Skyscrapers thread: why doesn't europe have many of those?

[monolith94]

"the expressway doesn't really help either"

Don't you know? That big expressway you see is going to be converted into a city park - the whole damn thing is going underground... you must've heard about it... the ''big dig"? Also, in person the boston skyscrapers are actually quite nice - and Boston has a TREMENDOUS amount of old, classical colonial buildings still left... I think that it has a pleasant in between...

[GePap]

Colon:

That pic of 6th Avenue between 42nd and 43th is very New York. those buildings might be low, but the price of buying them and the airspace above them that is regulated), then tryoing to build something large on it (and thus disrupting watermain, telephone lines and the subway line underneath (the D,B, F lines) would be monumental. All over New York you see empty lots, abandones buldings and all sorts of underused space right in the middle of Skyscrappers.

[Giancarlo]

Master Zen, Madrid had that exact same problem to. That is why a little outside of the city we have commerical complexes being built with some pretty nice looking buildings (if you browse through I posted on of a commerical complex). Well that is how it still is to a point but more like having really old buildings right next to modern ones nowadays... we got more skyscrapers than many other cities in Europe in fact.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Fez
Master Zen, Madrid had that exact same problem to. That is why a little outside of the city we have commerical complexes being built with some pretty nice looking buildings (if you browse through I posted on of a commerical complex). Well that is how it still is to a point but more like having really old buildings right next to modern ones nowadays... we got more skyscrapers than many other cities in Europe in fact.

Yes, I've seen pictures of Madrid and it seems to have the same problem. I think our type of cities should definitely go the Paris route, with most high-rises concentraded on the outskirts. Frankly the only European city which has managed a successful mix of skyscrapers and historic buildings is Frankfurt thanks to it's close packing and also because the buildings are very attactive post-modern styles.

I look at the Mexico City skyline and find it rather weak. It's a shame since there are a lot of tall buildings, taller than many (most) in Europe. Problem is they are all spread out. If they were concentrated all say, in a 3 km - by - 3 km area, the skyline would look very impressive.

[Master Zen]

Now that I remember, there's also a huge commercial complex to the west of Mexico City, it's called Santa Fe, it has the country's largest mall, some very futuristic-style buildings and construction doesn't seem to cease. It's the only part of Mexico that actually feels like the first world...

Funny but I haven't found pictures on the internet... I'll keep on looking

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by monolith94
"the expressway doesn't really help either"

Don't you know? That big expressway you see is going to be converted into a city park - the whole damn thing is going underground... you must've heard about it... the ''big dig"? Also, in person the boston skyscrapers are actually quite nice - and Boston has a TREMENDOUS amount of old, classical colonial buildings still left... I think that it has a pleasant in between...

Yeah, I know about the Big Dig... it's actually an incredibly impressive construction project. My hat's off to the engineers which are working on it

But still, it's not the same, I know Boston is riddled with historic buildings, but trust me, there's nothing like walking through a historic district with no skyscrapers distracting...

[monolith94]

I've done it - I've traveled to Venice, Helsinki, Stockholm, Mauro Lucano, Naples, Rome, old cities in Austria and Switzerland, etc...

Have you been to Boston?

Of course it's not the same, I'm just saying that they're equal in my eyes as far as beauty goes.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by monolith94
I've done it - I've traveled to Venice, Helsinki, Stockholm, Mauro Lucano, Naples, Rome, old cities in Austria and Switzerland, etc...

Have you been to Boston?

Of course it's not the same, I'm just saying that they're equal in my eyes as far as beauty goes.

Actually not Boston, but I have been to Philadelphia which also has a pretty important historic core, and of course NY (and yes, it is very funny to see Frauncis Tavern surrounded by 50-story banks)

I'll spare NY from this critique as many of its skyscrapers are of neo-gothic/neo-classic/art deco which tend to blend well with historic buildings.

All in all I like the Washington DC style as no skyscrapers are allowed in the center and even new buildings are given a neo-classic look (like the Ronald Reagan Convention Center). I like the homogenious aspect of it despite my constant arguments with an architect friend about this... Tall buildings are only found once you cross the potomac into Arlington and despite the fact they aren't too tall, the skyline looks pretty cool from the other side.

Perhaps my gripe with Boston is that I don't find the skysrapers particularly attactive. Most are pretty lame. Perhaps if they looked more like Frankfurt's...

(for the record I plan on visiting Boston at the end of the year... )

[Colon™]

Originally posted by GePap
Colon:

That pic of 6th Avenue between 42nd and 43th is very New York. those buildings might be low, but the price of buying them and the airspace above them that is regulated), then tryoing to build something large on it (and thus disrupting watermain, telephone lines and the subway line underneath (the D,B, F lines) would be monumental. All over New York you see empty lots, abandones buldings and all sorts of underused space right in the middle of Skyscrappers.

I noticed that as well actually, though blocks are rather filled up compared to what I've seen elsewhere. It's just that I remember that particular spot well because the contrast was nowhere greater than there. (IIRC I had just been going down from the Rockenfeller centre that moment)

I already knew about rent controls, but are you saying that the purchase of land is also regulated in NY? Looks pretty ****ty to me.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Master Zen



Yes, I've seen pictures of Madrid and it seems to have the same problem. I think our type of cities should definitely go the Paris route, with most high-rises concentraded on the outskirts. Frankly the only European city which has managed a successful mix of skyscrapers and historic buildings is Frankfurt thanks to it's close packing and also because the buildings are very attactive post-modern styles.

We are going down the way of Frankfurt.. and I believe I showed a picture of this... well.. the city government has tried to keep the city as attractive as possible for both tourists and commerical interests and has done very successful at it.

This is one of the photos I originally posted:

[Ecthy]

Frankfurt is a shithole.

[Giancarlo]

It depends on what you define as a ****hole.. it really does.. big skyscrapers.. well... that is fine with me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Colon
I noticed that as well actually, though blocks are rather filled up compared to what I've seen elsewhere. It's just that I remember that particular spot well because the contrast was nowhere greater than there. (IIRC I had just been going down from the Rockenfeller centre that moment)

I already knew about rent controls, but are you saying that the purchase of land is also regulated in NY? Looks pretty ****ty to me.

I don't think it is a matter of regulation's, per say. While those buildings may be small, as you said, the land values are huge. I don;t think any one company would go throught the trouble of trying to buy out each of the individual businesses in that block to build another skyscrapper, since it would be very expensive. Besides, all those business do well, given that all the office workers of that area need someplace to eat. I would imagine that the owners of those establishments do make money, and might not be too eager to sell, if they could find a buyer.New York architecture is a very motley thing, since overall, there really are very few laws about trying to make neighborhoods all fit one aesthetic theme, or fit together.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't think it is a matter of regulation's, per say. While those buildings may be small, as you said, the land values are huge. I don;t think any one company would go throught the trouble of trying to buy out each of the individual businesses in that block to build another skyscrapper, since it would be very expensive. Besides, all those business do well, given that all the office workers of that area need someplace to eat. I would imagine that the owners of those establishments do make money, and might not be too eager to sell, if they could find a buyer.New York architecture is a very motley thing, since overall, there really are very few laws about trying to make neighborhoods all fit one aesthetic theme, or fit together.

If land value is sky-high at that spot, the landlord is missing out a lot of rent he'd receive if he'd own a high-rise. (since land value is only high at a spot when lots of business want to be active there) If he doesn't have the funds to build an office block, it probably still would make a lot more sense to sell it to a developer, as he'd pay more than the landlord could earn in entire life with rents. (and it would still be beneficial for the developer as well)
I've seen quite a bit of construction going on in the neighbourhood, as well as plenty of recent high-rise, so surely developers won't have been shy of going after that spot as well.

That's why I suspect there are other factors playing a role, aside of pure economic ones. (maybe regulations, maybe practical problems, like the subways beneath it, maybe a fall out... )

[GePap]

Well, my guess is that there are multiple landlords, for each of those buildings. And while that spot is in midtown that does not mean a high rise there would be worthwhile to build to a developer. There are more choice spots in the city: that area is saturated with office space as is: I can't see a market for either housing or offices there, nor even some giant retailer. 6th avenue is busy, but at the same time you hva etime Squares to soak up the tourist traffic.

I have seen plenty of what seems like choice spots lie empty. In this city, moeny talks..if a developer really wanted that area for a high rise, it would be gone. Very few buildings in NYC are sacred.