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.
Why do wealthy people buy big houses? Do we often use our home to reflect our status and do or can people’s success be judged by their home and neighborhood/community? As much as we want to think we are not, we as humans are competitive and seek rank and status which often manifest itself as displays of ostentatious materialism. Indeed, capitalism encourages such behavior. When we want people to know we are successful, we do it through ostentatious displays. That is just who we are as creatures…..no different than a peacock wooing it’s mate with his plumage. We then use these displays to market or sell ourselves, especially men, to others.
Why are skyscrapers built? Skyscrapers are built for the same reason huge homes are built, for the most part. The height is not functionally needed any more than the 10,000 square foot home is for a couple, two kids and a pet. However, what is says about the persons success is clear. Not just anyone can afford such a display of success. Hence, when a city has a skyline full of modern tall buildings, it sends out a signal of wealth and success in the business community of that city. A city without successful businesses is not a successful city unless it’s a city of government jobs. It helps a city to symbolically market itself as a successful city when its successful businesses display their success in the skyline.
Why did Dan Gilbert propose and start construction (of the grounds) of an 800 ft. building? Why was it so important for him to create an iconic signature building? The reason is the symbolism for Detroit. Gilbert realizes the symbolism that skyscrapers represent. A Detroit with new TRUE skyscrapers is a symbol of a rebirth of business success and investment in Detroit. True high rise construction cranes spread across downtown in a city is a symbol of growth and a healthy business climate. It symbolizes opportunity, relative to a downtown where most grand structures represent a bygone era.
When you look at Chinese cities and other Asian cities that have experienced strong economic growth, their skylines are used to reflect that. They are telling the rest of the world that they have strong modern, successful economies. Look At Dubai. It’s the same thing. Like it or not the skyscraper is the symbol of wealth and modernity and by extension, opportunity, as where there is wealth there is opportunity.
I think Michigan cities, in particular Detroit and Grand Rapids, would benefit from more impressive skylines as a symbol that Michigan has returned to a state of business success. Those on the outside looking in often get their first impression from the skyline. A city’s skyline says a lot about a city, just like a person’s home says a lot about the success of a person. Skylines are not functional for residents of a city and are not meant to be. They are meant for those on the outside looking in and potentially can help woo in others who are attracted to symbols of wealth and business success as places of opportunity.
Many modern skyscrapers today are mix use buildings, a combination of hotel, apartment/condos and office space. To be able to afford to stay in such a place requires a level of success, due to the construction cost of such building. The fact that a city has such buildings is testimony of wealth and success in the overall metro area to the degree that many people can and do afford to live in such places. A healthy modern skyline reflects wealth and success in an area. Do Michigan cities have that type of wealth and success to support modern tall skylines?
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-21-2018 at 10:57 AM..
I love the Detroit Skyline. It is one of the best in the USA. Why? because it is eclectic. Eclectic is better than big. Too many cities have nothing more than a collection of glass rectangles. I do not care how big they are- they have boring skylines. I woudl say this is a situation where i think size does not matter. It is style that matters.
I love the Detroit Skyline. It is one of the best in the USA. Why? because it is eclectic. Eclectic is better than big. Too many cities have nothing more than a collection of glass rectangles. I do not care how big they are- they have boring skylines. I woudl say this is a situation where i think size does not matter. It is style that matters.
I agree....one cannot beat Detroit's 1920's era skyscraper architecture. However, those buildings represent the growth, wealth and prosperity of circa 1920 Detroit. Many cities do not have that because they did not have the wealth, growth and prosperity that Detroit had in that era. Again, you cannot get past the symbolism of growth and prosperity that skyscrapers represent. The fact that such buildings dominate Detroit's skyline tells you when the area was the most prosperous. They are much nicer to look at than the tall rectangles, no doubt, but the absence of modern skyscrapers, if if rectangles, also is indicative of eras of reduced prosperity in Detroit. I mean, how many skyscrapers has been built since the Ren Cen? Probably 4 that I can think of that are over 30 stories. That in a 40 year period.....although some of Southfield's skyline should have been Detroit's. Juxtapose that with a city like Toronto. Comparing Detroit to Toronto skyline.....which area do you think has experienced the most success in the past 30 years? Detroit CSA and Toronto MSA are about 6 million people.
Toronto's skyline says "We have no past" while Detroit's says we are mostly past. Toronto's is almost a boring skyline. There is just enough variety to make it somewhat interesting. If it were clustered more it would be. It is nicely spread out though. Plus Toronto is more than three times the size of Detroit, so you can only count one third of the skyline for a fair comparison. Pick the right third and it compares well. However there is nothing about Toronto's skyline that says Modern. Any of those buildings could have been built in the last 50 years. Likewise, many of Detroit's buildings could have been built yesterday. (Especially the casinos and other yawners).
Not all modern skyscrapers are rectangles either. Here is Mississiauga, Ontario. Suburban Toronto. Even Toronto Suburbs, which Detroit has a larger suburban population than Toronto, kills the Detroit suburbs in comparison. of buildings and architecture. If that does not say "Modern and Prosperous" to you.....then forget it. Also, you started by saying that Toronto Skyline says "we have no past"......then you end by saying "nothing about its skyline says modern". Those seem to be contradictory statements. If you have a skyline and the skyline looks like the city has no past, then by default it either looks modern or futuristic.
Depends on how you define modern. If you define modern as anything form the last 50 years, then Toronto certainly says modern. It also says I did not exist as a significant city before 1968.
I took your "modern and prosperous" definition as meaning really recent. As in this millennium at the oldest. Since city architecture has changed very little in the last 50 years, you cannot really tell if a city has had recent towers built. Serval Detroit buildings including the Ren Cen could have been build in the last ten years.
Obviously not all modern buildings are glass rectangles. Detroit has some that are not. However the vast majority are, and a considerable number of cities have almost nothing else. Even Toronto which has a reasonably interesting skyline is mostly glass rectangles. It has just barely enough other shapes and types to make it interesting.
Phoenix for example is a modern and prosperous city with a horrible skyline. Baltimore is another good example. Lots of tall modern buildings - looks depressing and crappy. No aesthetics at all.
Depends on how you define modern. If you define modern as anything form the last 50 years, then Toronto certainly says modern. It also says I did not exist as a significant city before 1968.
I took your "modern and prosperous" definition as meaning really recent. As in this millennium at the oldest. Since city architecture has changed very little in the last 50 years, you cannot really tell if a city has had recent towers built. Serval Detroit buildings including the Ren Cen could have been build in the last ten years.
Obviously not all modern buildings are glass rectangles. Detroit has some that are not. However the vast majority are, and a considerable number of cities have almost nothing else. Even Toronto which has a reasonably interesting skyline is mostly glass rectangles. It has just barely enough other shapes and types to make it interesting.
Phoenix for example is a modern and prosperous city with a horrible skyline. Baltimore is another good example. Lots of tall modern buildings - looks depressing and crappy. No aesthetics at all.
Almost all sunbelt cities suffer from boring skyline syndrome honestly.
Why are skyscrapers built? Skyscrapers are built for the same reason huge homes are built, for the most part. The height is not functionally needed any more than the 10,000 square foot home is for a couple, two kids and a pet.
I think you lost me there. In most reasonably vibrant cities skyscrapers are not sitting mostly empty like a 10,000 sq ft house of 2. They are occupied and as such its more efficient to build up than out.
Depends on how you define modern. If you define modern as anything form the last 50 years, then Toronto certainly says modern. It also says I did not exist as a significant city before 1968.
I took your "modern and prosperous" definition as meaning really recent. As in this millennium at the oldest. Since city architecture has changed very little in the last 50 years, you cannot really tell if a city has had recent towers built. Serval Detroit buildings including the Ren Cen could have been build in the last ten years.
Obviously not all modern buildings are glass rectangles. Detroit has some that are not. However the vast majority are, and a considerable number of cities have almost nothing else. Even Toronto which has a reasonably interesting skyline is mostly glass rectangles. It has just barely enough other shapes and types to make it interesting.
Phoenix for example is a modern and prosperous city with a horrible skyline. Baltimore is another good example. Lots of tall modern buildings - looks depressing and crappy. No aesthetics at all.
Regardless, if an area has a construction boom of skyscrapers.....it makes a statement about prosperity. A city with a large skyline, say Houston for example, even if they are all uninspiring rectangles, it demonstrates a place that banks are willing to finance such projects, that cities are willing to give the okay for such projects, that people have the money to lease, pay rent or buy units in these buildings. In other words, it does not happen minus the demonstration of wealth and prosperity and confidence in an areas economics , for the most part. Ergo, my point has less to do with how nice a skyline is to look at and more to do with the symbolism that having a good sized skyline represents, especially a modern skyline and by modern I do mean the last 25 years.
In regards to architecture of tall buildings, its kind of like homes too. Really old and well maintained houses have a lot a character and charm.....as do many old skyscrapers of which Detroit is blessed with many. However, things built from the 60's to 90's tend to be less appealing that the really old or the really new. It's like the housing stock of some inner ring suburbs being boring compared to the housing in some of Detroit's older neighborhoods or some of the newer development in places like Novi.
My point is that skyscrapers are a symbol of economic vitality and if skyscrapers have been built and are being proposed (without scale down....see Grand Rapids) in the recent past, present and for the near future, that is a sign of economic prosperity, wealth and the like. If a city is not really building such towers, is that a sign that the city really is not that prosperous? I mean, if you can't build a residential tower in your area because people cannot afford the cost to live there....then how prosperous is your area really? If banks will not fiance such a proposal, then the bank does not have confidence in the economics of the area which would make such a building feasible. Growth and prosperity makes skyscrapers possible, which is why strong skylines reflect/project health and prosperity, as a general rule. Hence, if you want to project prosperity....the skyscraper is a popular means of that today. Dan Gilbert getting started on what will be the tallest building in Michigan is an attempt to improve the image of Detroit and if other skyscrapers follow, it will succeed in changing perceptions of Detroit to those on the outside looking in. Many things are about optics.
Skylines are one way cities compete with each other to show their wealth and prosperity. Local businesses and developers who want to put their city on the map often do so by creating a signature building. I mean, did this not start with the Egyptians? Building grand structures has, for the longest, has been a means of demonstrating wealth and prosperity of a kingdom, a religion, a business, a city ect. I mean, what message are they attempting to convey in Dubia with their skyline? It's a message to the rest of the world that its open for business, trade, prosperity, wealth, power...etc. Now....I love Detroits old buildings....but that represents a bygone era.....this looks like where the future is headed.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-21-2018 at 03:51 PM..
I think you lost me there. In most reasonably vibrant cities skyscrapers are not sitting mostly empty like a 10,000 sq ft house of 2. They are occupied and as such its more efficient to build up than out.
The point being that they are both unnecessary and are actually just displays of status and wealth. Skyscrapers are justified in land locked areas where there is great to demand to live in the land locked area, but not enough land....so up is the only way to satisfy the free market demand. Other than that scenario, they are simply status symbols for developers, those who live there or companies that put their name on the buildings, just like homes are status symbols, often, for individuals.
It would be dishonest uninformed to suggest, and I am not saying that anyone has, that humans as a general rule do not seek some level of rank and status. That is the nature of competition and life and we create symbols and edifices to represent status....whether it be a home much larger than we actually can functionally use, or skyscraper.
In basketball, the "dunk" is sort of a status symbol or move that shows strength and power. If a player gets a fast break....they usually dunk the ball, even though a layup would give them the same amount of points. I look at skyscrapers kind of the same way. You don't have to do it to score points, but if you want to make an emphatic statement.....you dunk it. However, if you are getting fast breaks and keep laying the ball up.....maybe its because you can't jump that high to dunk it. If you are a city, if you are not building skyscrapers....maybe its because you can't jump that high either and just settle for laying the ball up with smaller buildings. Hence, the question is can Michigan cities jump that high, metaphorically speaking. Detroit is trying.
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.
