Well put, ATL3000. JR, you would be wise to consider the vast differences between new, young southern and western cities, and places like New York, Chicago and similar top-level cities in terms of skyscraper development and design. These differences do not just have to do with economical fortune and international prominence, but also things as simple as climate and difference in general aesthetic of the city.
Atlanta and Charlotte are cities whose culture of density is almost brand-new, and which are generally younger and newer. There are not as many aesthetic standards that are already set in place as with older cities, so they have the opportunity to create them now. Take also into account the southern climate, which affect the amenities residents and commercial tenants look for in new buildings. Parking podiums are not always attractive, but the open space on top provides the kind of outdoor common space and pool deck that people in the south expect from a home.
Seattle on the other hand, is very much a Pacific Northwest city, not unlike Vancouver. Now VCBC is city renowned for its livability, if not for its skyline, which may be monotonous but is heavily populated with the exact kind of glass condo towers that are rising in Seattle right now. Seattle can at least rest on the fact that it does have a handful of iconic skyscrapers and the inimitable Space Needle. There's also the threat of earthquakes, which changes the dynamic entirely. Conrete strength these days may hold up to swaying at 1,400 ft, but I doubt we're quite at the point of building a pencil-thin tower in a major subduction zone.
Not everywhere can be New York, nor should it. Not every skyscraper can be the Steinway Tower, nor should they. As they say, when everything is perfect, nothing is perfect.
PS I'm just thinking, New York is building plenty of crap...or do you think the budget hotel viral plague that's infected the Garment District, Central Chelsea and the Seaport Area are the highest of high design?
Prev
Linear Mode
