Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings?
Which is more important to you when it comes to a skyline: unique architecture or number of towers? I promise, this is my last thread for today, lol!
|
a combination of both.
size, big enough for it to feel mighty but with unique and layered architecture from different periods. SF is a good example i think. |
both.
i'd also add height variability. lots of towers. lots of different kinds of towers. lots of different heights of towers. not surprisingly, something like this is close to my ideal: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6fa33035_h.jpg Skyline from the south by Jonathan Lurie, on Flick |
That's tough.
I know it's a tired, boring comparison, but I think the best example of this is Chicago vs. NY. Chicago (above) is varied, balanced... almost artful. It's large enough to make a big impact, but: NYC is MASSIVE. It's more a "wall" of towers than a place like Chicago (or any other smaller city with a respectable skyline), so it doesn't quite have that "artful" balance. But that giant web of dense urban development massages a part of my brain that I think only weirdos like people on this forum have, ha. I might go size on this one, although even having seen it 1m+ times, I still have a moment of awe one I catch the Chicago skyline at night, early morning or dusk. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The best North American example of such a style would probably be Toronto. Toronto presents a pretty meaningful contrast to American-style skylines. |
Quote:
Anyway. I think it's a good comparison between North American cities. New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect. A photographic example, although I've noticed it more in person: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....L._SL1500_.jpg |
When I think of aesthetic skylines its Chicago
Nyc is simply massive and impressive in that right, plus its so culturally ubiquitous that its cool to see it in person. (I would guess LA is similar to people back east but I've been to it so many times I dont get that sort of feeling from it) |
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.
Toronto has a jumble of highrises but its skyline doesn't visually impress me. Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features. NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive. |
Quote:
But what does this have to do with the topic? Neither city is known for repetitive elements in the skyline. There are repetitive complexes, like Presidential Towers in Chicago, but they don't dominate the skyline, as one sees in, say, Hong Kong. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Although newer developments in sunbelt areas seem to be moving into the 5-10 story apartment block and mixed use office tower mode instead of the pre 2000 garden apartment and vertical office park variety hour |
Quote:
It was (and is still stuck there) #3 in North America in the 60/70s tall game (BMO was an early supertall when maintenance workers on the roof raised their hands). The financial core built Mies' masterpiece -TD Centre, Pei's Commerce Court, the real gold glazing of RBC and later the red granite beauty Scotia Plaza. Nothing west coast about the original core. Just harder to see that great stuff now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Or another comparison would be Miami: hundreds and hundreds of non-descript similar looking towers that don't really stand out and all around the same height vs a skyline like Atlanta with fewer towers but more variety. With Miami you are taken aback by the sheer scale of all the towers while with Atlanta you notice the details of the towers themselves. To each his own.
|
Skylines, like people have their best side. For me it's all about symmetry and order. I dont like skylines that are only massive and uniform in height. Toronto looking north from the islands will always be more pleasing to me than Manhattan or Vancouver.
|
Quote:
https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...n-1024x683.jpg source: https://newyorkyimby.com/2018/10/che...irca-2022.html the old midtown plateau is currently being annihilated, which is nice...... |
Quote:
and chicago has the sears/hancock double antenna bookends that give its skyline a fairly distinctive silhouette at distance as well. maybe i'm just a nerd who pays too much attention to these kinds of details, but i could never mistake one of these for the other from the opposite sides of their respective lakes. https://live.staticflickr.com/7833/4...3a174502_h.jpg ACV_1464 by photolitherland, on Flickr https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1897/4...ece9cd5c_h.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/erocketship7/44618201742 |
Quote:
|
I can see how the average American would mistake Toronto for Chicago from afar. Toronto and Vancouver are nice cities, but up close they both look too Sim City-ish. A lot of it looks the same - especially in Vancouver. A smaller skyline can be inspiring if the buildings hold their own. Pittsburgh and SF are nice to look at.
The beloved is a good mix of size and uniqueness IMO. The views from the west are underrated. |
Quote:
the "dead giveaway towers" are precisely why i don't think they look eerily similar at a distance. but like is said, i'm a dyed-in-the-wool skyscraper nerd, so it's probably impossible for me to not see those distinctions. |
I like NYC's skyline for the sense of scale as well. But I will say it was better and more balanced in the 1930s and the later 20th century with the Twin Towers.
At those times, the ESB simply dominated Midtown along with the Chrysler to a certain extent. The WTC totally dominated lower Manhattan, which at one point was dominated by a collection of signature towers that represented the economic might of those who make Wall Street what it is today. The skyline was just epic. Iconic beyond words. A mass of skyscrapers in each district dominated by one or two colossal giants in a island setting that could be seen from miles away, land and water. Those editions of the NYC skyline are the best ones in my book. Represented the power of the city and America. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
the icons of a given skyline tend to define it and hence why i disagreed with your initial assertion that the chicago and toronto skylines are "eerily similar at a distance". their respective skyline-defining icons make that impossible for me to see. that's all. in the interest of not dragging it out further, it's probably time to agree to disagree. |
Chicago really needs to get rid of that red building and/or change its color. Just my 2c.
In terms of the question at hand, I like skylines with a healthy distance between skyscrapers. So like LA before the additional of the Wilshire Grand, or something like that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I kind of like Cincinnati. Nice example of a smaller skyline with a decent mix of old and new. Carew Tower is a nice 1920s example. L.A. missed out on taller early 2oth century skyscrapers because of the old 150 foot height limit it imposed (dumbly). L.A. even in the 1920s could have had several 400 foot+ art decos/neo gothics etc. if not for that law. So the L.A. skyline is dominated by lots of post 1950s modernist/postmodern towers, mostly flat topped and lots and lots of pre 1950 150 footers with a couple that were allowed to go a bit higher with clock towers/spires (e.g. Eastern Columbia). Not that they are bad--they are good (e.g. Eastern Columbia) & are being refurbished--but the height is pretty uniform 150 feet. City Hall was the only tall building in the 1920s significantly exempted from the law (454' tall). Would love to see L.A. put up some art deco inspired towers today to make up for the earlier height ban. |
Old and new - Broad Street, Philadelphia:
https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...om&_nc_cat=111 http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...65#post8691265 |
Quote:
|
^Love that red tower. Philly is going to get its own red skyscraper very soon.
|
Quote:
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. and i love how all of that vibrant red metal juxtaposes with the older historic stone buildings on michigan avenue. layers, textures, colors.... the entire history of the skyscraper all in one tapestry. this is why skylines like chicago's and new york's are so damn special. never change, Big Red. http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/b...overall_mg.jpg source: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buil...th-wabash/2188 |
I can't be the only one who isn't a fan of the recent crop of toothpick supertalls in Midtown Manhattan. I love NYC's skyline because of the aesthetic of this impenetrable wall of skyscraper density. They look so fragile and out of place among the giants of previous generations. Not to mention the somewhat dystopian feeling I got when I was recently in Central Park. Like Billionaires Row overseeing the masses from 400m up.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, if you prefer fat, blocky towers, those are more the norm, everywhere, even in Manhattan. Grand Central and Hudson Yards will have the biggest skyline changes in the coming years, and those towers have enormous footprints. There are 3 million square ft. office towers planned and u/c in these areas. |
Quote:
There are roughly a dozen assemblages in the corridor held by major developers. Durst, Solow, Barnett, Vornado, Macklowe, Related (basically the first rank of Manhattan developers) all have assemblages. They aren't spending upwards of a billion on painstakingly complex, decade-long land assemblages for the hell of it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I agree on just about every account here regarding NYC and Chicago. NYC is the most impressive skyline I've ever seen while Chicago's is the most beautiful and balanced. We could use another supertall or two in the Loop.
And for the love of god, don't EVER paint over BIG RED. One of my favorites in Chicago. The pop of color is so welcome in our skyline. If money was not an issue, I would buy the Renaissance Hotel on the river, tear it down and build a tall, red skyscraper between the white Kemper Insurance Building and dark grey Leo Burnett Building. |
Quote:
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! |
I agree. These towers are bringing back the "city of spires" aesthetic. It hasn't been seen since the '50s.
|
I dont mind height and variability (within reason). I think I just prefer if the tallest focal points were part of that feeling of sturdiness and solid mass. Billionaires row looks like little weeds sprouting out of the garden, while Sears Tower is an oak tree that stands the test of time.
|
Quote:
Small footprints and narrow lots are great (not that these buildings really do much for street level vitality anyway...), but when extruded to 400m the proportions just look goofy. And I'll echo the dystopian vibe of the billionaires looming over the city: https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...on-777x518.jpg |
Quote:
But wasn't that always the case? Isn't that just what New York is? https://images.adsttc.com/media/imag...ch_26_1936.jpg Back in the day, there were those who found it absurd to see a replica of the Halicarnassus Mausoleum sitting on top of a giant tower built by a dime-store mogul (or whatever). |
it is definitely possible to over-unique it.. look at Dubai
|
Quote:
the difference being that the oligarchs are now casting their disdainful gaze down upon the plebes from their condo towers instead of their office towers. but that's not really a big difference at all. it's all money and ego, a story as old as time. so what if a few of the minor details have changed? |
Quote:
That being said, I would also debate the point that a small footprint instantly makes a building a better contributor to the urban fabric. A combination of small footprints can be the secret sauce when they create variability in street frontages and uses. I think most of us picture perhaps a grocery store next to a mom-and-pop Italian restaurant, next to an independent tailor who's been there for 60 years. A small lot with frontage dedicated entirely for private access to $5 million+ condos doesn't invoke the same feeling, but maybe that's just me. This argument also seems based on the assumption that if we didn't have these pencil towers, there would be giant podium style developments instead. Does it have to be one or the other? |
Quote:
Could be just me again, but I actually prefer a slightly more modern version of the Downtown without such pronounced drop-offs. I get more excited with the crushing feeling of a skyscraper canyon than looking up at a lone tower. Maybe not what New York is though, and 1980-2010 was more an anomaly. |
Quote:
Quote:
this isn't an either/or situation. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.