwells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper#Sustainability

The sweet spot, where infrastructure is the most efficient and the least energy is expended, is in the 4-7 story range, which is exactly why I'm advocating that.

A lot of anti-capitalism, anti-industry, and anti-progress people may be cheerleading for the end of the skyscraper, but their assumptions, if the same as yours, are similarly based on a myth. You keep whining about the end of cheap fossil fuels. So what? While complaining that skyscrapers aren't a zero sum game, you forget that energy is not one either. Fossil fuels will be replaced by something else.

Everything you say is contradictory. If you have a hard-on for Paris style development, that is fine. Just quit saying stupid things like the impending decline of fossil fuels will be the end of tall cities and that resources overcoming gravity is prohibitively more difficult than overcoming distance. And quit trolling around a forum called skyscraperpage.com telling people we need to stop building skyscrapers.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by plorenc

The reason why I have a "hard-on" for their type of urbanism is because it has shown to be sustainable through the years. They have existed even without a preponderance of cheap energy, which we have now. Atlanta in its current form is most definitely not going to survive as it is. Whether we like it or not, there will be plenty of changes we'll witness in the coming years.

An ultra-dense commercial core that everyone has to commute to is not something that can exist in the absence of cheap energy. Sure, mass transit will mitigate some of the effects, but only to a certain degree. Gttx made the point that skyscrapers can be built efficiently, so I'm not going to completely discount the existence of skyscrapers in the future of Atlanta, but they will be much less of a staple. If the commercial viability of Atlanta is retained, many more people will live closer to the city in--you guessed it--mid-rises!*

*If high-rises are shown to more viable at that point, then maybe more people will live in then. Based on my knowledge, however, I believe we'll see more modestly sized buildings.

I like mid-rises and I like that style of dense development. I'm excited to see the mixed use, mid-rise, urban style development going on in places like Smyrna and Decatur. As much as I like them, they just don't belong in the center core of Atlanta.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

A lot of anti-capitalism, anti-industry, and anti-progress people may be cheerleading for the end of the skyscraper,

I just checked out the link plorenc posted. Anyone else taking him seriously should probably do the same. Once discovering where this guy gets antipathy for skyscrapers, you'll stop. Here are some gems:

JL What do you think of buildings like the Gherkin?

LK It’s just a fad. What used to be a subliminal form of frustrated sexuality now becomes an open, indecent demonstration of permanent erection. It’s power madness.

So skyscrapers are really just repressed sexuality.

JL There is an argument that with mobile communications, with your iPhone and BlackBerry, the need for the physical office is beginning to decline, that people can work in a nomadic fashion, on the move, from their homes, from cafés, so maybe something radical is going to happen to these highly congested commercial cities.

LK That would mean there had been a need for these high densities. I’m absolutely convinced there never was. They developed because there were lifts and cars and mechanised transport but there was never an absolute need. One could have reorganised modern office building in such a way that you’d never need utilitarian high rise.

So humanity should only do things because they "need" to be done. (Don't tell all the musicians and artists.)

LK It’s absolutely dreadful. It’s just like everywhere else, because the motivation is not beauty, the motivation is prestige and money and power. They are erections in the most sexual, non-sublimated and totally crude way.

More loathing of skyscrapers because he thinks they're an expression of repressed sexuality.

LK Now we are overtaken by environmental problems that are going to wipe out modernism like it was never dreamed of. If you see it purely as a style, you can be charmed by it because they are very nice things.

I calculated that the volume of kerosene I burned flying across the world to design the Miami University building was larger than the volume of the building itself. It is clearly unsustainable. The way we live is absurd. We are in a situation of extremes because of the imperial centrality of Europe and the US for more than 200 years. The architecture of the past 200 years is the architecture of excess, which is largely to do with drawing energies from other countries.

And finally the contempt for skyscrapers is based on a contempt for modern life as a whole.

Plorenc is a joke, and so is his superhero.

[sevensixtwo]

Originally Posted by plorenc

Seriously? Is no one taking into account the force of gravity?

The higher you build, the more you have to compensate for gravity by building stronger foundations, more water pumps and other internal infrastructure, not to mention the equipment required to counteract the force of gravity to build the tall buildings. Building a skyscraper is not a zero-sum game; the higher it gets, the amount of energy expended exponentially increases. Even if you have a relatively energy efficient skyscraper, it will always end up using more energy than a shorter building due to the problems caused by the force of gravity alone.

Also-let's not make the mistake that a dense, pedestrian environment can only be a consequence of tall buildings. First of all, Paris' density eclipses New York's even though it does not have skyscrapers throughout. Second of all, how do you suppose anyone got around cities before cars and skyscrapers?

Goodness gracious me plorenc. First off, a physicist always accounts for gravity. Secondly, your claim of exponential correlation is outrageous. At worst that relationship is superlinear.

Building a foundation for any building is expensive. But is making a deeper, stronger foundation prohibitively more expensive? I think they just have to run the excavators for a few more days, hire a few more dump trucks and use bigger forms for the piles. All the time intensive grunt work is essentially the same. I dont know if anyone saw it, but the hole Tivoli had to dig to build Tenside was just as deep as Phase II's and it took about as long to put in the new utilities and bring it back up to street level.

Consider this: if you build five 10 story buildings you have to build five foundations. If you build one 50 story you only have to build one foundation. Im not a professional builder but I have to assume one beefy foundation is much cheaper than five modest ones. Once the bottom is done, the buildings seem to fly up. There is so much efficiency in having one crew just lay the same floor down over and over until the top. With multiple short buildings, construction crews can never really get into that kind of groove. Look how fast the buildings in Phase II went up. I dont think building an equal amount of usable space across 6 - 10 different lots would have been necessarily cheaper.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by ls1z28chris

I just checked out the link plorenc posted. Anyone else taking him seriously should probably do the same. Once discovering where this guy gets antipathy for skyscrapers, you'll stop. Here are some gems:



So skyscrapers are really just repressed sexuality.



So humanity should only do things because they "need" to be done. (Don't tell all the musicians and artists.)




More loathing of skyscrapers because he thinks they're an expression of repressed sexuality.



And finally the contempt for skyscrapers is based on a contempt for modern life as a whole.

Plorenc is a joke, and so is his superhero.

Way to take the conversation to a great new level.

First of all, this man is not my superhero. I took a few of his comments that I found to have credence and quoted them. I do not agree with all of his opinions and viewpoints.

Second of all, really?

You're just going to insult me instead of responding with something constructive? I guess I shouldn't try to make a point on this forum; all I will get in response is petty insults.

This is a forum, we're here to discuss and debate. If you don't like my opinion, try to form a coherent argument as opposed to projecting some man's (understandably esoteric) opinions onto me in order to discredit me. I'm arguing against skyscrapers from a perspective of sustainability. What I may or may not think they represent does not matter at all in this context.

Edit: I read your posts previous to this one, which did continue a constructive debate. I apologize for any words exchanged that make it appear like you didn't.

[kamden99]

For those not familiar with the Midtown Mile, there are several successful midrise condos mixed in amongst the better known highrises (ViewPoint, Spire, Metropolis, etc.):

Peachtree Lofts: 6 stories, 210 units (Street-level retail includes Utrecht Art Supply Store, The Vortex Bar & Grill and The Condo Store)

805 Peachtree Condos: 6 stories, 110 units (Street-level retail includes Ligne Roset, Select, and Space)

Cornerstone Village: 3 buildings, 6 stories, 310 units (Street-level retail includes ENO, Barrelman Wine, Morris & Raper Intown Real Estate, Pedini Kitchen Showroom and Kai Lin Art Gallery)

These buildings were some of the first condos available in Midtown. They add a great deal of character to the neighborhood, and are essential elements of the Midtown Mile.

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by sevensixtwo

Goodness gracious me plorenc. First off, a physicist always accounts for gravity. Secondly, your claim of exponential correlation is outrageous. At worst that relationship is superlinear.

Building a foundation for any building is expensive. But is making a deeper, stronger foundation prohibitively more expensive? I think they just have to run the excavators for a few more days, hire a few more dump trucks and use bigger forms for the piles. All the time intensive grunt work is essentially the same. I dont know if anyone saw it, but the hole Tivoli had to dig to build Tenside was just as deep as Phase II's and it took about as long to put in the new utilities and bring it back up to street level.

Consider this: if you build five 10 story buildings you have to build five foundations. If you build one 50 story you only have to build one foundation. Im not a professional builder but I assume this is the most expensive part of construction. Once the bottom is done, the buildings seem to fly up. There is so much efficiency in having one crew just lay the same floor down over and over until the top. With multiple short buildings, construction crews can never really get into that kind of groove. Look how fast the buildings in Phase II went up. I dont think building an equal amount of usable space across 6 - 10 different lots would have been necessarily cheaper.

I appreciate your levelheadedness in this discussion, sevensixtwo. Because I do not have any hard evidence or numbers to back my argument, I have to rely on precedence. Skyscrapers (in their current manifestation) are heavily reliant on mechanical processes that are in a large way derived from fossil-fuel based processes. Take away fossil-fuel, and it becomes much more difficult to feasibly construct and maintain.

I can tell you this: smaller-scaled buildings are and have been built for thousands of years without this aid. Many are still standing. If skyscrapers can be demonstrated to have this same sort of sustainability and energy efficiency, then by all means go ahead and build them. My problem with them at the moment is that many of them (due to cheap energy and resources) can be built to have a relatively short predetermined lifespan (as low as 30 years). If builders build with care given to sustainability for a post cheap-energy world, then it doesn't bother me much.

Now that I think about it, most buildings (skyscrapers, mid-rises and houses alike) today are built with the same kind of disregard to sustainability. It's just that skyscrapers are a far greater investment--which also means they are a far greater waste if constructed poorly.