[bobdreamz]

some are balanced like..
NYC, Chicago, Miami,SF.

others are true residential cities like...
Honolulu, Vancouver

and then you have vertical office parks:
Atlanta, Dallas, add any other sunbelt city in the US.

my question is if a city has substantial residential highrises does it detract from its skyline?

[Double L]

I think so, they ussually just don't look good.

[Boise Boy]

Who cares if they "look good"? They make for a better downtown. Besides, it's usually the office buildings that are boring boxes, not residential towers, which are usually tall and slender, and add "interaction" through balconies.

[Double L]

Besides, it's usually the office buildings that are boring boxes, not residential towers, which are usually tall and slender, and add "interaction" through balconies.

Not really.. office towers will look better on the skyline, and they have more room for formatting them to the skyline.

There's no doubt I'd love to see a downtown without any offices, but he said the skyline view. The attractive view of a downtown from outside of the downtown.

[tocoto]

IMO a mix is best for the look and vibrancy of a city.

[araman0]

TYPICALLY, Office towers tend to look better and be more iconic to any city, but it is always crucial to have residential towers also so that the the downtown has life. Also, residential towers have another vital role in a skyline for filling in the areas between office towers. Are hotels in their own category in this poll? They are important too.

[Delirium]

"my question is if a city has substantial residential highrises does it detract from its skyline?"

not imo. residential buildings mean people and activity and a healthy downtown. it's nice to see a mix of the two even if residential buildings outnumber office towers.

vancouver does have a lot condos and apartments but it also has over 22 million sq/ft of office space downtown. i'm not sure how that compares to other cities its size.. but its still a fair amount for a rather small financial centre. 85,000 people live downtown.

this area houses most of the major office buildings
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/d34083/2507downtown_vancouver.jpg

where this purely residential area further south houses most of the new condo construction
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/d34083/2507dsc01712.jpg

and then there's a transition as downtown moves east
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/d34083/2507library.jpg

and finally you mix it all up and you get this :D
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/d34083/2507image001a.jpg

[Chi-town]

There needs to be a mix of both. It's just the nasty concrete balcony-clad residentials that can be too much sometimes.

[keninhalifax]

I believe that the condo frequency's impact on a skyline depends on the era most common to its buildings. New condo developments look much better nowadays than in the '80s (and even in the '90s) when little emphasis was placed on style.

[Enzo]

^True that! But then "good (recent) design" homogenity can be taken too far- ala Vancouver.

It really doesn't matter in the full scope of aesthetics what residential/office mix you have. It all comes down to individual design IMO.

There are just as many poorly designed residential towers in NYC as there are ungainly office towers. And the reverse is true as well.

But for city vibrancy at street level I'd weigh more heavily towards residential towers (or any dense residential/office mix). Parts of Midtown/DT can be eerily empty in the late evening while the Upper-East/West sides are buzzing 24/7.

[DaveofCali]

The office buildings are the centerpiece of the skyline, but the residential towers are complements much of the time, and add thus are fillers and add more of a dense look when you see the skyline (including both kinds of towers) in its longest form.

[sexy_donut]

bobdreamz, i don't want to get off-topic. i'm not talking about aesthetics, but high-density residential towers located downtown help with efficiency. people spend less time on the road, fewer cars are needed to commute, less gas is burned, etc.

residential towers located downtown can also provide activity outside of the 9-5 working hours. the presence of actual people at night makes the downtown area more attractive and cuts down on the crime which plagues many cities.

of course, the VAST majority of residentials are built for maximum cost efficiency, so they're generally not so interesting to look at.

[Bogombo]

Office make the better lookin skyline but only if there is some residential buildings to fill upthe skyline and make it beefed up. Residential alone sucks crap for a skyline. Office alone can suck too, but not as much.

[DMRyan]

Nobody can argue that having high rise residential isn't a good thing in terms of vibrancy of an area, but this is strictly talking about aesthetics. And in terms of good looking skylines, the ones with a lot of gaudy looking or plain residential buildings don't do much for me.

Being on the ground, looking up and being surrounded by highrises is a great feeling, but if we're looking at poscard aerials, bleech!

[Chicago103]

I personally a mixture of office and residential is the best. This applies on both the macro scale on the downtown as a whole but also on the micro scale with individual buildings. I personally think the best skyscrapers are those that are used for both commercial and residential use. There are several examples of this in Chicago especially on North Michigan Avenue where most skyscrapers are mixed use. The most famous being the John Hancock but also Water Tower Place, 900 North Michigan, and others. I agree that too many residential buildings with balconies dosent look so good, but there are many residential buildings without balconies such as the JHC, however Marina City with its balconies fits in with the skyline perfectly. Personally if I had a choice between working in a skyscraper or living in one I would pick living as high above the ground as possible, of course it would be awsome to do both. Multi-purpose skyscrapers like the Hancock would be the wave of the future if I had it my way.

[wolkenkrabber]

i like the mix of residential / commersial Hong Kong has it is very nice :)

[Enzo]

I'm suprised so many dislike balconies on highrises. I admit it is a very thin line between those that work and those that don't though.

In my neighborhood (which is mostly 20-50 storey res.) they're quite common and I'd say for the most part, when well fleshed out they lend an intricate aesthetic unmatched by a flush facade of reflective glass.

Plus there is the *cool* of looking up at a cluster of highrises topped off with good sized trees on the upper set-backs and roof.

I can't recall seeing any 30 or 40 storey towers topped with trees outside Nyc though. Is this common in any other cities?

[Rail Claimore]

Multi-use sksycrapers usually have a balance of ammenities and appearance between the two. But the best skylines have mixes of both and the different office and residential towers work together to make it cohesive. Parts of Miami's skyline look too "tacky" because they all look the same. It gives the impression of massive highrise sprawl where all the condo towers look the same, even though it's far from sprawl. Same with skylines that are only office boxes like Houston. I think this is one area Chicago excells in yet again overall, despite the tackiness of some of the more recent condos built.

[Enzo]

^you've got it bad for Chitown, Rail!

A very nice affliction though, I adore that city myself.:D

IMO though its lowrise neighborhoods are far more successful than most highrise res. areas (with the exception of a few gems already pointed out.)

Are you planning to move there?

[sexy_donut]

i'm a fan of balconies as well. balconies have both aesthetic appeal and practical benefits.

balconies can often add "depth" to a building. when a person alters his/her location, the look of the building will be affected by the balcony. balconies allow buildings to have more sculptural qualities, as opposed to being mainly flat.

compared with windows, balconies can open more area for ventilation. they can be used for drying clothes. hey, the clothes dryer uses quite a bit of energy! and balconies allow high rise dwellers to enjoy the elements.

balconies can also help cut down on solar gain. it might not be a big deal in london or vancouver. but it's noticeable in warmer cities.

[Enzo]

Where r u from sexy_donut?

[Rail Claimore]

^you've got it bad for Chitown, Rail!

A very nice affliction though, I adore that city myself.:D

IMO though its lowrise neighborhoods are far more successful than most highrise res. areas (with the exception of a few gems already pointed out.)

Are you planning to move there?

How'd you guess? ;) Yes, my love for the Second City runs pretty deep in unexplainable ways.

And yes, I'm planning on moving there. Its my top choice as a location for grad school and getting on with my career in urban development.

Btw, balancing out the highrises with the lowrise hoods is another thing Chicago does so well. ;)

[mello]

Sydney and Melbourne are also great examples off cities with nice balances of office, residential,and hotel towers. These two world class skylines have really utilized mixed use towers as well.

I'm hoping that San Diego's skyline does not come off as
"tacky" with most people once this first wave of residential highrises is complete. I think the towers u/c, approved, and planned here have nice designs and we are getting some hotel towers mixed in which bring their own qualities.

[Lexy]

I prefer a good mix of both. I think without one or the other the skyline can come across as too dark and drab. Perhaps a bit forboding as well. Nevertheless, the cities in the world that have managed the mix of good residential design coupled with good office design have a good vibe to their overall appearance. Sometimes the "cookie cutter" design of residential buildings can get a bit old. At the very least, office building designs can be a bit mixed up if need be.

[Urbanguy]

I enjoy a mix of residential and office, i think most office tower skylines look pretty good, while most residential tower designs can make a skyline look nasty, many of Honolulu's residential towers fail to please the eyes as the majority were built during the 70s & 80s and not much love was put into the designs, however the newer designs in the works are really gonna change the look of the skyline, add more color, and make it look a bit more appealing. I do enjoy the fact that the city has a lot of res-towers because well like some people pointed out, having many people in town adds vibrancy to the area, which is very noticeable here in the city. Having a dense vibrant city is more important to me than looks, although i'd prefer both, sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

There are times that i wish that they'd knock down some of the 70s-80s stuff and rebuild haha oh well thats life ;)

[GRID]

I like both the office and residential look. A great skyline has both. However, I most prefer corporate-looking skylines like Minneapolis, etc.

I'm not too excited - in terms of skyline - by the mass of same-height residential towers you see in Vancouver and Honollulu. However, individually, they are interesting. For example, if you focus in on Vancouver, there really are a lot of beautiful buildings. Here in Miami, there are some GORGEOUS residential towers.

IMO, the main disadvantage of residential towers is that the majority of their balcony-studded designs can take away from the overall high-tech look of a skyline.

[Edgewater]

I prefer a balance between office and residential towers to make up a skyline but I do lean more towards the office tower over the condo/apartment tower.

The problem in Cleveland is the lack of good design when it comes to highrise residential downtown. Granted the last major residential complex built was part of the Erieview plan in the 60's and 70's, I do hope that any new construction, once all the loft conversions are complete will be bring new and striking designs to our skyline.

[bobdreamz]

interesting comments from all....one of the reasons i brought this subject up is i think most American forumers prefer corporate skylines whereas if you look across the globe their is definately a mix between corporate & residential....look at Hong Kong, Rio, Sydney,Mexico City and in the US you have NYC, Chicago, Honolulu & Miami.

corporate skylines:
Atlanta
Houston
Dallas
Minneapolis
Seattle
LA
Calgary, etc.

although we preach urbanity in this forum most tend to love the glossy skylines of the cities mentioned above.
Do we want aesthetically appealing skylines or truely functional cities?

[Car Free]

"Corporate skylines," which I assume refers to skylines dominated by office buildings rather than residential buildings, do not preclude residential density. Most NA cities have a CBD, where office towers are concentrated and where residential structures are virtually non-existent. Even our most dense cities have this (i.e. Lower Manhattan, San Francisco's CBD). What those two cities do exceptionally well, however, is provide for density around the CBD that can access transit easily.

Often, this density is surprisingly low-rise. You cite examples of Asian and South American cities that have developed with numerous highrises, but you don't mention Paris or Glasgow or Amsterdam, cities that achieve high densities through the consistent use of closely built low-rise residential structures.

I consider my city to be a functional city. Granted, it's got much to incorporate from places like SF or Vancouver. But to paint Seattle with the broad brush of "corporate skyline," and all that implies (suburban-style residential development, freeway expansion, big box retail, dead street activity) misses the situation on the ground here, as experienced by residents in the urban center. I confess that I wish Seattle would develop more along the lines of Vancouver. I believe it's coming due to some positive zoning changes in the works, but most of Seattle's downtown construction activities since the early-90's has in fact been either residential or retail. The only recent office tower of note since 1991 has been IDX.

Some examples of what I'm ranting about:

Looking down on Second Avenue. Just about everything in the picture (including where this pic was taken from) is residential (the only exception is that short building on the right, which is office space).
http://www.pbase.com/image/23636855.jpg

Looking south on First Avenue, at the site of the coming SAM/WAMU tower. The two tall buildings along the right side of the street are primarily residential.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23636957.jpg

Across the street from my old apartment building on Eighth Avenue, this building under construction (now complete) will never make it in a skyline shot of Seattle -- it's only 6 stories. But it turned a former parking lot into high-quality, below market-rate housing in the Denny Triangle. And there's a "KinderCare" on the ground floor to boot, providing child care for residents and workers. Not a project to make people drool, but certainly an example of infill that makes a city more liveable.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23636982.jpg

More new housing, this time on Fourth Avenue looking north. The low rise residential structures, built up to the sidewalk, are not what forumers think of when they think of Seattle.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23637141.jpg

First & Pike, where the Pike Place Market meets the garish 'Deja Vu' strip club. This picture shows the mix of low rise brick residential that exists in many parts of downtown. In the background, on the far left, is a more recent residential tower. Again, not the shiny, boxy image that people have of Seattle.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23637183.jpg

About 2 blocks north of the Market, on Western Avenue.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23637269.jpg

Looking north on Western Avenue, where just about all of what you see along the right side of the street is residential.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23637218.jpg

Not mention the neighborhoods that surround downtown, which have easy access to the heart of the city and to the transit network. This is from my part of town.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23466773.jpg

[mello]

Looks like we can scratch ol' Seattle of the corporate skyline list.;)

Nice post Car Free. Seattle is looking really good. One question though, even with all this residential contstruction that has occured there most people on this forum say that Portland's downtown is nicer, more interconnected, and vibrant. So I'd like some discussion about which downtown is superior to live in. Does PDX or SEA have a better quality of life and more opportunities for entertainment for its downtown residents?
thanks guys. 8)

[JiminyCricket II]

^Yep Carfree.

Nearly all residential that you see here, except for the extreme right side of the picture:
http://seattle.dallasmetropolis.com/P1010073-sea-y40-1024.jpg

Even further north of the last picture, all residential(and the crane is another residential going up(ave. 1 condos):
http://seattle.dallasmetropolis.com/P1010069-sea-y40-1024.jpg

There's even significant residential buildings in front of the "corporate" CBD of Seattle:
http://seattle.dallasmetropolis.com/P1010079-sea-y40-1024.jpg

Pictures by Ctroymathis

[JiminyCricket II]

Portland's downtown more vibrant? Not even close. Seattle's DT is much more vibrant than Portland.

What Portland does have is better planning. DT or near DT Portland is better for families, but Seattle is better for singles and professionals I'd say.

[mello]

What makes Seattle better for singles? And is Portland close to becoming as vibrant seeing that it is set to embark on that major river front developement that will yeild many residential mid and high rises? Describe how the downtowns are different for me. I'm asking because I may be moving to Vancouver, PDX, or SEA.