HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 8:16 PM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 1,125
Skyline: short and busy or tall and dead?

Which would you prefer: a short squat skyline with bland architecture but busy at street level or a tall skyline with iconic architecture but nearly dead at street level?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 8:35 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 19,494
So, a city like Dallas versus a city like Lisbon? I choose Lisbon. We're presumably all skyscraper nerds around here, myself included, but realistically what is a snazzy skyscraper good for outside of bragging rights and enhancing postcard photos? From a first person perspective, it's all about the street level experience.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 9:16 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
I like skyscrapers when they're interestingly designed, but they make no sense when they're not truly needed by the market.

This is currently the tallest concrete structure in the world.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldin_Finance_117

128 floors uncomplete and abandoned in Tianjin, China because of the real estate crisis over there.
It could be something in a vibrant economy, but right now, it's only a prick in the middle of nothing much.

By the way, China is failing because of their Maoist unique party. It is still an authoritarian regime that fails at doing things properly.

In fact, favored districts featuring entire clusters of skyscrapers are still rare.
What do we have in this league? New York and Chicago? That's about it.
And I wouldn't like to be an arrogant dick, but Paris, with its mid-rise sea still beats them hands down at the ranking of the prettiest cities in the world.

So yeah, I'd rather have a whole bunch of mid-rises in a vibrant market and nicely laid-out neighborhoods than a couple of skyscrapers in the middle of nowhere.
It should be quite obvious to anybody on here. Beyond skyscraper nerds, you need to be urban planning freaks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 9:28 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
I think most people would want a city with a lot going on and which is alive and vibrant versus one that looks pretty at a certain angle and that's it.

That being said, I think most people appreciate taller buildings which serve as landmarks. A city that doesn't even have one tall building might be aesthetically bland. Even Paris has the Eiffel Tower.

Tokyo and Osaka and other Japanese cities are mostly low rise but they do have a few major skyscrapers like the Sky Tree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 9:29 PM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 1,125
You both make good points.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 9:52 PM
gochujang gochujang is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by mousquet View Post
I like skyscrapers when they're interestingly designed, but they make no sense when they're not truly needed by the market.

This is currently the tallest concrete structure in the world.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldin_Finance_117

128 floors uncomplete and abandoned in Tianjin, China because of the real estate crisis over there.
It could be something in a vibrant economy, but right now, it's only a prick in the middle of nothing much.

By the way, China is failing because of their Maoist unique party. It is still an authoritarian regime that fails at doing things properly.

In fact, favored districts featuring entire clusters of skyscrapers are still rare.
What do we have in this league? New York and Chicago? That's about it.
And I wouldn't like to be an arrogant dick, but Paris, with its mid-rise sea still beats them hands down at the ranking of the prettiest cities in the world.

So yeah, I'd rather have a whole bunch of mid-rises in a vibrant market and nicely laid-out neighborhoods than a couple of skyscrapers in the middle of nowhere.
It should be quite obvious to anybody on here. Beyond skyscraper nerds, you need to be urban planning freaks.
Maoist? China hasn't been Maoist since Mao was alive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 10:59 PM
Altoic's Avatar
Altoic Altoic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,172
First option, street experience is always better. Dubai is the best example of horrible pedestrian experience mixed with tall towers.


This is why NYC is so special, they have unique towers and amazing street-level experience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 11:10 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
Even Paris has the Eiffel Tower.
It is not a skyscraper, though. It is not even a "building".

By defintion, a building (fr: immeuble) is made of floors stacked upon each other.
The Eiffel Tower is nothing like this. It has only 3 floors with huge gaps in between and some kind of experimental penthouse on top of the 3rd floor.

Of course, everybody loves the structure as an universal landmark, but it doesn't qualify as a skyscraper.

Most skyscrapers in Paris are at la Défense, full of offices and that district doesn't come close to the neighborhood of the Eiffel Tower in terms of real estate values.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2023, 1:30 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by mousquet View Post
It is not a skyscraper, though. It is not even a "building".

By defintion, a building (fr: immeuble) is made of floors stacked upon each other.
The Eiffel Tower is nothing like this. It has only 3 floors with huge gaps in between and some kind of experimental penthouse on top of the 3rd floor.

Of course, everybody loves the structure as an universal landmark, but it doesn't qualify as a skyscraper.

Most skyscrapers in Paris are at la Défense, full of offices and that district doesn't come close to the neighborhood of the Eiffel Tower in terms of real estate values.
Sure, but the Eiffel Tower is the example of a structure which was constructed for no practical purpose besides its appearance. Therefore it fits the topic of this discussion, which is whether or not you would prefer a city that has lots of impressive structures but no life on the streets, versus a city with lively streets but no impressive structures.

Paris exemplifies the latter, it has a lot of amazing streets, but it doesn't have giant skyscrapers just to have giant skyscrapers the way some cities in poor dictatorships do to show off. It was built up too early in history for that. But still, it has at least one giant "skyscraper" that was built because at one point somebody said "it would be nice if we had a landmark structure that stood out". Which I guess does seem similar to the attitudes of countries like Malaysia today. I suppose there's also the Notre Dame too, but you get what I am saying.

The La Defense skyscrapers are nice and to some extent they do look like "trophy" buildings built by institutions to be impressive, but they seem to be utilitarian and built in response to actual market forces. And they aren't really that tall as far as skyscrapers go. So they aren't really like a Chinese or Middle Eastern city's attempt at showing off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2023, 4:06 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Short and busy should is the first step on the path to tall and busy. Cities that jump to tall and dead did it wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2023, 7:46 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
"Building"...another word that has no single definition. If someone wants to include the Eiffel Tower, they can.

PS, the dictionary isn't the law on this sort of thing. They just try to keep up with actual usage.

PS, I'd take active streets in all cases of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2023, 9:05 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb View Post
Which would you prefer: a short squat skyline with bland architecture but busy at street level or a tall skyline with iconic architecture but nearly dead at street level?
When I was younger: the latter
Nowadays: the former, in spades (but hopefully not bland architecture)

Lifeless tall buildings in an environment bereft of pedestrian traffic don't make a city.

Nobody ever went to Paris just to see the Tour Montparnasse.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?

Last edited by MolsonExport; Dec 11, 2023 at 10:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2023, 6:41 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb View Post
Which would you prefer: a short squat skyline with bland architecture but busy at street level or a tall skyline with iconic architecture but nearly dead at street level?
Short and busy always over dead zone CBD's that are only occupied between 9-5 on weekdays.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2023, 6:58 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
In my observation, only Latin America and East Asia can consistently pull off "tall" with "busy".

Elsewhere in the world there is always the trade-off between Short and Busy vs Tall and Dead. With a few exceptions like Manhattan.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2023, 7:52 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Short and busy of course, but I'll nitpick over the "9-5" thing for office districts. On the West Coast at least, the masses tend to arrive around 7:00 to 8:30, and leave around 4:00-6:00 I'd say. Of course some work longer. These are really more like "7-6" districts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2023, 3:21 PM
BillM's Avatar
BillM BillM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hartford
Posts: 390
We should ask ourselves, what is it that started our interest in skyscrapers in the first place?

Was it just the buildings themselves with no particular context?

Or was it that skyscrapers were beacons that symbolize special places that have many other exciting features?

To me, it is the latter.

I think if I was just growing up today, I wouldn't have the same interest in skyscrapers. Now, there are non-descript skyscrapers popping up in suburbs or other boring places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2023, 6:43 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillM View Post
We should ask ourselves, what is it that started our interest in skyscrapers in the first place?

Was it just the buildings themselves with no particular context?

Or was it that skyscrapers were beacons that symbolize special places that have many other exciting features?

To me, it is the latter.

I think if I was just growing up today, I wouldn't have the same interest in skyscrapers. Now, there are non-descript skyscrapers popping up in suburbs or other boring places.
Yes, that's definitely part of it. When I was growing up, if a city had a lot of skyscrapers it meant the city was both large and economically successful. Not every large, economically successful city had skyscrapers since there were some such places that lacked them. But these were mostly historic European cities and cities designed in that style such as DC. But it applied to every city that did have skyscrapers. Today, while this is still mostly true the perception has been eroded a bit. There just seems to be more exceptions now. There are many tall residential skyscrapers that aren't especially premium, and tall office and hotel buildings in the cities of poorer countries, sometimes built in part by governments. And while the total world population has grown, it seems like the ratio of tall buildings to people has grown faster.

Another important aspect is that in the late 19th and early-mid 20th century (well before my time), North America was the sole builder of such buildings. So there was a sort of self pride and perhaps some underlying feelings of superiority and exceptionalism attached to it. That sense of uniqueness started to get eroded when places like Australia and HK joined the club in the latter part of the 20th century, and it was eroded even further when the global flood gates opened in the 21st century. While one might take pride in being a member of a large club, there tends to be much more pride in belonging to a very small and exclusive club. So even if skyscrapers were still solely the domain of economically successful cities, it's not a very exclusive club any more and it's not a part of any unique self identity. Especially since NA hasn't had the tallest buildings for awhile.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2023, 6:04 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
In my observation, only Latin America and East Asia can consistently pull off "tall" with "busy".

Elsewhere in the world there is always the trade-off between Short and Busy vs Tall and Dead. With a few exceptions like Manhattan.
I don't think so. At least here in Paris where land value is generally high (cause it's densely populated), if it wasn't for nimbyism, we could easily accomodate skyscrapers in neighborhoods that would draw lots of people and businesses, with plenty of hustle and bustle.

The actual problem is if we built skyscrapers with penthouses 1000 feet above the ground, they would be $5k per square foot deals, or even more.
In other words, only the ultra wealthy global establishment would buy it to speculate, without actually living there, just like they do in Manhattan.

Now some people, mostly of the left wing but not only wouldn't like the local market to be managed this way.

Otherwise, if a plot of land and your local market are worth it, building skyscrapers perfectly makes sense.
I mean, it only depends on needs.

In the US, they've got plenty of room. Population density is very low in North America as a whole. Some demographers even call it an empty continent.
That is not the case of Europe. So, as odd as it may sound, building tall buildings is actually more needed over here than in NA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.