Skyscrapers, is it time to stop building them?

[Dariusb]

https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...tall-buildings

Wasteful? Damaging? What are your thoughts? Let's discuss.

[Steely Dan]

Chicago offers up a very hard "FUCK NO!!!"

along with NYC, we taught the whole damn planet how to do this shit.

Like it or lump it, the sky is the limit, silly earthlings!

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago utters a very hard "FUCK NO!!!"

along with NYC, we taught the whole damn planet how to do this shit.

Like it or lump it, the sky is the limit, silly earthlings!

Lol! Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Chicago the birth place of the skyscraper?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

wasn't Chicago the birth place of the skyscraper?

It's a clever little catch phrase that the local CTB likes to promote, but no one city can take full credit for birthing the skyscraper building type into existence. It was a very evolutionary process.

However, any honest reading of architectural history would certainly place the lion's share of the structural, functional, & aesthetic innovations that gave birth to the skyscraper as springing forth from two main cities: NYC & Chicago.

Together, they are the planet's two greatest skyscraper museums.

And if anyone disagrees with that, they are straight-up wrong.

[JManc]

One should expect such nonsense articles like this from The Guardian.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by JManc

One should expect such nonsense articles like this from The Guardian.

Lol, I didn't know. I thought it'd be a great conversation piece. Are they known for not so great journalism?

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Lol, I didn't know. I thought it'd be a great conversation piece. Are they known for not so great journalism?

No, The Guardian is quality journalism. And people that are calling this click bait apparently don’t know what the term “click bait” means.

You just made the mistake of posting this on a forum for people that are obsessed with skyscrapers is all.

[Sam Hill]

That researcher makes some valid points but I’ll still take skyscrapers over suburban sprawl. Gimme ‘scrapers!

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

No, The Guardian is quality journalism. And people that are calling this click bait apparently don’t know what the term “click bait” means.

You just made the mistake of posting this on a forum for people that are obsessed with skyscrapers is all.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. It was definitely not my intention to cause friction.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Ok, thanks for the clarification. It was definitely not my intention to cause friction.

its not reddit so this thread might not be bad. this is a good topic.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

No, The Guardian is quality journalism. And people that are calling this click bait apparently don’t know what the term “click bait” means.

You just made the mistake of posting this on a forum for people that are obsessed with skyscrapers is all.

The Guardian is an Op-Ed disguised as actual journalism. Their titles are sensationalist which prompts people to click on them to read more which is the very essence of 'click bait'.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by JManc

The Guardian is an Op-Ed disguised as actual journalism. Their titles are sensationalist which prompts people to click on them to read more which is the very essence of 'click bait'.

Okay

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

No, The Guardian is quality journalism. And people that are calling this click bait apparently don’t know what the term “click bait” means.

You just made the mistake of posting this on a forum for people that are obsessed with skyscrapers is all.

The journalism is fine (and particularly good on global current events) but the op-ed section is just left-wing provocatism designed to elicit outrage from the other side of the political spectrum. I.e., just ridiculous positions to get a rise out of people.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 10023

The journalism is fine (and particularly good on global current events) but the op-ed section is just left-wing provocatism designed to elicit outrage from the other side of the political spectrum. I.e., just ridiculous positions to get a rise out of people.

I agree with you nearly a hundred percent on that. There seems to be an unending quest to score woke points of discourse in the darkest corners of the social issues universe. I find the same relentlessness when listening to NPR radio. I think it eventually leads to the kind of exasperation that brings about Trumpism, and to an extent Brexitism.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by JManc

One should expect such nonsense articles like this from The Guardian.

But it's also London, which has its fair share of a lot of really bad unnecessary dick-measuring skyscrapers marring their skies.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ocman

But it's also London, which has its fair share of a lot of really bad unnecessary dick-measuring skyscrapers marring their skies.

Unnecessary to who? And when hasn't building tall been a dick measuring contest? Before skyscrapers, it was cathedrals outdoing one another.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by JManc

Unnecessary to who? And when hasn't building tall been a dick measuring contest? Before skyscrapers, it was cathedrals outdoing one another.

Of of the main draws for Cathedrals were deceased Saints ofor their local parish. Saint’s meant, shrines, shrines meant pilgrims, pilgrims meant local businesses raked in money.

But to your point, local villages would compete by building grand Cathedrals to serve as the final resting place for the deceased Saints.

[Manitopiaaa]

Suburbs = bad! We need density! The planet is dying!

Skyscrapers = bad! We need less density! The planet is dying!

What is wrong with people today?

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Suburbs = bad! We need density! The planet is dying!

Skyscrapers = bad! We need less density! The planet is dying!

What is wrong with people today?

Canadian cities have more high-rises than European cities. Denser than European cities also? Mississauga has more high-rises per capita than Chicago. Denser than Chicago also? Is it high-rises that's holding back the density of Atlanta compared to San Francisco, or something else? Do you want to emulate Canada, or do you want to emulate Europe?

You can see in many US inner cities, like Oklahoma City and Little Rock, it's not lack of skyscrapers than the main reason for low density, it's the huge amount of parking. It's not lack of skyscraper construction that is limiting density in these places, it's the lack of public transit.

Skyscrapers themselves are not economical to build when the parking demand is too high, especially office towers. We can be willing to build skyscrapers as a way to increase density, but there has to be land available to build the skyscrapers. If there is enough land, perhaps the skyscrapers can be surrounded by parking, but then the increase in density will also be minimal due to the amount of space required for parking. What you really need is lots and lots of buses and trains, that is the foundation for skyscrapers.

But we should be able to increase the density of our cities just fine even if not one new skyscraper is built in any of them. Obsessing about super-tall buildings makes no sense when you do not have the transit infrastructure to support them. If a city cannot build dense low-rise and mid-rise neighbhourhoods, then forget about building dense high-rise neighbourhoods. Only a handful of US cities are even at the Winnipeg level when it comes transit ridership, let alone the NYC level, and even NYC is not pure skyscrapers. So forget about skyscrapers, think about improving transit and building dense low-rise neighbourhoods first. You want to build a Manhattan? Then try building a Kensington Market first. One step at a time. Stop thinking way too far ahead, and skyscrapers are just too far ahead for most places, especially in North America.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Doady

Canadian cities have more high-rises than European cities. Denser than European cities also? Mississauga has more high-rises per capita than Chicago. Denser than Chicago also? Is it high-rises that's holding back the density of Atlanta compared to San Francisco, or something else? Do you want to emulate Canada, or do you want to emulate Europe?

You can see in many US inner cities, like Oklahoma City and Little Rock, it's not lack of skyscrapers than the main reason for low density, it's the huge amount of parking. It's not lack of skyscraper construction that is limiting density in these places, it's the lack of public transit.

Skyscrapers themselves are not economical to build when the parking demand is too high, especially office towers. We can be willing to build skyscrapers as a way to increase density, but there has to be land available to build the skyscrapers. If there is enough land, perhaps the skyscrapers can be surrounded by parking, but then the increase in density will also be minimal due to the amount of space required for parking. What you really need is lots and lots of buses and trains, that is the foundation for skyscrapers.

But we should be able to increase the density of our cities just fine even if not one new skyscraper is built in any of them. Obsessing about super-tall buildings makes no sense when you do not have the transit infrastructure to support them. If a city cannot build dense low-rise and mid-rise neighbhourhoods, then forget about building dense high-rise neighbourhoods. Only a handful of US cities are even at the Winnipeg level when it comes transit ridership, let alone the NYC level, and even NYC is not pure skyscrapers. So forget about skyscrapers, think about improving transit and building dense low-rise neighbourhoods first. You want to build a Manhattan? Then try building a Kensington Market first. One step at a time. Stop thinking way too far ahead, and skyscrapers are just too far ahead for most places, especially in North America.

That's a good point. Building a skyscraper in an autocentric metro are will require tons of parking and as we see in most places, above ground.

It will provide us with nice pics from an ever changing skyline, but won't do much to increase urbanity.