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.
The "why" of skyscrapers is obvious: you can pack a lot of people (either residents or office workers) into a small amount of space, with all of the economies of scale that this entails. Architecturally, some skyscrapers are magnificent examples of design. (Does anyone really NOT think that the Empire State Building is a highly elegant structure?) And of course, for people who like to get into the weeds, just the sheer amount of "stuff" (elevators, stairways, pipes, wires, lightbulbs, etc., etc.) that goes into building one of those tall buildings is overwhelming.
But first and foremost, skyscrapers, either individual ones (such as the Empire State Building) or a group of them (such as Chicago's or Hong Kong's skyline) are symbols of the cities in which they are built. The ESB is instantly recognizable as New York. The Eiffel Tower (not really a skyscraper, per se, but a tall structure nonetheless) is instantly recognizable as Paris. Big Ben (which, when built, was the second tallest structure in London) is instantly recognizable as London. And so on.
Since this question is being asked in the Urban Planning forum, I'll conclude by saying that skyscrapers are what has made most (not all) major world cities to be possible, by packing so many more workers and residents into them than could have otherwise been done. They enable the density that makes mass transit viable. They draw enough of a population base to enable a whole host of amenities that might otherwise not be possible. And they are far more efficient in distributing resources such as water and electricity than the number of single family houses and/or office parks that would be needed to replace them.
And, last but not least, they just look cool! And provide great views!
The answers here covered most all the points: ego, city pride, optimization of small footprint-economic return benefits in high cost geographies, efficiency optimization of infrastructure, neighborhood human context versus skyline view, what zoning allows etc.
Historically, the tallest buildings in cultures were often to show focus of societal activities. From Ziggurats, Pyramids and ancient worship temples to the tallest spires of those who 'reign' over the little people or the ramparts of territorial extant defensive points. Since industrialization, this focus has been shifted to projecting commercial dominance.
I like Urban Planning for examining different city's built environment's historical evolution across different 'times' of peaks of commerce and cultures. I think the obsession sometimes encountered in forums like this is from the 'SIM CITY - Skyscraper as measure of city pride - mines bigger than yours crowd'.
I enjoy skyscrapers. The use of skyscrapers placement within a city-scape when done right, can be just as pleasing in the right context as a church or institutional building in 16th century Italy. Especially when its scale offsets (as landmark orienting outdoor sculpture- Eiffel Tower, and Montparnesse in Paris, Empire State building NYC, Transamerica Pyramid SFO, Hancock Tower in Boston as good examples) or complements a neighborhood in style by incorporating appropriate infill to complement the adjacent structures. Sort of like a weaver of fabric weaving a pleasant pattern.
We're going to experience it in downtown Cleveland with the new Sherwin Williams World HQ construction. No drawings have been released as yet. It should be a good case study of how to infill between a central business district with historic buildings around it and blending it into a historic warehouse district of smaller scale. It is within the highest allowed zoning up to 900 feet - so, this should be interesting.
If a piece of property 200 feet by 200 feet is developed to a height of fifteen floors it can accommodate 300 apartments; how many floors must be built to accommodate the same number of apartments on a piece of property 100 feet by 100 feet?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57813
In a city with high property costs, a developer can buy an old 12,000 sf parking lot for a few million, build a high rise with ground level retail and 150 condos that sell for $1.5 million apiece. Simple matter of economics, cost-benefit analysis. As long as the city is desirable and people are willing to buy or rent them, they will be built.
I'm probably somewhere in the middle and perhaps can lend some insight. I like skyscrapers but I don't think I am obsessed at all. I find that the street level is by far the most important thing as lrfox stated, and some skyscrapers do this well while others don't. I'll also add that my favorite neighborhoods are those with consistent mid-rises that tend to offer the most vibrancy of any. That said...cities with tons of density AND vibrancy are my favorite, and those will generally involve lots of skyscrapers.
What do I like about them? I like the views FROM skyscrapers and I like the views OF skyscrapers. A nice skyline to me is akin to a mountain range or oceanview. If I was searching for a residential property I would value a skyline view in the same way as those. I also think that unique skyscrapers can bring positive attention and notoriety to a city, and unique skylines are good ways of branding/identifying a city.
But yes, it is not an end all be all and I also don't get into those skyline threads either.
I see them as wastes of resources, death traps, and unpleasant places to live and work. The waste starts with the energy costs of construction, moving people up on elevators, pumping water up, cooling the upper floors as heat rises, and the vast glass walls that aren't windows. Glass and concrete grade sand is now a black market commodity stolen from beaches and river/lake/ocean beds. The death trap aspect can be seen in any video of a skyscraper fire, plus the falling object hazards to pedestrians below. As unpleasant places to live and work, that could take all day. Jumpers give the TLDR version.
I lived in a skyscraper for a couple weeks.
I've never lived in a skyscraper but I worked in a couple of them, including an 18 month stint on a 27th floor. Based on that work experience I'd rather die than live in a skyscraper. It would take at least 10 minutes to go between my desk and the street. What a waste of time. One reason out of several that I choose suburban/exurban living is that I can avoid living and/or working on the upper floors of tall buildings. I can't guarantee that for myself if I was to choose city living.
A simplistic statement of the problem...
IF populations keep doubling every 50 years, thus quadrupling every 100 years, then we may need to consolidate population.
And to feed this population, we need agricultural output to quadruple every 100 years, too. Does that suggest that we demolish suburbs and recover the agricultural lands they were built upon?
. . .
Ignoring current decor, building codes, taxes and laws, what would represent the most efficient form of population consolidation -and- farmland expansion?
* Giant geodesic domed cities with underground rail mass transit?
* 4-5 story multiuse construction, with enterprises on the ground floor and apartments above?
* Grid of streets surrounding skyscraper apartments?
* Underground construction, with vast parklands above?
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.
