James Howard Kunstler's argument against skyscrapers

[Doady]

Of course building towers-in-a-park as a form of urban renewal (demolishing existing urban neighbourhoods, especially black neighbourhoods) is very bad. But I think that is a problem of urban renewal, not of towers-in-a-park.

For example, the vast majority of towers-in-a-park in Toronto area were not urban renewal projects. They were built on greenfields. Despite their problems, I would say the towers-in-a-park in these post-war subdivisions make them feel a lot more urban. The transit ridership and service levels in these subdivisions is comparable to inner cities, and I think it do with the higher density as the result of so many towers-in-a-park. Mississauga has a corridor where buses comes every 3 minutes all day, that does touch Toronto, and where LRT is being planned. I think the LRT is the result of all the towers-in-a-park along the corridor. The other suburban LRTs in the Toronto area are the same.

I think probably you can acheive the same density as tower-in-a-park with mid-rises. Towers-in-a-park are out of fashion now. But that's not to say they are inherently bad, especially for suburbs like Mississauga, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough.

I think maybe the main bad thing about any towers compared to low-rises is in terms of energy consumption, for the elevators. When I went to Montreal, I was fascinated by the elevator-less, walk-up, 3-4 storey apartments buildings there. Apparently, they are called "plexes". It made me realize we don't need high-rises. Montreal is denser than Toronto. Montreal has better transit ridership than Toronto. Montreal is much more beautiful than Toronto. Toronto is simply an inferior and less sustainable city almost every way. Maybe if Toronto didn't build focus on building high-rises so much, things would be different.

[mrsmartman]

But the towers can provide more open space for residents and save energy consumption in traffic.

[mhays]

Yes, windswept plazas and dirt patches for everyone!

Sometimes they're good and most times they aren't. But they're usually anti-urban.

[mrsmartman]

The rise of populist liberals like Jane Jacobs marked the end of the progressive era of America.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mrsmartman

The rise of populist liberals like Jane Jacob marked the end of the progressive era of America.

It's passing was a deliverance.

[mrsmartman]

The "street or park" argument essentially boils down to the "plaza or lawn" preference. As a general rule, Latin peoples prefer plaza while Germanic peoples prefer lawn. The Founding Fathers made it clear that they preferred the American capital to be centered by a great lawn. People who prefer living in a quiet environment prefer towers in the park over rowhouses. Towers in the park strike the perfect balance between density and environment.

[mhays]

You should rename yourself "SSP's towers in the park guy".

[mrsmartman]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Some people like towers-in-parks. But in the urbanism and development communities they're generally seen as passé; the high-profile failures of towers-in-parks public housing led to an evaporation of market demand for that living type among the middle class.

Pruitt-Igoe was the poster child of public housing failure and government wastage in America.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mrsmartman

Pruitt-Igoe was the poster child of public housing failure and government wastage in America.

Pruitt-Igoe was actually well-built and quite nice housing. It became a disaster because of govt. malfeasance, mostly. They changed the eligibility rules for public housing (basically allowing only poor single welfare moms to occupy the units) and neglected the upkeep, and you had an insta-slum within months.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I mean, if society collapses it collapses. I'm not sure why we should organize economic activity around black swan events. We'll probably just die in nuclear hellfire. Oh well.

It doesn't have t be that. What about a major earthquake or flooding that disrupts power for days?

I realize this is SSP so there won't be many admitting it, but highrise living is a very "artificial" form of housing, depending on a lot of technology to make it work compared to ground oriented residential.

[mhays]

Anyone who's not handicapped can make it up 20 or 30 floors with a fairly small effort and a couple pauses. It's a quality of life issue.

[ssiguy]

I prefer mid-rise buildings or roughly 5 to 10 stories as they usually fit into the neighbourhood far more so than large ones and are almost always of better design.

That said, people who can't stand high rises are also people that need to go back to school and learn a thing or two about demographics. 100 hundred years people were much poorer and a family of 6 may live in a one or two bedroom low/mid rise density building but today that is not the case due to much higher wages and expectations. Today many people will be single or childless for their entire lives and especially urban dwellers. That means that one family 100 years ago to house 7 people will now require 3 or 4 apartments to house the same number of people............getting as many FAMILIES on the same block requires many more units and that means high rises. This is made more acute with our aging population where seniors require housing to last them thru their retirement of 30 years instead of 5 or 10 taking up more housing.

This is, in part, why many slow growing cities are still seeing a lot of housing construction.........it takes many more units of housing to house the same number of people it did even 50 years ago. In suburban and rural places that means growing out while in cities where land is a far more finite resource, that means growing up.

It's all very touchy-feely to dislike high rises and I do agree that I don't tend to like a lot of them but I'm not so ignorant to know that they are a reality of our much higher standards of living and changing demographics.

[The North One]

I find Kunstler's work to be incredibly valuable and I'm glad we have him (even if he can get pretty extreme) but some of his views don't really make sense. He's so convinced skyscrapers are doomed to fail based on the idea of an energy crisis. But there really isn't an energy crisis, there is just a clean energy crisis, he thinks everything will collapse the minute fossil fuels are totally exhausted but he never seems to address energy alternatives that are developing, he assumes we'll all eventually go back to the medieval midrise cities of the past but I think the end result is much less extreme than that. He might be right about structures like the Burj Khalifa and the mega talls of Asia but not the majority of skyscrapers in America.

[ssiguy]

Mega tall buildings are very different from the other 99,9% of high rises of over 10 stories. They have nothing to do with neccessity or financial sense and everything to do with vanity. This is why these supertalls are nearly exclusively in developing countries........it's their proclamation to the world that "we've made it" but of course they do the opposite because when you try to impress upon people that you are now a 1st world economy, it means you aren't.

[RST500]

You have this concept of an arcology which is a self contained city that is self suffucient. I think the reason people like Kunstler, New Urbanist, and even pro-highrise urbanist who think everything should be on street level are against arcology style developments is because they associate them with the mega developments/urban renewal projects from the 60's to 80's.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pruitt-Igoe was actually well-built and quite nice housing. It became a disaster because of govt. malfeasance, mostly. They changed the eligibility rules for public housing (basically allowing only poor single welfare moms to occupy the units) and neglected the upkeep, and you had an insta-slum within months.

For me this "they" neglected maintenance and "they" let it go to h*ll is a cop-out. In middle class housing and in owner-occupied housing especially, people fix things if the land-lord won't and they complain loudly enough to provoke action if other things degrade the experience of living there. What we have in these high-rise poor-peoples' housing units is not only people who expect someone else to do everything for them but a certain sociology like gangs and intimidation of some residents by others that cause the problems. It is especially the latter that turned high rises unlivable as interior hallways and elevators became war and crime zones. And this IS a matter of design. The newest generation of public housing doesn't have these features. Every unit has an exterior doorway with access fully visible to the neighbors and public. Everythings that's going on outside individual units is going to be seen.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It is especially the latter that turned high rises unlivable as interior hallways and elevators became war and crime zones. And this IS a matter of design. The newest generation of public housing doesn't have these features. Every unit has an exterior doorway with access fully visible to the neighbors and public. Everythings that's going on outside individual units is going to be seen.

I don't think you'll find anyone who works in affordable housing who will agree with this. It's mostly policy, not design, that determines housing quality and resident outcomes.

NYC, which has far more public housing than the next 10 U.S. cities combined, and which is almost entirely highrise/midrise, is generally regarded as the best-run big city housing agency. Given the design of the structures, it should have never succeeded.

In contrast, basically every other major U.S. city has demolished its first generation public housing, even though no city was as highrise-oriented as NYC's housing system. Cities with almost entirely lowrise, exterior-doorway design (say LA and practically every city in the Sunbelt) had failed public housing and demolished almost everything.

Public housing units, on average, tend to be more spacious than private market units, and were actually built to higher standards. You can blame politicans, you can blame residents, but the design excuse is a cop-out. As soon as regulations changed to favor certain tenants over others, the projects declined.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think you'll find anyone who works in affordable housing who will agree with this. It's mostly policy, not design, that determines housing quality and resident outcomes.

NYC, which has far more public housing than the next 10 U.S. cities combined, and which is almost entirely highrise/midrise, is generally regarded as the best-run big city housing agency. Given the design of the structures, it should have never succeeded.

In contrast, basically every other major U.S. city has demolished its first generation public housing, even though no city was as highrise-oriented as NYC's housing system. Cities with almost entirely lowrise, exterior-doorway design (say LA and practically every city in the Sunbelt) had failed public housing and demolished almost everything.

Public housing units, on average, tend to be more spacious than private market units, and were actually built to higher standards. You can blame politicans, you can blame residents, but the design excuse is a cop-out. As soon as regulations changed to favor certain tenants over others, the projects declined.

"Robert: Do you think high-rises can provide housing for the middle class? I’ve heard the argument that because of maintenance costs they are only a luxury item. Do you see high-rise developments as being able to provide middle class housing in urban areas?

Adam: Well maybe not so much the new high-rises projects because the construction costs are so high. But what happens is that over time the desirability of a building decreases and therefore over time the building becomes more affordable to middle class people. So the new developments aren’t necessarily affordable but they basically provide two benefits to middle class people; one is it’s easing the demand from high end purchasers and renters which is easing the demand for less expensive…over time that will become more affordable housing."

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=2499