I don't know, I always think of London and its architecture as being the pinnacle of human civilization. The designs are definitely different than anything in the US and even the rest of Europe. If they're focusing on skyscrapers ruining cities based on what they do to the skyline, then they're focusing on the wrong thing. What really matters of course is how they interact with the street. London has only really started to blossom with skyscrapers in the last 10 to 15 years. I guess the juxtaposition of them "clashing" with the older buildings is bugging some people. Still, I would think the fact that they are so different from what's there would make them unique and appreciated. How many more grand plazas and open space can there be in a city like London or Paris where density is so intense and nearly everything is historical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
Exactly. NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, SF, Chicago all great cities and each of these cities have their fair share of midrise human scaled neighborhoods. Skyscrapers are more economically feasible than office midrises.
|
That's actually not true. Skyscrapers do of course cost more to build and maintain. And they're more difficult to get funding for. But they are more environmentally sustainable. And of course skyscrapers totally make sense in a such a dense environment as London where land is a precious and limited resource.