Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture
(www.currentaffairs.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
Also that following bit "no building should ever be more than four stories [...] This seems a completely sensible idea." That's not even near a skyscraper at that point.
Building out means you have less nature, because you have buildings where it'd be. Building out also means traveling that much further to get anywhere. If that includes your workplace, that's a lot of wasted time. A lot of places are also inhospitable. There's also the matter of delays in planning, like for approvals. If it might take years anyway, might as well make it big, along with the other cost savings (per unit).
It's also interesting that they mention "this is Art Deco, the last truly impressive movement in architecture," when you take the skyscraper statement into account, since there's plenty of Art Deco skyscrapers, including the Guardian Building they mention
I think the argument the article's making is that support structures (logistical support, rather than structural support, I presume) for the gigantic structure invariably occupies about as much ground as if you'd placed the same capacity in low-rise buildings.
I'm not sure if I agree with it, but that's the point the article is making.
They aren't wrong on that, though. Skyscrapers spend a large portion of their time empty, and require massive resources to maintain which means large areas of land on the edge of the city or further are dedicated to the resources necessary to maintain such an edifice. Lower buildings have a much lower maintanence cost and footprint, and high density planning allows for the fitting of extremely vibrant and productive city scapes without breaking 5 stories. See pre-war Dresden, Prague or Paris as an example. The Skyscraper doesn't actually accomplish much more than urban-sponge designs do. Some of them are very impressive though.