7 Reasons Why High-Rises Kill Livability (Commentary)

[matthew6]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not true in LA, Boston, SF, Philly, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans. The tallest buildings aren't in the most desirable blocks.

Add Montreal

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not true in LA, Boston, SF, Philly, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans. The tallest buildings aren't in the most desirable blocks. Offhand, I can't think of a major city where the skyscraper core is the most desirable part of the city for locals, though its common that the most desirable area(s) have some highrises and/or are very close to the skyscraper core.

No one said anything about "most desirable" areas, or "tallest buildings". I was addressing this claim: "name one neighborhood in any city that people love hanging out in that is full of high-rises". For a huge amount of people, there are lots of areas with highrises that are fun places to live (and among the most desirable too), hang out, work, etc. Downtown core areas are just one example. There are other desirable neighborhoods with highrises in tons of cities. For example, the majority of areas in SF with highrise buildings are very expensive, and are desirable and interesting areas that tons of people like to be in for various reasons (Financial district, Rincon Hill, Union Square, Mission Bay/South Beach, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, cathedral Hill, Pacific Heights).

I don't see how someone could disagree with this.

[MolsonExport]

talk about overgeneralization extremis.

[mikecolley]

I live on the seventh floor of my building. And even though I am within walking distance of work, restaurants, stores, and mass transit, I never leave my condo because the elevator ride to the ground takes an excruciating 5 seconds! It's so lonely here! If only I lived two floors below, I could see the street and interact with people as they pass by! Sigh.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I think it all depends on the context of the city.

Originally Posted by Crawford

But I think he missed the biggest negative, at least in practice. With few exceptions, highrises are built stand-alone, meaning they break the streetwall, are not ideal for retail, and tend to have parking and other anti-pedestrian uses.

Agree with both of these. It's really about context. And unless you're in one of these highly urban cities already, the context is probably going to suck.

[pdxtex]

1. High-rises separate people from the street

Take the elevator


2. High-rise scale is not the human scale

Your not in Kansas anymore Toto.

3. High-rises radically reduce chance encounters and propinquity

Again, take the elevator

4. High-rises are vertical sprawl

Not if you live on the second floor.

5. High-rises=gentrification and inequality; Low/Mid-rises=resiliency and affordability

Have you seen low rise rent in Portland, OR recently??? Nice try

6. Are High Rises Even Green?

I have no idea. You will receive more value if you stop building shitty 6 story apartments out of particle board though.

7. High Rises are not good for your health

Put down the doughnut fatty.

[emathias]

I personally live in a vintage 4-story building by choice because I don't personally enjoy living in high-rises, however I think most of that article is either just plain false, or overblown, or creates straw-men for itself.

For example, it's presumption that high-rises are all floor-to-ceiling glass. Some are, some aren't. A high-rise designed to be energy-efficient can be very much more efficient than most single-family homes. And interaction in a high-rise isn't necessarily poor - an acquaintance of mine lives in a highrise here in Chicago and he knows all his neighbors and they socialize together, just like people in suburban blocks often do. I also know people who live in 3-flats on blocks of 3-flats who don't know any of their neighbors. I don't think high-rises are any more or less sociable than other arrangements.

As far as mental health goes, a poorly-designed highrise will transfer more noise between units which I'll suppose does negatively impact mental health. And most high-rises have relatively poor exposure to nature, and exposure to nature is correlated to better mental health. But that's really true of most dense urban forms, highrise or not - how much exposure to nature do people in central Paris get from within their units, despite the lack of high-rises?

[xzmattzx]

High rises might bring livability down, but what are you going to do? Have every city look like Phoenix, where the city limits are almost the size of Rhode Island? Let the market dictate what is needed. Some people don't want lawns or trees. Some people only need a small space. Some people want great views looking out for miles. Some people want to live very close to their jobs in the central business district. These and more are reasons for highrises, and that's why they're built. Conversely, some people want lawns and trees. Some people want to be away from the city. Some people want lower land values. These and more are reasons for suburban subdivisions. Each person is picking a living place that suits their needs and desires.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

As much as we love skyscrapers, my friend always says "name one neighborhood in any city that people love hanging out in that is full of high-rises".

Most of our coveted neighborhoods are not high-rise.

In mike's defense, that statement seems to be pretty applicable to Toronto. Almost all of the desirable / hip urban neighbourhoods are not dominated by highrise residential, rather low-rise semis, single-detached... wait.. did I just say what I think I said? oh boy...

I find myself agreeing with some of the original article, especially points 1 through 4.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

He has a point. In most cities, the highrise districts have the worst core vibrancy. There are exceptions, though.

But I think he missed the biggest negative, at least in practice. With few exceptions, highrises are built stand-alone, meaning they break the streetwall, are not ideal for retail, and tend to have parking and other anti-pedestrian uses. Outside of NYC, older parts of HK, and a few other city centers (maybe parts of Boston, SF) highrises are generally built as individual objects rather than part of an urban ensemble. Even cities with incredible urbanity, such as Tokyo, have this issue. The worst pedestrian sphere is around the highrise clusters.

DT Boston is a ghost town that nobody goes to unless they're working.

The surrounding neighborhoods of North End, Back Bay and South End are the most vibrant neighborhoods. High rises are essentially banned here.

The West End (60/70 era mid-rise neighborhood) is beyond dull that nobody goes to.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

High rises might bring livability down, but what are you going to do? Have every city look like Phoenix, where the city limits are almost the size of Rhode Island? Let the market dictate what is needed. Some people don't want lawns or trees. Some people only need a small space. Some people want great views looking out for miles. Some people want to live very close to their jobs in the central business district. These and more are reasons for highrises, and that's why they're built. Conversely, some people want lawns and trees. Some people want to be away from the city. Some people want lower land values. These and more are reasons for suburban subdivisions. Each person is picking a living place that suits their needs and desires.

Exactly.

And to the author of this article, do everyone and yourself a favor and stop staring at people from your 5th floor walk-up/high-rise building. It won't get you meaning conversations with anyone. You could always go to a bar, a coffee shop, or chat with people on Facebook or whatever, for meeting new folks.

The author is saying it like a social outcast, good grief.

Originally Posted by mikecolley

I live on the seventh floor of my building. And even though I am within walking distance of work, restaurants, stores, and mass transit, I never leave my condo because the elevator ride to the ground takes an excruciating 5 seconds! It's so lonely here! If only I lived two floors below, I could see the street and interact with people as they pass by! Sigh.

[mhays]

You can do highrises well, and you can do them poorly. The writer is confused, equating the poorly-done examples with the concept of going tall.

In some areas, most lowrises are behind parking lots. Does that make lowrises automatically bad? Of course not.

Highrises can be right up to the street, thick enough to allow densities that wouldn't be possible otherwise, be full of mostly pedestrians, and so on. They can be on small sites, fitting with existing buildings. Office towers like large floorplates and bigger sites, but apartment towers can be as narrow as the tower itself, if the amount of parking is small enough.

As for those amenities that people worry about, don't worry. While residents use amenities, most people still do most things offsite. At least that's true in the urban highrises I've lived in.

[fflint]

For San Francisco, the only highrise areas I consider good for hanging out would be parts of the Tenderloin, the edge of Chinatown, and then greater Union Square (including Market and Mission between 3rd and 5th). The other parts of the city with the most skyscrapers don't make my list--the Financial District is a bore unless you're working, and Rincon Hill has no restaurants or shops. Meanwhile, North Beach, Cow Hollow, the Mission, the Castro, Upper and Lower Haight--these are IMO the best neighborhoods in which to hang out, and are certainly the most vibrant after dark--and they have relatively no highrises.

That's just how it has worked out, though, in this one particular city. I think the Upper East and West sides of Manhattan are desirable and vibrant, and both contain a lot of highrises. That's the model I'd want to follow, rather than the 'tower in the park' Vancouver style.

[Nouvellecosse]

There's no tower in the park Vancouver style. Vancouver style is tower on the podium? Perhaps thinking of another place?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There's no tower in the park Vancouver style. Vancouver style is tower on the podium? Perhaps thinking of another place?

I'm specifically referring to this stuff, but yes, generally most have podia. I still prefer the upper Manhattan approach to highrise neighborhoods.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Tony

In mike's defense, that statement seems to be pretty applicable to Toronto. Almost all of the desirable / hip urban neighbourhoods are not dominated by highrise residential, rather low-rise semis, single-detached... wait.. did I just say what I think I said? oh boy...

I find myself agreeing with some of the original article, especially points 1 through 4.

I'd say Yorkville is the most desirable neighbourhood in Toronto and could be considered an example of a symbiotic relationship between bigger (mostly high-rise) and smaller (mostly low rise) buildings.

[mhays]

If anything, Vancouver's towers are often too far apart, and have too-short podiums. It doesn't feel dense enough. They do a lot of things pretty well, but should be truly great instead. Even the midrise sections of Manhattan, say in the 20s, are probably a lot denser on average. (Addition...had to test this...that part of NY has most tracts in the 50k-130k range. I don't know the numbers for Vancouver but I'd guess few areas get higher than 70-80k or so and the average is much lower.)

[brickell]

I think they key is that you need fine grain urbanism in place already. This is true whether you're building, highrises, midrises, or suburban subdivisions. Generally, the larger the piece of land a developer starts with, the worse the project will be (as it relates to urban character).

Some cities do this well, others do not. Here in Miami at lot of the new buildings are replacing empty/parking lots. They have the whole block to work with and at least half the building is ignored when it comes to street interaction. This seems to be similar to other newer highrise cities and generally what occurs in business districts of any city.

[mhays]

You can control those factors through land use code. But some places are lazy and permissive in their requirements.

I'm conflicted on this. Generally, the finer the grain, the higher the cost, whether you're talking about smaller sites or requiring developers to break up a big site with more entries, retail, etc. Big blocky shapes allow efficiencies.

But there can be a midpoint.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by brickell

Some cities do this well, others do not. Here in Miami at lot of the new buildings are replacing empty/parking lots. They have the whole block to work with and at least half the building is ignored when it comes to street interaction. This seems to be similar to other newer highrise cities and generally what occurs in business districts of any city.

^The author obviously never been to NY. The reason why highrise districts look so isolating is because they are fairly new to West Coast cities (except SF) and Canada, and are mostly tower in the park developments. They look like the modern version of commieblocks.

The point about downtowns of cities being dead after working hours is moot... those are not residential highrises, but commercial. You wanna see what a commercial low rise area looks like? Oh boy...