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 have a background that included a fair amount of classwork in urban/environmental issues, and my early career was in that arena as well. I never experienced anything like this obsession.
I have a background that included a fair amount of classwork in urban/environmental issues, and my early career was in that arena as well. I never experienced anything like this obsession.
Am I missing something?
It's the URBAN PLANNING forum. Do you really need any more explanation than that?
I'm sure you have your niche interests, though I doubt you use sensational terms like 'obsession' to describe those interests, and I doubt you characterize yourself as having a developmental disorder for having them.
Note:
No, I personally am not much interested in skyscrapers (it's a word, by the way - no need to mark it off in quotes). That's not the point. It's not that hard to understand that some people just really dig things that I find mundane.
I have a background that included a fair amount of classwork in urban/environmental issues, and my early career was in that arena as well. I never experienced anything like this obsession.
Am I missing something?
For a lot of people, I think it's a very obvious physical thing that they can latch onto to showcase their city pride. I always get a kick out of how much weight people put on "skylines" when ranking cities on these forums. It's most often people who don't live in them. For the people living in the city, the skyline is an afterthought and the tallest buildings don't matter as the most impact they have is the number of people they put on the streets around them. But for some reason, suburban high school and college kids fret over the most minuscule of details (i.e. "It's actually 791.6 feet from ground to structural top, not 784.9!"). Whatever floats your boat I guess...
For the record, urban planning and development is a big time passion of mine. But the height obsession is a bit bizarre from my perspective. I like looking at tall buildings too. Probably more than most. But I think the ground level human experience is far, far, far more important than what the city looks like from 10-15 miles away or whether the city's tallest building is 1,001 feet or 995 feet.
For a lot of people, I think it's a very obvious physical thing that they can latch onto to showcase their city pride. I always get a kick out of how much weight people put on "skylines" when ranking cities on these forums. It's most often people who don't live in them. For the people living in the city, the skyline is an afterthought and the tallest buildings don't matter as the most impact they have is the number of people they put on the streets around them. But for some reason, suburban high school and college kids fret over the most minuscule of details (i.e. "It's actually 791.6 feet from ground to structural top, not 784.9!"). Whatever floats your boat I guess...
For the record, urban planning and development is a big time passion of mine. But the height obsession is a bit bizarre from my perspective. I like looking at tall buildings too. Probably more than most. But I think the ground level human experience is far, far, far more important than what the city looks like from 10-15 miles away or whether the city's tallest building is 1,001 feet or 995 feet.
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.
For a lot of people, I think it's a very obvious physical thing that they can latch onto to showcase their city pride. I always get a kick out of how much weight people put on "skylines" when ranking cities on these forums. It's most often people who don't live in them. For the people living in the city, the skyline is an afterthought and the tallest buildings don't matter as the most impact they have is the number of people they put on the streets around them. But for some reason, suburban high school and college kids fret over the most minuscule of details (i.e. "It's actually 791.6 feet from ground to structural top, not 784.9!"). Whatever floats your boat I guess...
For the record, urban planning and development is a big time passion of mine. But the height obsession is a bit bizarre from my perspective. I like looking at tall buildings too. Probably more than most. But I think the ground level human experience is far, far, far more important than what the city looks like from 10-15 miles away or whether the city's tallest building is 1,001 feet or 995 feet.
Yep. What matters from a human level is what you have access to at street level. An office drone is still an office drone whether it’s in a 10 story building or a 1,000 foot tower. You need some density to make public transportation efficient but huge towers that block all the daylight foster suburban flight at 5pm.
Very tall buildings are always ego projects. Either the builder or a government. Tall buildings make sense when you reach a certain density. They made more sense in the early 20th century when to collaborate you actually had to get together over a drafting table, or conference table. If you had enough land you could build a 5-10 story building to house all the clerks, engineers, accountants, etc and send paper back and forth via pneumatic tubes or 'runners'. The Pentagon is the ultimate example of that.
Department stores were another example. Clothing on the first few floors, a resaurant on a mezzanine and maybe the penthouse. Housewares on the 4th floor, furniture on the 5th and 6th. Business offices on several higher floors. Storage in several basements with deliveries run from a warehouse in an industrial area. Now you have Amazon and Work from home. No need to concentrate an entire enterprise in one location.
I dont get the obsession with skyscrapers either and all those skyline people, too. They are so annoying in these threads. No offense.
I prefer more low and mid rise buildings. Like walking in Greenwich village or Paris streets or old neighborhoods of Edinburgh. You can appreciate the architecture and the nice storefronts. you can experience the sun rather than be in constant shade.
Yeah I find those skyscraper obsessed people jerks. No offense if you like them.
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.
The developers are just reacting to the rules in place. In my city less than 1% of the land within the city limits is zoned CBD where you can build as high as you want to......Except that there are capitol view corridors, flood plains, historic buildings, etc. that make this number much smaller. In other words maybe there would be more medium density development if there were more areas in which they could build such densities, but instead everything big is zoned to happen downtown.
Ego isn't enough to build skyscrapers as the loan underwriters will want (more like demand) these projects pencil out. Projects will only pencil out if there are enough customers for those building be they residents, office tenants, or hotel guests.
I would argue the increased shared space of sidewalks, roads and other infrastructure make it more resource efficient than suburbs, even the older ones.
There will always be a bias against skyscrapers just like there will always be a bias for craftsman, Tudor, and Victorian homes. Or Wal-Mart versus Target, ad nauseam.
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.
