Does the skyscraper still have a future? (BBC)

[MolsonExport]

Does the skyscraper still have a future? (BBC)

China has restricted construction of very tall buildings, calling them vanity projects. It comes at a time when offices across the globe are filled with empty desks and some workers are wary of sharing hermetically sealed spaces. So does the skyscraper still have a future, asks author Judith Dupré.

Ninety years ago, after the world had survived a global pandemic and was on the brink of a devastating economic downturn, the skyscraper's golden age dawned.

Its breakout stars - the Chrysler and Empire State buildings - were the tallest structures ever built and captured the public's imagination.

The Chrysler's spire, secretly assembled inside the building, emerged in a legendary coup, winning the tower the coveted title of "world's tallest" in 1930. A year later, the Empire State took the title, but the enormous building was slow to lease, so slow that it was called the "Empty State Building" until King Kong, a 1933 film about a lovesick gorilla who scales the building, premiered and filled its floors.

Skyscrapers' second golden age has been under way for the last 20 years, although construction everywhere has slowed or paused. There was a 20% decrease in the number of tall buildings completed globally in 2020, compared with the previous year, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. This is most evident in China, where, until recently, towers were going up at a breakneck pace.

So will a post-Covid world still be building skyscrapers?

They've been written off before. After 9/11, the tall tower was declared dead, a wildly premature prediction. More skyscrapers have been built in the last 20 years than were built in the century previously, and they are safer, stronger, and greener than ever, thanks to the rigorous building standards that were adopted globally following the attacks on the Twin Towers.

A nation's fortunes can pivot on its claim to the title of "world's tallest." Just as Petronas Towers put Kuala Lumpur on the map, the Burj Khalifa, the tallest structure on Earth, transformed Dubai from a remote desert outpost into a prosperous global destination.

Such towers also spur new development. "Burj Khalifa anchored a 300-acre parcel of many, many buildings, and it worked," says Adrian Smith, a founding partner of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, whose high-performance towers include the Burj Khalifa and Jeddah Tower in Saudi Arabia, which is set to become the world's tallest when completed.

Still, designers are questioning the formula: high density populations + high land values = high buildings - that once drove construction. There has to be a good reason to build a 500-metre building, says Kamran Moazami, a managing director of WSP, whose portfolio includes the tallest building in London (The Shard), the tallest in the US (One World Trade Center) and tallest in Asia (Shanghai Tower).

"You have to ask what is the best possible, most economical way to build. Extreme height can create a destination, as in Dubai, but is not needed in well-known cities like Shanghai or Manhattan. Today, an iconic tower is judged not only on its appearance but on its carbon use."

More here

[mrnyc]

^ the fixated brits keep trying to knock skyscrapers, but nobody is listening.

[montréaliste]

Landing in Dubai would be like being thrown into a frying pan with nine inch nails sticking out. Don’t get the attraction.

[iheartthed]

Yes.

[mhays]

I wish she'd brought home the point that what drives a supertall is different than what drives an ordinary skyscraper.

[jd3189]

As societies around the world continue to urbanize and reduce sprawl, the skyscraper will continue to live on in the core of most major metros.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

I wish she'd brought home the point that what drives a supertall is different than what drives an ordinary skyscraper.

an excellent point and an incredibly important distinction.

the amount of land on our planet where a 500+ meter ultra-tall megatower truly makes full economic sense (not just pride/vanity/"because we can") is frightfully small.

but a bog-standard 30 - 60 story building? yeah, there are several orders of magnitude more places where those absolutely will still pencil out on a purely economic basis.

[homebucket]

Yes.

[JManc]

I see more and more residential towers than office towers being developed but skyscrapers aren't going anywhere. Salesforce built that big expensive tower in downtown SF but went to WFH though they probably won't have any issue(s) subleasing that tower.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

I wish she'd brought home the point that what drives a supertall is different than what drives an ordinary skyscraper.

The BBC is not actually good journalism. They have a large global network but it’s broad, not deep. They don’t do detailed, thoughtful pieces, but rather 2-3 minute reads on a wide variety of subjects. It’s good for bringing things to the general public’s attention I suppose but useless for anyone (like people on this forum) who has existing knowledge of a topic.

[mhays]

The media rarely does, except topic-specific outlets and beat reporters.

One reason is that reporters are generalists. Anyone in a significant role in any field will know more about that field.

Another is that journalism practices favor inpartiality over accuracy. They don't run drafts by experts. They only pick points for follow-up questions.

In this case the writer is apparently an expert. But a good book writer or thought leader might not be a good short-article writer, as the latter requires getting complex points and context out in very brief form. Or maybe the editors got in the way, as sometimes happens.

[ssiguy]

A very lazy article.

How can you ask "is the skyscraper dead?" when you don't even define what a skyscraper is? For some a skyscraper maybe a 100 meters and for others 500.