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

[Giancarlo]

I may have posted some of these before.. but here is some more of our enlargement:





More: http://www.photomadrid.com

[The Vagabond]

I like these buildings, Fez (I mean the KIO towers). Although they are not tall enough, they are truly unique. Apparently Madrid is the only place in the world where they have oblique skyscrapers. The district of Nuevos Ministerios is also cool.

[Giancarlo]

The KIO towers are original and cool looking to be placed where they are. If you like those type of buildings, check out the pictures of Dubai I posted earlier..

[DanS]

especially those 1950-1970s international-style blocky buildings which have absolutely no personallity

I can definitely agree with that.

I'm very much amazed at how easily North American cities ruin the historic essense of their cities instead of making the business district separate.

Most were ramshackle cities without a whit of character anyway, so they weren't worth saving.

Actually, I don't agree with your approach, especially West of the Apallachian mountains, where most cities were planned (at least here in the States). Things are where they are for reasons, such as proximity to transportation. Some of these reasons have changed over time, of course. Freeways have replaced the railroads, for instance.

But on the whole, if you built cities beside cities, you would have a disjointed city that lives for yesterday rather than today. The best cities have been able to reintegrate the elements that made them successful in the first place.

Anyway, there are some NA cities that have kept their historical downtowns while building highrises otherwise. New Orleans is a good example.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DanS

Most were ramshackle cities without a whit of character anyway, so they weren't worth saving.

It's funny but it's all a question of perspective. People who aren't used to seeing a NA city will be impressed even with a stereotypical city like, say, Baltimore. On the other hand, we get tourists here to Mexican cities which are awed by the historical districts whereas most Mexicans are like "bah, every city looks the same...".

I think every city should conserve its historical essence. Sure, they may be bland to the local's eyes, but people elsewhere will find it attractive if only because they are not accustomed to it.

[Eli]

Vagabond :

What is this building that is supposed to be the highest in the world?

[Master Zen]

I'm not Vagabond, but I believe that picture is of a University (which starts with an L, Lomotsov, something like that) in Moscow.

A similar building was built by the Soviets in Warsaw, the Palace of Culture and Science. Both were built in the first half of the 50s


On the other hand, this was for a long time the tallest building in the Third World and 4th tallest outside NY (the other three being in Cleveland, Warsaw and Moscow): The Latinamerican Tower in Mexico City built in 1954 I think. It was for almost 30 years the tallest in Latin America. 44 floors and a public observatory in the 42nd floor which has the best view of the city (except on smoggy days )




EDIT: If you see closely, you can make out another large building in the background - a bit to the left near the top of the Latin tower. That is the Torre Mayor, with over 50 stories 738 ft, the tallest building in Latin America at the moment.

[Giancarlo]

Zen: Do you know what is the tallest building in Latin America right now?

[Adalbertus]

I don't like skyscrapers. They're ugly and today's way to intimidate by architecture, just less crafty than before. In Cologne, some idiots build them and destroy the view to the Cathedral (which by the way its going to lose its status as cultural heritage of humanity). Let Frankfurt/M ruin the city with skyscrapers.

One funny remark: One of those 150m tall boxes was finished in 2001 and a few months before 11th September they put some pictures of planes on the front, just at the point El Quaeda should have hit before it was opened for use (and with an otherwise empty plane). They really could have done good - a few idiots and an ugly building less. Btw, the pictures still exist.

[Giancarlo]

I disagree Adalbertus. If the city makes an effort to keep its old buildings and have skyscrapers built next to them I don't see what is ruined about that. Like in Madrid for example.

[monolith94]

Slyscrapers are absolutely essential - using them as housing will be the only way to preserve open space and stob suburban sprawl from consuming nations whole.

[Spiffor]

Suburban sprawl can be stopped by housing people in flats rather than individual houses. The individual house+garden model is what makes urban sprawl so huge, especially in North America.

Residential buildings with a few levels are way enough to considerably shrink the urban sprawl without condensing a huge city on a minuscule surface.

[Master Zen]

Fez: I edited my post shortly after you posted, the Torre Mayor is currently the largest building in Latin America (see the edit after my pic). It was only finished last year, before that the tallest buildings were the "twin towers" of Caracas, about 20 ft smaller.


I guess the best deal is to blend skyscrapers (or any modern structures) with the historic cores of cities but without ruining either. And I agree that individual housing makes urban sprawl horrendous, just look at the cause and effect:

1) People want individual housing
2) People want individual transportation
3) Roads and highways are built towards the outskirts
4) Roads foment the spreading of the sprawl
5) Commuttes become longer, traffic worse, pollution worse.

I have read that some North American cities are re-adapting office buildings in downtown areas for residential use. I think that is a WONDERFUL idea, as businesses can move to satellite cities in the outskirts and more people can move into the downtowns which in these cities (save exceptions like NY) are very uninhabited. Plus, the "outer ring" of residential housing happens to be the inner city, which in NA is usually the most crime-ridden, lowest land valued area (the ghetto). I believe this revitalization has led to some degree to the rise in city populations (as opposed to metro populations) in major NA cities during the 1990s.

European cities are the opposite. Downtown and inner city housing is much more highly valued. Latin America is kind of different: Inner City is crap (mostly lower and working class multi-unit dwellings), "Outer City" is usually well off, and then you have the "Rings of Poverty' in the city's outskirts which are usually slums of the dirt poor or low low class, many times lacking infrastructure.

I think downtowns should be re-vitalized, I for one would forgo an individual house for a nice downtown apartment close to work.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Eli
Vagabond :

What is this building that is supposed to be the highest in the world?

It is 'Russia Tower' to be erected within the Moscow International Business Center (MIBC, aka 'Moscow-City'). MIBC is already under construction, but not yet the tower itself. It is supposed to be 620m high.

This is how it is supposed to look at night:

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I'm not Vagabond, but I believe that picture is of a University (which starts with an L, Lomotsov, something like that) in Moscow.

Congrats for not being vagabond You know, it's rather windy here under the bridge.

True, that was a picture of (Lomonosov) Moscow State University.

A similar building was built by the Soviets in Warsaw, the Palace of Culture and Science. Both were built in the first half of the 50s

There is also a similar building in Riga (Latvia), and there are 6 more buildings of this type in Moscow itself (e.g. Ukraine Hotel on the above picture), although the University building is the tallest of them.