Skyscrapers, is it time to stop building them?

[C.]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

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

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

Aside from the inflammatory title, I read it with an open mind. My thoughts are that it's a absurdly narrow comparison of the carbon footprint of a midrise building to a skyscraper, along with the other environmental impacts. It ignores basically everything else such as planning, personal preference, financial feasibility, architectural/design expression and so on.

I would love to see the same analysis comparing skyscrapers to single-family sprawl. Which one is better for the environment, Mr. Moore, I wonder.

DC and Paris are fine cities with their mid-rise buildings. However, New York, Chicago, Toronto are all amazing cities with their mix of single-family, mid-rises and high-rises. Let people choose their desired housing type. I personally like townhomes and high-rise buildings. I don't mind mid-rises per say, but the new ones are not for me because I absolutely hate living in a Houston donut or 1+5 structure.



I'm also not a fan of single-family homes.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

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

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

Everyone, its a Britt. European perspectives should be discarded.

[Tom In Chicago]

This is a stupid thread. . .

. . .

[dubu]

i do like skyscrapers in the desert like las vegas. but only if the city is built urban and not sprawl. but huge mountains and forests is my pick for outside deserts.

[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.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

This is a stupid thread. . .

. . .

Then why did you take the time to post in it. If you don't agree with what the article says, that's fine. Just don't be rude

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by C.

Aside from the inflammatory title, I read it with an open mind. My thoughts are that it's a absurdly narrow comparison of the carbon footprint of a midrise building to a skyscraper, along with the other environmental impacts. It ignores basically everything else such as planning, personal preference, financial feasibility, architectural/design expression and so on.

I would love to see the same analysis comparing skyscrapers to single-family sprawl. Which one is better for the environment, Mr. Moore, I wonder.

DC and Paris are fine cities with their mid-rise buildings. However, New York, Chicago, Toronto are all amazing cities with their mix of single-family, mid-rises and high-rises. Let people choose their desired housing type. I personally like townhomes and high-rise buildings. I don't mind mid-rises per say, but the new ones are not for me because I absolutely hate living in a Houston donut or 1+5 structure.



I'm also not a fan of single-family homes.

I agree with you.

[muertecaza]

I'm with C., it seems like an aesthetic argument by someone that just doesn't like skyscrapers, wrapped in a thin veneer of environmentalism. Any time I see an argument like this, I'm surprised at how little attempt is made to balance tradeoffs. At most, he gives the vague argument that tall buildings are 20% less efficient than medium buildings. But when buildings themselves are only 6% of greenhouse gas emissions, and tall buildings are a tiny fraction of all buildings, and likely more efficient than the majority of low-rise, single use buildings, what are we really talking about?

The real point is he just doesn't think skyscrapers are cool:

There’s another meaning to “environment”, which describes personal rather than global surroundings. In this respect, it’s a bit of mystery why towers are thought desirable: you typically progress from a windy and inhospitable plaza to a soulless lobby, to a long lift ride, to another lobby, to a flat that has to be fortified and sealed against strong winds, to a balcony (if you’re lucky) with a similarly embattled relationship to nature. Good design can mitigate at least some of these deficiencies, but good design is weirdly hard to find in new tall buildings.

Skyscraper apartments are sold on the view, with prices rising the higher you go up a building, which can indeed be spectacular. But this visual buzz goes with a range of sub-optimal physical experiences, which have been made that much less attractive by the spread of a virus that seems to thrive in air-conditioned and enclosed spaces. Architecture is not just about things you can see.

Fine. But there's not much "mysterious" about why people like skyscrapers. I think most here would have very different descriptors than "inhospitable," "soulless" and "embattled." And I have no clue what he's even saying by bringing in COVID.

[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

[dubu]

about the crazy amount of skyscrapers in the world, to bad we cant move some to areas without any. maybe im ocd lol.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by dubu

about the crazy amount of skyscrapers in the world, to bad we cant move some to areas without any. maybe im ocd lol.

I'd love some of the Asian skrapers built here in America. They look edgy and cool.

[MolsonExport]

The Guardian is top shelf, as far as mainstream newspapers are concerned.

[Centropolis]

coastal/chicago/minneapolis/maybe denver no, everyone else, yes. the texas cities w/ limited exceptions but they need to build more core density.

[Centropolis]

theres some other situations i’m conflicted on - secondary high value pre-war districts like the one i’m in right now maybe…like three cranes on the skyline and that stuff would probably be beyond the outerbelt if not here.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

I'd love some of the Asian skrapers built here in America. They look edgy and cool.

They looks edgy and cool, but, many are almost suburban or even theme park like with their connection to street life. For instance:
https://goo.gl/maps/yJ16hL7kPcdzH8Av7

or

https://goo.gl/maps/eeoTZYRock7PpjCV7

[Zapatan]

Places like New York, Chicago, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Shanghai etc. basically have to build skyscrapers. They fit these cities, are necessities and aren't ruining aesthetics.

European cities don't work as well with skyscrapers (not in a bad way, I love the old buildings tbh, it's a trade off)

I'd love some of the Asian skrapers built here in America. They look edgy and cool.

Most of the USA's newer supertalls look like Asian skyscrapers to me, I like them too

[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.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

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

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

For a second I thought Joel Kotkin wrote this.