Re: The End of Tall Buildings
- --- Matt Lyons <mattlyons@...> wrote:
>There are 4 to 10 story buildings in the suburbs, with
> > I didn't bother to read the rest of the article.
> > "Existing towers are destined to be dismantled" --
> > Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy have some input,
> > That article has got to be the stupidest thing I
> > ever read. Toyota SUV ads are more logical than
> If you read the article you would see that they
> are not
> condemning density - rather they are condemning
> monolithic, single
> purpose structures that tend to suck the life out of
> the city below.
> Furthermore, they are not suggesting we instead use
> one and two story
> suburban sprawl type structures, but rather 4 to 10
> story structures
> similar to Paris, Rome or London.
plenty of free parking for the employees. There might
be a 1/4 mile jogging trail around it -- whupee.
So the WTC sucked the life out of Battery Park City?
Battery Park City was built because of, not in spite
of, the WTC.
>In addition to Battery Park City, additional housing
> If what you're saying is true - that tall
> buildings are the
> reason New York is a human place to live - then all
> the other cities
> that were raped during the 60s and 70s by "urban
> renewal" should be
> as liveable as New York. Unfortunately that simply
> isn't the case as
> some of the most unliveable cities in the U.S. -
> Atlanta, Houston,
> Los Angeles, Dallas, etc - are the one's whose
> downtown is dominated
> exclusively by monolithic skyscrapers.
has been created from empty office buildings in Lower
Manhattan. Downtown of other cities could do the same
thing. Austin, TX has some apartments in downtown.
It's not perfect, but at least it's a start.
> Yes, you should read the rest of the article beforeThanks, I will read the rest of it.
> making your final
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
- --- Karen Southerland <ksouth@...> wrote:
> The writers of the article do have a valid point.If you spread out the 10 million people, the 50% car
> After living in NYC
> (Manhattan & Brooklyn) for 5 years it's far from a
> human or even humane
> city. There is such a thing as too much density (at
> least while cars
> exist), as people = cars. This is especially true
> in New York since there
> are roughly 10 million people living in the area.
> Even if only 50% of the
> people had cars (which is far from true) that means
> the area would have
> about 5 million cars driving around. New York
> brings too many people to
> it's city everyday for work and it's incredibly
> taxing on the infrastructure
> (which wasn't designed for as many people as it is
ownership rate would rise. There would be more than 5
million cars as a result (same conclusion based on the
actual car ownership rate).
There are a lot of people who live in the New York
metropolitan area who don't work in Manhattan. They
usually drive to work. Is that the solution, more
>How are offices supposed to work if people are spread
> Americans need to concentrate on getting work in the
> community they live in
> (instead of "commuting") - this requires a
> re-examination of our overly
> capitalistic society. Commuting makes the commuter
> not part of either the
> working or living community and that's just a shame.
out all over the place? Telecommuting didn't pan out
as well as its proponents had imagined. Turns out
that speaking with someone face to face is more
effective than speaking by telephone or e-mail.
You are confusing capitalism with poor land use
planning. Hawking home-made wicker baskets instead of
pricing life insurance isn't the solution. The USA
has always been capitalist, but poor land use planning
is relatively recent.
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
- --- In carfree_cities@y..., James Rombough <jsrombough@y...> wrote:
> There are 4 to 10 story buildings in the suburbs, withBuilding height alone does not make a liveable city. Paris, arguably
> plenty of free parking for the employees. There might
> be a 1/4 mile jogging trail around it -- whupee.
the most beautiful city in the world, is predominantly 5 story
structures that share a common facade and uniform setback. Likewise,
San Francisco is defined by its neighborhoods of Victorian row
houses, not the conglomeration of skyscrapers downtown off Market
street(though the Transamerica building is a visual landmark).
> So the WTC sucked the life out of Battery Park City?Again you're missing the point of the article which was largely
> Battery Park City was built because of, not in spite
> of, the WTC.
taking aim at the monolithic, post WWII skyscrapers such as the twin
towers of the WTC. With that in mind this now seems to be more of a
design issue than a fundamental problem with high rise structures in
An excellent post written by Dan Zack on Planetizen notes:
Skyscrapers of an earlier age were much friendlier to the urban
environment. Before WWII they were almost always located on pretty
small parcels, allowing urban diversity of land uses to exist. For
example, the World Trade Center was located on a 16 acre complex,
whereas the Empire State Building is located on a 1.9 acre parcel. It
doesn't even take up its whole block! This allows for a walkable
street pattern with small blocks and mixed uses, even with huge
Also, older skyscrapers usually had retail storefronts occupying most
of their street frontage. This added to streetlife and made many of
them "invisible" to pedestrians that didn't look upward. They didn't
disrupt the streetlife nearly as much as the gigantic complexes of
today, with their blank walls facing the sidewalks and vacuous open
spaces all around. Didn't we learn our lesson from Cabrini-Green? The
concept doesn't work for offices, either.
Finally, older skycrapers had architecture that felt a little more
human that the modernist glass boxes of the post-war years. Rather
than vertical or horizontal bands of glass, they actually had
separate, well proportioned windows for each office, which made it
feel like there were actually people inside. Something about that
offers comfort. Thankfully, many new skyscrapers are returning to
this simple concept.
> In addition to Battery Park City, additional housingYes it is a start though its a shame that is all we have to choose
> has been created from empty office buildings in Lower
> Manhattan. Downtown of other cities could do the same
> thing. Austin, TX has some apartments in downtown.
> It's not perfect, but at least it's a start.
from in most American cities.
- Personally, the skyline of Toronto is what inspired a love of cities in me
as a child. Before visiting Paris or London, no image of these cities
inspired me like those in North America.
The ultimate deciding factor on the height of new buildings will be
economics - after all, it was economics and real estate values that pushed
buildings upward in the first place, as soon as technology allowed.
I agree with one point - the monoliths of the 60s and 70s and even 80s will
not be rebuilt. Many of these were built as expressions of power and
influence, and were more costly to create. If I'm not mistaken, the amount
of space by the elevator shafts in the WTC made the building less
economical. I think maximum economy caps around 80 stories. That figure
may change now, if anything above, say, 60 cannot be rented out.
The fear of another air attack also diminishes if the surrounding buildings
are of similar height. Not only was the WTC out of scale with humans, but
it was also out of scale with its surroundings, making it stand out among
The issue of single-use buildings should not be confused with height - Five
20 storey single-use towers are probably worse than one 100-storey tower,
since they will consume an additional 4 footprints. I don't think the WTC
was single-use, either. I believe a hotel was located inside.
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:08:34 -0000
> From: "Matt Lyons" <mattlyons@...>
> Subject: The End of Tall Buildings
> Here's an interesting article that talks about the future of the
> urban landscape in the wake of 9/11.
> I'll admit I've never been particularly fond of skyscrapers at the
> human level. They are aesthetically appealing from a distance, yet
> somewhat ineffective on a human scale when it comes to promoting
> cohesive urban communities.
> I'm curious what others here think.
>The issue of single-use buildings should not be confused with height - FiveThere was a hotel on the site, but not in the towers themselves.
>20 storey single-use towers are probably worse than one 100-storey tower,
>since they will consume an additional 4 footprints. I don't think the WTC
>was single-use, either. I believe a hotel was located inside.
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
- The WTC is a product as much of the transit links, as it is any
technology of building technology (including "vertical transit," or
elevators). The WTC is at the terminus of the New Jersey train tunnel,
and several subway lines run through or near it.
Of course, the proximity of hotels and residences, also stacked pretty
high, also make it possible, including its "economics."
But none of this overcomes:
a) the large scale of the companies who occupied the complex and high
degree of job specialization and monoculture work environment and the
lack of potential contact with people in other companies and other types
b) the decision to put the "personal services" in an inward facing (and
below ground) mall shut out the NYC culture of small, street-oriented,
individally owned (non-chain) businesses, although many of these
business exist in older building nearby and in the TriBeCa neighbourhood
to the north.
c) the adjecency of the expressway to the west and the decision to
provide a link to the Hudson River and the Battery Park complex with a
There will never be a humane city without active street fronts, and
green boulevards and a small-road-ringed park every 20 blocks or so.
Ottawa (wife was born just a few blocks from "ground zero")