Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,743 posts, read 23,798,187 times
Reputation: 14640
Advertisements
Think of cities like Miami, Honolulu, Vancouver, and Toronto and they all have something in common; rapid densification with high rise residential towers. It's how urban planners and developers do infill and density for modern urban development. Many of them look identical with hues of green and blue glass. The Vancouver skyline looks like a forest of glass boxes with not a lot of distinction. Miami seems to have the same trend going on. Toronto is going gang busters with this kind of building and its once distinctive skyline now appears more like vertical sprawl surrounding it. Austin has some building like this going on but I will give a nod as some of their new towers have more distinction.
I understand the demand is there for high rise living and it is a very desirable urban lifestyle concept. However I just think the architecture is a bit monotonous and duplicated and it leaves something to be desired. It also think some cities such as downtown Miami could do better with street level cohesiveness with more ground level retail and dining at the base of these towers to give a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood feel. What do you think?
I totally agree. While the new architecture is nice, and the new construction is definitely necessary and needed, it gets really monotonous. Also, all those high-rises kind of seems overkill. What happens when everyone moves out for the next boomtown and those apartment skyscrapers are half empty or even abandoned? It seems almost unsustainable. They're taking a lot of these skyscrapers a little too far.
I personally think that mid-rise buildings (somewhere between 15-25 stories) are optimal as opposed to the high rises that are so common today. They are cheaper to build, fill up faster, and are more human-scaled and not so intimidating height wise. Additionally, it's easier to expand and build a new structure, and then downsize in stages (building by building), then it is to build everything at once and deal with a half abandoned structure that cannot be shrunk. It's also better for these structures to put more stock in street entrances, and keep parking underground or otherwise out of the way, because as the surrounding areas densify, cars will eventually phase out in favor of walking as the area crowds up.
And developers should really put some retail and food on the street-level stories too! I know they do this sometimes, but it should be always. Why wouldn't they? It seems to me that retail and food that is easily accessible from the housing units inside the host building would be a cash cow for both the building's owners and the participating businesses, and it would bring in-demand services to the residents of that building and the surrounding area. It's a win-win-win.
The idea alone........of living in one of those glass towers with those sealed windows.......which you can't even open.........and no balcony..........almost stops me from breathing! I'd go kookoo, kookoo, kookoo in one of those condo units! Talk about claustrophobia!
This is more suited for the architecture forum than the urban planning forum really, but to bring it back to context...
The big issue with modernist architecture is it interacts poorly with the street level. The glass and steel model, with minimal ornament, was meant to be interacted with from far away. And it makes a lot of sense for this, as a lot of earlier skyscrapers, which kept to more classic ideas of ornament, had wasted detail hundreds of feet up that few people would ever see (unless you were looking from a window of a nearby skyscraper.
The problem is almost all of the modernist glass boxes are unfriendly at the ground level. At their best, they can seem like austere works of art, but no one really considers an art museum to be a place for casual socializing. At their worst, they can provide indifferent or hostile environments for the pedestrians nearby, with monotonous street walls, and often only one entrance on an entire block face.
So I concur the solution would be something like a quasi-traditional facade on the the first 2-4 floors which is referential to pre-Modernist styles. That doesn't mean you have to make it look like a collection of fake Victorian buildings, just that you add some level of ornament to the bottom floors, provide for multiple street-level entries, and change the facade at certain intervals to make it look like there are several different buildings the residential tower rises out of.
They're a good way to kill street life, and are an eyesore.
Its bad enough to have to work in one of these glass boxes all day long, but I can't imagine having to come home to a residential building that could easily be mistaken for a modern office tower and a place of work. I was in Vancouver to visit some friends at their condo unit. When they drove me to the block they lived on I thought we were in the financial district because of all the tall glass buildings everywhere, but was a bit shocked to find that people actually lived in these buildings.
Like modern art, which could be described as cold (and strange) at best, I never understood the aesthetic appeal of modern architecture.
I just think the architecture is very monotonous and duplicated. Lack of a yard to distract from that magnifies the situation since the clones are so much closer together with no visual break, it just makes it more obvious.
I think most condo buildings in Toronto and Vancouver do have balconies, and usually retail at grade too. The ground floor/podium can be pretty plain though.
I just think the architecture is very monotonous and duplicated. Lack of a yard to distract from that magnifies the situation since the clones are so much closer together with no visual break, it just makes it more obvious.
A rowhouse doesn't need be an entire block comprised of identical houses, it just means the houses don't have any space between them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd go kookoo, kookoo, kookoo in one of those condo units! Talk about claustrophobia!
