SKYLINES - the sore thumb vs. the plateau

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LucasS6

I support Evanston's contention that one building twice the height of the rest often looks bad.

that is not evanston's contention, that is merely the contention of the 3 dissenting members of the evanston plan commission. the project was actually approved by the commission by a slim 4-3 vote.

Originally Posted by LucasS6

Furthermore, a false dichotomy is being set up. Thinking that it doesn't look good to have a building more than twice the size of any other in town IS NOT equal to saying you enjoy a plateau.

of course it's a false dichotomy, but if i had offered a 3rd option for "somewhere in the middle" then everyone would have chosen that and this would have been a meaningless thread. i chose the two extreme viewpoints to force people to chose one side or the other. i thought i had explained that in my first post, but perhaps you didn't read all the way through it. the poll in this thread is simple, given the two images in the first post, which one is more pleasing to your eye, skyline "A" or skyline "B"? it's just that easy.

[Chicago Shawn]

Sore Thumb!

I can't stand the "context" argument in the downtown of any city that isn't a protected district of one historical period. Evanston in particular, like most places in the nation had a downtown evolve over time. If the whole "don't make it stick out" argument existed for the town's entire history nothing over 3-4 stories would have ever been built, including some of the buildings that greatly shape what downtown Evanston is today. And without the increase in residential density that downtown Evanston experianced in the last decade, it would still be on life support, hanging on by thread from the trickeling of Northwestern University students straying away from campus, as was the case in the '80s. Today its a vibrant, thriving place. Plus, who is to say that 50+ stories won't be the new context of the downtown (of any city) 30 years from now. Plan for tommorow, not just today.

[LucasS6]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

of course it's a false dichotomy, but if i had offered a 3rd option for "somewhere in the middle" then everyone would have chosen that and this would have been a meaningless thread. i chose the two extreme viewpoints to force people to chose one side or the other. i thought i had explained that in my first post, but perhaps you didn't read all the way through it. the poll in this thread is simple, given the two images in the first post, which one is more pleasing to your eye, skyline "A" or skyline "B"? it's just that easy.

You seemed to be taking issue with the idealogy behind the Evanston dissentors opinion when you bolded their thinking. That bolded statement I agree with. The taller Fountain Square I agree with. Doesn't seem either poll option reflects that. If we're just taking about Evanston I don't know why you bolded what you did.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LucasS6

You seemed to be taking issue with the idealogy behind the Evanston dissentors opinion when you bolded their thinking.

of course i take issue with their idealogy. the thought that the best skylines consist of buildings that are all generally the same height is preposterous to me. the best skylines in the world - new york, chicago, hong kong, shanghai, etc. - all consist of buildings with a widely diverse range in heights. the 3 dissenting members of the evanston plan commission don't have a single clue as to what they're talking about, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by LucasS6

That bolded statement I agree with. The taller Fountain Square I agree with. Doesn't seem either poll option reflects that.

if you don't like the poll options, then don't vote in the poll. no one's got a gun to your head.

[LucasS6]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

of course i take issue with their idealogy. the thought that the best skylines consist of buildings that are all generally the same height is preposterous to me. the best skylines in the world - new york, chicago, hong kong, shanghai, etc. - all consist of buildings with a widely diverse range in heights. the 3 dissenting members of the evanston plan commission don't have a single clue as to what they're talking about, in my opinion.

But neither are they a plateau! That's the point.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LucasS6

But neither are they a plateau! That's the point.

uhhhhh, you've lost me. new york, chicago and hong kong are all among the world's best skylines SPECIFICALLY because they don't follow the plateau skyline paradigm that the 3 dissenting members of the evanston plan commission are supporting when they say "A skyline should be composed of buildings, generally of the same height".

[PuyoPiyo]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I voted for sore thumb, but I don't think the Evanston example qualifies. It's only a doubling of height, it's not overpowering.

Now if you had an order of magnitude difference, if you put Sears in a town where the tallest building was 150ft, that would look dumb.

Dubai is probably the best example of the sore thumb right now, but even that skyline is saved because there are other buildings around it that are a significant percentage of it's height. If there was nothing over 300' in Dubai, it basically wouldn't be a skyline, just a single peak above the 'noise'.

That picture of Dubai is not bad at all, it would be better if the Burj Dubai goes more middle and the Al Burj never get built!

It's because most of the buildings in the middle are higher than other buildings on both of the sides, which are perfect position for Burj Dubai to display in.

That is what I was trying to say, I like when the city go for both, which have many other buildings that are in same heights and some of taller buildings in the middle of skyline.

The biggest example about my explaination is Los Angeles which have higher buildings in middle of skyline with other buildings that seems lower in the height than in the middle.

That's why I like my hometown Vancouver, Washington's skyline because all of taller buildings are in the middle with the rest of buildings that are lower compare to middle on both of sides of the skyline.

[LucasS6]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

uhhhhh, you've lost me. new york, chicago and hong kong are all among the world's best skylines SPECIFICALLY because they don't follow the plateau skyline paradigm that the 3 dissenting members of the evanston plan commission are supporting when they say "A skyline should be composed of buildings, generally of the same height".

Part of that opinion is that there shouldn't be a building twice the size of any other in a skyline. An opinion I agree with. Evanston is just the exception to that rule.

The three tallest buildings in Chicago are generally around the same height- compared to their competition, and especially when seen from the most popular vantage point- so they support the idea that the tallest building should not overpower all the rest. What you're arguing against is not what the the Evanston dissentor's are arguing for. You're against all the buildings being generally the same height. They were against the tallest building being way taller than even the second tallest.

Both of you are wrong and both of you are right. No, all the buildings in the city shouldn't be the same height. You're correct there. But you grabbed where they said that- they should generally be the same- but out of context. Their point was that no building should dominate all the others. That's also correct, generally no building should. Both of you are wrong, though, too. Because several buildings of the same height- but not all- generally help a skyline, not hurt it. And they're wrong because in this specific instance Fountain Tower helps the Evanston skyline (although who sees it?).

The problem is where you created a poll in which it was either/or, bascially choosing between two evils (although what the Evanston dissentors were supporting was basically right- albeit not in this instance) and masking it in a referendum on one building. If this was about one building, it would've been phrased as such: Don't insult the reader's intelligence. Although I guess that's more of a journalistic rule than an architectural one.

Anyway, as stated: Fountain Square is fantastic for Evanston's skyline (which is all you really care about here, be honest), but generally one building being absolutely dominanant over the rest is bad for the skyline.

[bryson662001]

I like A because the sore thumb, although taller, is a relativly benign box. If it were very flashy or peculiar in design and called attention to itself then it would be a different story.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LucasS6

What you're arguing against is not what the the Evanston dissentor's are arguing for. You're against all the buildings being generally the same height. They were against the tallest building being way taller than even the second tallest.

no, the dissenting evanston plan commissioners WERE arguing that a skyline should be composed of buildings that are all generally the same height (that's taken from a direct quote from them), a position that i feel is indefensible given the fact that the best skylines in the world consist of buildings that have a widely diverse range in heights.

Originally Posted by LucasS6

The problem is where you created a poll in which it was either/or, bascially choosing between two evils

i don't see that as a problem, i wanted to force people to choose between one extreme or the other. in evanston's case this proposal has been presented as an either/or situation. on one hand you have the developer, pushing for a building twice as high as any existing buildings, and on the other hand, you have the anti-height crowd saying that it should be no taller than the citiy's current tallest buildings (a position represented by the comments of the 3 dissenting plan commission members). so given those two situations, which one do you agree with more? you've said that you generally agree that having all the buildings in a skyline the same height is better than having one building dominate the others by a factor of 2 or more, that's great for you, it's just an opinion that i strongly disagree with. i believe having one buildings dominate is almost always preferable to having all the buildings in a skyline be the same height.

we have different opinions on this matter and were not going to convince each other of our positions so let's just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by LucasS6

and masking it in a referendum on one building. If this was about one building, it would've been phrased as such: Don't insult the reader's intelligence. Although I guess that's more of a journalistic rule than an architectural one.

i have offended you because i created an internet message board poll with a limited number of options to force people to choose one extreme over another? good god you're a sensitive one. in the future i'll be sure to consult you before i create any polls to make sure that all possible answers under the sun are included so as not to offend the overly sensitive among us.

[atl2phx]

the sore thumb works better. it raises the bar and gives dimension to the city that you wouldnt gain with the plateau.

[ChiPsy]

Sore thumb, hands down

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Give me a hammer! Definitely sore thumb skylines. peaks>plateaus

I think it depends on the situation though. A sore thumb/peak can be extremely artistic looking. But the building has to be in the right place on the skyline for that to work.

Williams Tower in Houston's Uptown/Galleria area is probably the best example of this. The building itself is 901 feet tall with many 300 feet tall buildings in the immediate area

[FrancoRey]

Sore thumb!

Denver has three towers that all top off at 6,000 feet exactly in elevation, and it looks like shit. I want the sore thumb tower that will be 1,400 feet tall!

[StarScraperCity]

It really depends. More often than not peaks are more appealing in a skyline. However, I have always admired the midtown plateau in Manhattan. It looks much more mature that way in my opinion.

[Plasticman]

Let's not forget that other larger cities are making bold moves with Nashville being the obvious example. With Signature Tower a full 400' taller than the next building, it will certainly "stick out" but it looks awesome. Mobile did the same thing as well with ROA Battlehouse. See pics below.

Nashville if Signature Tower is Built:




And Mobile with RSA Battlehouse already built:

[SFUVancouver]

Vancouver's downtown core is a full of towers and they are all quite uniform in height at about 25-30 storeys, which gives us a decidedly plateau skyline. However half a dozen or so new, taller buildings are under construction and these should take us towards a more peaked skyline. The Shangri-La is our new tallest and it is emerging as our proud new sore thumb.

Looking at the core from the southwest in English Bay.


Looking from the north at the downtown peninusla.

[UglymanCometh]

Originally Posted by Bergenser

It's booring with buildings in the same height.*
In this case, I definetly choose The sore thumb.


*La Défence is kinda nice with "the plateau."

Agreed. SOME skylines can get away with it when they have well-designed buildings that complement each other.

The Brantford, Ontario skyline however... er, uh...

[Mr Roboto]

Sore of thumb. You have to start building tall some time. Besides, as long as the tallest is not an eyesore, it usually looks good to have a peak or pinnacle in a skyline. Most smaller cities that dont have height limits do this.

In evanstons situation though, (and I dont believe they have any height limit) it appears that they want to dissuade developers from ever building as tall again after this proposal. Is that correct? So from that standpoint (and the idea that they dont want a big skyline period) I would understand why they would vote against a building this tall. Even if I think thats stupid.

But why argue in favor of the plateau? I also feel this is indefensible, and is being used as just an excuse. Washington DC, for example, is not known for having a beautiful skyline. They should just say they dont want tall buildings period, instead of trying to insist that the plateau skyline is the most aesthetically pleasing (which, save for a handful of examples, it is obviously not). I guess I am sick of hearing about nimbys masking their true intentions with poor arguments and excuses.

[Complex01]

Sore thumb i say...