Skyscrapers, is it time to stop building them?

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

For a second I thought Joel Kotkin wrote this.

Lol!

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

They looks edgy and cool, but, many are almost suburban or even theme park like with their connection to street life. For instance:
https://goo.gl/maps/yJ16hL7kPcdzH8Av7

or

https://goo.gl/maps/eeoTZYRock7PpjCV7

Right. It's so empty. I've heard about how empty the towers especially residential sit half empty if that in cities like Dubai.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

No, The Guardian is quality journalism. And people that are calling this click bait apparently don’t know what the term “click bait” means.

You just made the mistake of posting this on a forum for people that are obsessed with skyscrapers is all.

The journalism is fine (and particularly good on global current events) but the op-ed section is just left-wing provocatism designed to elicit outrage from the other side of the political spectrum. I.e., just ridiculous positions to get a rise out of people.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

They looks edgy and cool, but, many are almost suburban or even theme park like with their connection to street life. For instance:
https://goo.gl/maps/yJ16hL7kPcdzH8Av7

or

https://goo.gl/maps/eeoTZYRock7PpjCV7

I don't think it's fair to comment on the streetlife while showing a streetview on a rainy day. Not all skyscrapers in China are built in the form of the Shanghai trio. Shanghai is a colossal city, it's on a completely different scale than what we know in the US. What would not work here and be a dead zone is fine and full of people over there, so keep that in mind.

Also Goldin Finance 117 is literally in a suburb of Tainjin.

[llamaorama]

I swear, the The Guardian's headlines team does more "slamming" and "grilling" than a Kansas City BBQ joint. I used to respect them and thought they were a really good alternative voice back around 2010-12, during the aftermath of the recession and the arab spring. At some point something changed, maybe it was Trump or Brexit. I decided I would never click on another one of their articles again, and if I see them on Reddit they get a downvote from me. This article really exemplifies why I don't like them.

It's not purely a left-right thing. My political views haven't really changed. The Guardian's current editorial bent is IMO just too 1) alarmist 2) sort of faux-liberal privileged college kid style political ideology 3) ignores nuance in favor of dumbing down their writing. The new attention economy demands clickbait and outrage, and The Guardian is probably the leader in providing fodder for social media doomscrolling. They want you to be angry and afraid just like Fox News.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 10023

The journalism is fine (and particularly good on global current events) but the op-ed section is just left-wing provocatism designed to elicit outrage from the other side of the political spectrum. I.e., just ridiculous positions to get a rise out of people.

I agree with you nearly a hundred percent on that. There seems to be an unending quest to score woke points of discourse in the darkest corners of the social issues universe. I find the same relentlessness when listening to NPR radio. I think it eventually leads to the kind of exasperation that brings about Trumpism, and to an extent Brexitism.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

I agree with you nearly a hundred percent on that. There seems to be an unending quest to score woke points of discourse in the darkest corners of the social issues universe. I find the same relentlessness when listening to NPR radio. I think it eventually leads to the kind of exasperation that brings about Trumpism, and to an extent Brexitism.

NPR, with all the programs it distributes daily, such as Think, 1A, The Takeaway, etc., has become leftist propaganda. Especially lately. Especially since George Floyd’s murder. When it’s just news, it’s mostly hard news, but throughout the other 90% of their programming it’s, all identity politics, all the time. (That should be their motto.) It’s ridiculously biased and quite frankly, exhausting.

The Guardian on the other hand is quality journalism. It’s far from “the darkest corners of the social issues universe,” - as you put it. This particular article about the carbon footprint of skyscrapers is not exactly their best work. I think that’s clear. But please don’t confuse The Guardian for the likes of NPR.

I don’t think you people have actually spent much time reading The Guardian. I think you’re just making assumptions.

[Sam Hill]

I have to be honest. I don’t read much op-ed stuff. It could be there’s a dark side to The Guardian that I’m not familiar with. I somehow doubt it though. Most of what I read from them is top-notch stuff - even the few op-ed pieces I have come across. It’s one of the few quality rags left in this world. I’ma keep clinging to it for useful info much the same way I cling to Reuters.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

I'd love some of the Asian skrapers built here in America. They look edgy and cool.

I find this new skyscraper boom in New York even more surprising than Asia's.

They're completely different from anything that existed in the city before. If someone presented me a pic of Midtown back in the 2000's, I'd say it was from a B-grade sci-fi movie, as the city would never build like that.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Doady

Canadian cities have more high-rises than European cities. Denser than European cities also? Mississauga has more high-rises per capita than Chicago. Denser than Chicago also? Is it high-rises that's holding back the density of Atlanta compared to San Francisco, or something else? Do you want to emulate Canada, or do you want to emulate Europe?

You can see in many US inner cities, like Oklahoma City and Little Rock, it's not lack of skyscrapers than the main reason for low density, it's the huge amount of parking. It's not lack of skyscraper construction that is limiting density in these places, it's the lack of public transit.

Skyscrapers themselves are not economical to build when the parking demand is too high, especially office towers. We can be willing to build skyscrapers as a way to increase density, but there has to be land available to build the skyscrapers. If there is enough land, perhaps the skyscrapers can be surrounded by parking, but then the increase in density will also be minimal due to the amount of space required for parking. What you really need is lots and lots of buses and trains, that is the foundation for skyscrapers.

But we should be able to increase the density of our cities just fine even if not one new skyscraper is built in any of them. Obsessing about super-tall buildings makes no sense when you do not have the transit infrastructure to support them. If a city cannot build dense low-rise and mid-rise neighbhourhoods, then forget about building dense high-rise neighbourhoods. Only a handful of US cities are even at the Winnipeg level when it comes transit ridership, let alone the NYC level, and even NYC is not pure skyscrapers. So forget about skyscrapers, think about improving transit and building dense low-rise neighbourhoods first. You want to build a Manhattan? Then try building a Kensington Market first. One step at a time. Stop thinking way too far ahead, and skyscrapers are just too far ahead for most places, especially in North America.

That's a good point. Building a skyscraper in an autocentric metro are will require tons of parking and as we see in most places, above ground.

It will provide us with nice pics from an ever changing skyline, but won't do much to increase urbanity.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I have to be honest. I don’t read much op-ed stuff. It could be there’s a dark side to The Guardian that I’m not familiar with. I somehow doubt it though. Most of what I read from them is top-notch stuff - even the few op-ed pieces I have come across. It’s one of the few quality rags left in this world. I’ma keep clinging to it for useful info much the same way I cling to Reuters.

Sure, it’s a go-to publication for me too. I’m rather more left leaning myself, but tired of the constant drumming for the new victim on the block. I find a lot of their opinion pieces frivolous in that sense.

[mousquet]

I suppose high-rises make sense when the market needs them.

Here in Paris, we need a lot of residential high-rises. Not necessarily arrogant supertalls meant for the ultra rich, but at least some taller buildings to fulfill demand with many more residential units.

Even supertalls would be useful, so the rich may leave some ridiculously large mansions from the central city or from affluent suburbs for penthouses with crazy views, then the former could be turned into multi-unit buildings.
Who actually needs a 25k sq ft mansion with some 30 rooms for over €50 million? If I was filthy rich, I'd rather buy a 5k sq ft duplex apartment at the top of a 300m tall skyscraper. I would be happy with that.

It wouldn't be reasonable in the historic central districts where a lot of old architecture and urbanity is worth preserving, but I think even some outskirts of the city could support such projects, like the affluent suburbs of the Hauts-de-Seine, Yvelines or Val-de-Marne départements (counterparts of US counties). For instance, soccer star Leo Messi would be about to buy a €48 million mansion in le Vésinet, a wealthy suburb of Yvelines 10 miles west of Central Paris. A bunch of western suburbs are overpriced here.

When the average price of a square meter gets close to €12k (something like US$1200+ per square foot) in Central Paris, I guess they can afford to build pretty much anything over here, even on the outskirts or in the suburbs.

[mhays]

The usefulness/economics/merits of skyscrapers are HUGELY different depending on the scenario.

Use (office, hotel, housing? (condo, apartment, senior, student))
Parking volume and location (below-grade, podium, adjacent garage, surface(!), and especially quantity)
Soils
Land costs
Proximity to jobs
Views
Rent levels and housing prices
Zoning and pricing for lowrise buildings, especially woodframes (if seven-story woodframes are easy and cheap, highrises might lose share)
Etc.

It's hard to generalize without narrowing those things down a bit.

Often the key is walkability to jobs. In my region, that's probably the #1 driver of highrise residential construction. This is aided here by limited parking expectations and made harder by the requirement to put nearly all of the parking below-grade. Most buildings are rentals, and units tend to be small and priced for rank-and-file earners in the low six figures. The work-from-home trend might put a real crimp in these towers, but they've filled at a good rate since early Covid. We're seeing a reduction in starts, but that's more due to rising construction costs.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Sure, it’s a go-to publication for me too. I’m rather more left leaning myself, but tired of the constant drumming for the new victim on the block. I find a lot of their opinion pieces frivolous in that sense.

Fair enough. I’m in the same boat, actually. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as it seems you’re more familiar with The Guardian’s opinion pieces than I am and presumably know what you’re talking about.

I suppose I’m a bit overly sensitive when it comes to this topic. The validity of journalism, or lack there of, is a big deal to me. A good 40% or so of the voting-age population of the most powerful nation on earth share a political belief system that is quite literally centered around a complex web of deranged conspiracy theories. And this cohort honestly believe, in their heart of hearts, that real news is fake news and that fake news is real. To me it’s horrifying. I’ve definitely lost some sleep over it. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where I sometimes find myself questioning democracy.

Anyway, when I see one of the few quality sources of information left on this planet getting bashed all because of this one unfortunate, myopic piece, I guess my feathers get a bit ruffled. I need to take it easy, lol. It’s kind of a shitty article, lol.

[dubu]

skyscrapers arent free like the pentagon, you can have five million people of just suburbs or a huge city with a small cluster of skyscrapers on the west side of united states/ canada. on the east half of united states/ canada its different, there are so many people there.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Fair enough. I’m in the same boat, actually. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as it seems you’re more familiar with The Guardian’s opinion pieces than I am and presumably know what you’re talking about.

I suppose I’m a bit overly sensitive when it comes to this topic. The validity of journalism, or lack there of, is a big deal to me. A good 40% or so of the voting-age population of the most powerful nation on earth share a political belief system that is quite literally centered around a complex web of deranged conspiracy theories. And this cohort honestly believe, in their heart of hearts, that real news is fake news and that fake news is real. To me it’s horrifying. I’ve definitely lost some sleep over it. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where I sometimes find myself questioning democracy.

Anyway, when I see one of the few quality sources of information left on this planet getting bashed all because of this one unfortunate, myopic piece, I guess my feathers get a bit ruffled. I need to take it easy, lol. It’s kind of a shitty article, lol.

Sure, it’s worthwhile pointing to the virtues of good journalism and good editorship, while it still exists. I am not sure about the future of publishing, and the power of press over social media derangement, but I hope like you that it flourishes by the advent of some unknown circumstance. We are in a bit of a bind as far as that goes.

Back to the value of skyscrapers. Sorry for highjacking again.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I find this new skyscraper boom in New York even more surprising than Asia's.

They're completely different from anything that existed in the city before. If someone presented me a pic of Midtown back in the 2000's, I'd say it was from a B-grade sci-fi movie, as the city would never build like that.

You're right, there's some nice buildings going up in NYC.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The validity of journalism, or lack there of, is a big deal to me. A good 40% or so of the voting-age population of the most powerful nation on earth share a political belief system that is quite literally centered around a complex web of deranged conspiracy theories. And this cohort honestly believe, in their heart of hearts, that real news is fake news and that fake news is real. To me it’s horrifying. I’ve definitely lost some sleep over it. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where I sometimes find myself questioning democracy.

I don’t ever remember agreeing with you before, but I sure as hell agree with you here. I was a New York Times man for 20 years. Until recently. The Paper of Record is a worthless rag nowadays. As is another old favorite, New York Magazine. I just feel awful about it. I miss good journalism so much that it hurts. And I went from listening to NPR every single dayfor 15 years to not listening once for the last three years. It makes me want to cry, but it’s just trash nowadays

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by pico44

I don’t ever remember agreeing with you before, but I sure as hell agree with you here. I was a New York Times man for 20 years. Until recently. The Paper of Record is a worthless rag nowadays. As is another old favorite, New York Magazine. I just feel awful about it. I miss good journalism so much that it hurts. And I went from listening to NPR every single dayfor 15 years to not listening once for the last three years. It makes me want to cry, but it’s just trash nowadays

"trash" "rag" - kinda harsh terms, with no real insight. I don't listen to NPR anymore (or any broadcast radio) so I cannot speak to it, but the NYT is not a worthless rag. Far from it. I think it is producing extraordinary journalism right now. Same with the Wall Street Journal. Their subscription numbers are up which has given them more money to spend on big news projects that wouldn't be done otherwise. I think the Op Ed page of the WSJ is a not worthy of the journalism side of the paper, being more akin to Fox News than a serious opinion page, but that may just be my politics showing. What the NYT and the WSJ, and to a lesser degree WaPo, are guilty of is the bubble effect - not their respective readership bubble, but their collective institutional bubble. This is especially true with coverage of DC. They get caught up in themselves, and with The Hill and Politico, and the "serious" political magazines. They conventional wisdom frequently isn't.

But the NYT, WSJ, and to a lesser degree WaPo, all produce extremely good journalism. It is mainstream and shouldn't be the be all, end all of news reading, but they aren't a bad place to start.

Same with the Guardian and the Financial Times.

[woodrow]

That said, the Moore piece in the Guardian really isn't saying much. It is a tease article, "look, I am just asking a question" type of filler. Say what you think Mr. Moore. You are a critic, don't be coy.