SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240360)

CaliNative Sep 19, 2019 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8692137)
disagree, i'm in favor of anything that helps break up the midtown plateau.

one of my favorite aspects of a good skyline is a lot of height variability, and these new manhattan pencil towers are making the midtown skyline a lot more "pointy" than it used to be.

i think it's a welcome change.

the sky is the limit!

The huge height to width ratio is just very odd looking on the toothpicks. Some of those must be 25 times taller than they are wide. I can't think of any that you could call great architecture. The marketplace will take care of this. Even the billionaires may not line up to buy so they won't go up. We need affordable apartments (even microapartments) for the 99.99%, not more toothpicks for the .01%. The NYT said the billionaire buyers often just buy them for investments, and don't even live there most of the time. The New York Times ran an article last Sunday about how the sales have gone way down. I guess a shortage of foreign buyers. So, there may be fewer going up.

I'm also not a big fan of Hudson Yards, although there may be one or two buildings there that are OK. I do love the High Line though. Wish DTLA had something like the high line. I guess the Venice boardwalk is sort of like the high line in a way, or at least Coney Island. Equally crowded. If L.A. ever redid the L.A. River like San Antonio (collect/dam the winter floodwaters?) it would have something. Tempe Arizona did a great thing with the Salt River. Made a lake out of it with inflatable dams. Also maybe they could put a roof on the Harbor Freeway & Hollywood Fwy through DTLA and make a linear park like the high line--would link east & west & north & south sides of downtown. . But for DTLA to ever achieve greatness, will have to shelter the homeless. Tents on the sidewalks are so Dickensian. Who can enjoy themselves amidst that misery/squalor?

jtown,man Sep 20, 2019 3:08 AM

Great conversation everyone. I keep finding myself agreeing with every post about skinny towers in Manhatten, no matter what side they are on.

SFBruin Sep 20, 2019 3:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8691846)
one trillion percent disagree.

after nearly a half century, Big Red is now a chicago skyline classic. a damn fine work of international style, big and bold, muscular, chicago 2nd school.

I'll defer to you since you live in Chicago. ;)

Steely Dan Sep 20, 2019 2:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8692739)
When the first toothpick was erected, I really was not a fan of the appearance and what it did to the existing skyline. However, since there are now 4 toothpicks [with more to come], I really like the new skyline much more than before.

yep. there is an adjustment period going on.

these new super skinny towers have very unfamiliar proportions, but in a generation or two, they'll just be "classic new york".

some people are already there, many aren't.

mhays Sep 20, 2019 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8692682)
Yeah, there are, theoretically, other options. Practically, probably no. Most U.S. highrises are towers on podiums. NYC isn't really a podium town because parking is (generally speaking) forbidden and there are no backsides of buildings (no alleys and buildings are built cheek-by-jowl).

In NYC, you're gonna get a lot-filling building. Building size is strictly a function of floor area ratio. You can't build bigger and no one builds less than the max allowed. So the question is whether you prefer shorter, wider towers, or taller thinner towers. I generally prefer the latter because it preserves street-level vitality and historic buildings. 57th Street still has delis and tiny historic buildings, in part because the new tower footprints are tiny.

Several cities don't do podium towers because parking is typically underground.

They're common in cities with most or all of this: (a) high parking ratios, (b) tough soils, (c) land use codes that allow above-grade parking, and (d) lower rents.

Maldive Sep 20, 2019 3:42 PM

Are NYC's "tooth-picks" a welcome curiosity to the skyline? Not sure. The height/width ratio shakes my geek head. Fragile and wind at risk comes to mind though lol.

But typically NYC has built tall and strong. So I've cancelled future tooth-pick proposals.

iheartthed Sep 20, 2019 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maldive (Post 8693398)
Are NYC's "tooth-picks" a welcome curiosity to the skyline? Not sure. The height/width ratio shakes my geek head. Fragile and wind at risk comes to mind though lol.

But typically NYC has built tall and strong. So I've cancelled future tooth-pick proposals.

It wouldn't be the first time that a Manhattan skyscraper was vulnerable to wind:

Quote:

On Aug. 8, 1978, three men arrived at Mr. Gibson’s office in Rockefeller Center. Two were with the Red Cross, in charge of disaster preparations. The third was a structural engineer, Leslie E. Robertson, an expert in tall buildings who had been hired by Citibank to review the strength of its shining new addition to the Manhattan skyline, the Citicorp Center in Midtown.

They wanted to know the probability of Midtown Manhattan being buffeted by a 75-mile-per-hour wind for five minutes, and how far in advance they would learn that it was coming.

As Mr. Gibson later related, he told them of two possibilities. One would be a severe thunderstorm that could last as long as five minutes, perhaps with no more than an hour’s notice.

“There’s another situation — less likely, but still possible,” Mr. Gibson told them. “A hurricane has winds of at least 75 miles per hour, sustained for hours.” That would not sneak up on them: Storms would be tracked as they formed and moved up the coast.

Why, he wondered, did they want to know?

“They said, due to design error, construction error, I forget which — due to screw-ups, why, the building would fall over if that sustained wind were to occur,” Mr. Gibson said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/s...her-trump.html

suburbanite Sep 20, 2019 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8692739)
When the first toothpick was erected, I really was not a fan of the appearance and what it did to the existing skyline. However, since there are now 4 toothpicks [with more to come], I really like the new skyline much more than before.

I can agree that more of them actually helps balance it out. If it was just 111 West 57th Street it would look ridiculous.

Aesthetically, part of what I find attractive in a skyscraper is it's apparent sturdiness and stability. A slow taper from a wide base is like looking at a mountain. Some of these new super-skinny supertalls are almost unsettling from that perspective. It's the same reason I'm not a big fan of top-heavy designs like Vancouver House.

https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/...65_300x415.jpg
From: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...er-house/13987

Once again, all personal preference though. All the power to those pushing the envelope with modern engineering.

The North One Sep 20, 2019 6:22 PM

^ a building like that in the subduction zone PNW no less, that's a big no from me.

mousquet Sep 20, 2019 6:27 PM

^ Wut? :???: I don't even get what your word means.

subduction zone PNW

WTF does that mean? That building is a cool piece of structural engineering.
That's what you meant.

mrnyc Sep 20, 2019 6:50 PM

^ pacific northwest -- its built in an earthquake zone.

i dk that it really matters with modern engineering, but it sure looks like it might.

The North One Sep 20, 2019 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8693637)
^ Wut? :???: I don't even get what your word means.

Here you go

mousquet Sep 20, 2019 8:01 PM

Ok, I got you guys.
I'd forgotten how huge that Pacific tectonics thing is.
You know, it is obvious in California and Chile, not so much up to Canada...

Well, fingers crossed, huh. Or some engineers out there will be sentenced to hell.
But that building would still stand in my region.

Both floods and droughts are our issues over here, but quakes? Nope, we don't have any, so it would be valid out here.

CaliNative Sep 20, 2019 10:11 PM

delete

JManc Sep 21, 2019 3:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The one in the middle is hideous. The other one on right at least has some massing and the one on left (432 Park Ave) is appealing from the street. All are about 900' too tall.

CaliNative Sep 21, 2019 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8694124)
The one in the middle is hideous. The other one on right at least has some massing and the one on left (432 Park Ave) is appealing from the street. All are about 900' too tall.

The toothpick buildings look like smokestacks at a steel mill or power plant from a distance. All about which billionaire has the highest penthouse. Great architectural design is secondary to height apparently. I bet gold leaf and maybe even gold fixtures are everywhere in the condos. Conspicuous displays of wealth. I'd rather live in one of the old 1920s buildings lining Central Park. The toothpicks are a new money phenomenon. Old money lives in the 1920s classics, places like the Dakota, or in mansions on the upper east side in the 60s and 70s not far from the park, or the money belts in Westchester, Long Island or Conn. I bet the old money people mock those in the toothpicks. If Veblin were still alive, he'd be writing about the showoff toothpicks and those who live in them. Guilded Age 2.0

CaliNative Sep 21, 2019 8:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8693789)
Ok, I got you guys.
I'd forgotten how huge that Pacific tectonics thing is.
You know, it is obvious in California and Chile, not so much up to Canada...

Well, fingers crossed, huh. Or some engineers out there will be sentenced to hell.
But that building would still stand in my region.

Both floods and droughts are our issues over here, but quakes? Nope, we don't have any, so it would be valid out here.

My understanding is that the Cascadia subduction zone extends from near Eureka in NW Cal (starts at the Mendocino triple junction where the San Andreas ends) all the way to southern BC. It is believed that the Cascadia could generate quakes as large a magnitude 9 every several hundred years. The last such mega-quake is now known from geologic and historic evidence to have occured in the year 1700, 319 years ago. Sometimes the megaquakes are 500 or more years apart, sometimes they are only 200 years apart. The timing is uncertain. Do a web search on "Cascadia megaquake 1700" and all the evidence is there.

Yuri Sep 22, 2019 12:03 AM

It's not the skyline per se, but the density around the Chicago River makes Chicago very unique.

Another skyline that has always impressed me since young kid, is Pittsburgh. The rivers confluence, the park there, and the beautiful buildings with the taller ones behind is incredibly harmonic. Maybe is my favourite in the world.

Outside North America, but with its same logic, I like Johannesburg. The very tall office towers, surrounded by smaller ones and with a highrise residential district right there, plus the TV towers.

After a while, I learned to enjoy the sea-of-highrise type of skyline present in São Paulo, Buenos Aires, etc. They have a Coruscant vibe, an endless urbanity.

Crawford Sep 22, 2019 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 8694453)
The toothpick buildings look like smokestacks at a steel mill or power plant from a distance. All about which billionaire has the highest penthouse. Great architectural design is secondary to height apparently. I bet gold leaf and maybe even gold fixtures are everywhere in the condos. Conspicuous displays of wealth. I'd rather live in one of the old 1920s buildings lining Central Park. The toothpicks are a new money phenomenon. Old money lives in the 1920s classics, places like the Dakota, or in mansions on the upper east side in the 60s and 70s not far from the park, or the money belts in Westchester, Long Island or Conn. I bet the old money people mock those in the toothpicks. If Veblin were still alive, he'd be writing about the showoff toothpicks and those who live in them. Guilded Age 2.0

This is all bizarre oppositeland. Gold fixtures/over-the-top chintz hasn't been popular in interior design in 30 years. These towers are all built by starchitects and couldn't be of higher caliber design. It's all clean lines and spare aesthetic. Have you seen these interiors?

And it's actually the prewar coops that have all the chintz and glitz. The Dakota/CPW is Hollywood East, not old money. Finally, I seriously doubt suburbanites are laughing at Jeff Bezos, Leonard Lauder, Ken Griffin, Sting, Denzel Washington and random folks who can afford $240 million apartments, in buildings that don't even allow financing.

Sun Belt Sep 22, 2019 1:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8693789)
Ok, I got you guys.
I'd forgotten how huge that Pacific tectonics thing is.
You know, it is obvious in California and Chile, not so much up to Canada...

Well, fingers crossed, huh. Or some engineers out there will be sentenced to hell.
But that building would still stand in my region.

Both floods and droughts are our issues over here, but quakes? Nope, we don't have any, so it would be valid out here.

The only reason it's obvious in California is because of Hollywood and we have 38 million social media posters, and before that, nobody lived nor cared, nor understood the dangers of the Pacific Northwest -- in a similar fashion as the Super Volcano of Yellowstone.

-----

It has been quite some time since L.A. / S.F. / S.D. have been hit by a sizable quake. 1994 was the last somewhat major quake and that wasn't even near the potential.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.