Follow this blog:
RSS

Why skyscrapers are overrated

By | November 9, 2011, 9:25 AM PST

PHILADELPHIA — Skyscrapers may be in vogue among architects and financiers as the prominent path to urban innovation, but city officials should look to less ornamental means to make an impact, Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron said yesterday.

Speaking at the TEDxPhilly conference, Saffron admitted that people are in love with the skyscraper, and citizens and officials alike measure their hometown’s worth by how many they have and how tall they reach.

“We tend to, as a nation, associate cities with the dystopian failures of public housing. We talk about concrete jungles and high-rise barracks. But then that began to change,” she said. “Suddenly, cities became cool again.”

The problem? “When Americans visualize a city, they always imagine skyscrapers,” she said, adding that affluent citizens see prestige and progressive city planners see density in height.

“Superheroes used to leap from tall buildings,” she said. “Now, skyscrapers are the hero to save [cities].”

Though the skyscraper was invented in the United States with seven- and ten-story structures in New York and Chicago, the latest trend is no more apparent than in emerging economies such as China, India and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom have appropriated the form to signal their intentions to the world, she said.

“For these up and coming societies, skyscrapers are a way of stating their ambition: ‘Hey, we’re modern too,’” Saffron said. “They also have a billion people to house, and [skyscrapers] are a good way to do that.”

But too often, skyscrapers are a one-size-fits-all approach. Saffron argued that while skyscrapers can be a useful tool for growing urban areas, they are just one of many ideas that can address a city’s most pressing problems.

“They’re one way, but often not the best way,” she said.

Take Philadelphia, for example. Earlier this year, the 1,510-ft.-tall American Commerce Center — expected to be the city’s tallest building by a long shot — was quietly and indefinitely shelved after developers failed to find enough tenants.

“Philadelphia shouldn’t waste any time feeling bad about that,” she said.

Why, you ask?

“Different cities need different densities,” she said. “Or actually, they need a range of densities.”

There must be something in-between skyscrapers and farmland, she said. Why not mid-rise buildings?

“You can fit a lot of people in a block of rowhomes,” she said, using the local term for a townhouse.

In emerging economies in Asia, the upwardly mobile seek to jump into a great apartment in the sky. But in developed America, where poverty may not be as widespread, it may not be the best option, Saffron said.

“Asians are like adolescents; they grow a foot a month,” she said. “Americans are like adults: they’ve stopped growing.”

So while a city like Philadelphia still dreams about billion-dollar skyscrapers, more pressing planning problems remain unsolved, such as access to the city’s extensive waterfront, long-blocked by Interstate 95.

Skyscrapers don’t create neighborhoods, Saffron argued, but “isolated islands of habitation.”

“If you want a neighborhood, you need to build laterally,” she said.

As cities tighten budgets and shut down public schools, perhaps smaller, cheaper but more impactful improvements should be pursued: creating bicycle lanes, improving an existing public transit system, building parks in neighborhoods where green space is lacking.

“Instead of focusing on the grand vision, we need to focus on the grand adjustment,” Saffron said. “We need to stop measuring our worth by skyscrapers and mega-projects.”

A grand adjustment is harder for a politician to capture in a photo-op, but has a much longer lasting effect on the livability of a neighborhood than a skyscraper, Saffron said.

“The best way to increase density in Philadelphia?” she asked. “Build the amenities that will make people want to live here.”

Photo: Kevin Monko

More from TEDxPhilly 2011:

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Isolated Islands Of Habitation
This is a very good and very important analysis of the design and layout of cities.

Especially the observation that "Skyscrapers dont create neighborhoods, but isolated islands of habitation ."
Posted by Hip777
Updated - 11th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Luxuries we no longer have.
Poling and uninformed and generally scientifically illiterate society as to what their needs are, is - can only logically produce uninformed and unscientific responses - like sky-scrapers. The general public has no ability at understanding how far we have extended the global population beyond our supply of non-renewable resources, and as such they have no notion of the priority needed to resolve this problem - if it can be resolved.

In a little over hundred years we have run through more than half of our economically accessible petroleum and geologic phosphates - both reguired for 95% of global food production. The article attests to where an uninformed and ignorant global population's priorities lie.

We're like the family who decided to go camping for a weekend in the wilderness. They packed food for the weekend. They went into the wilderness assuming they had all they needed. When they became lost, then they realized they didn't really have the food for the future they failed to anticipate. Here we are with 7 billion people of which 5 billion are dependent on food that can only be produced in the quantities needed with geologic phosphates - which could be gone in less 50 years. Sky-scrappers are just one more symptom of a society who doesn't comprehend the limitations of their finite non-renewable resources - and especially the lead time of technological problem solving necessary to replace them - before they run out. The famous ancient Chinese curse is well upon us - "May you live in interesting times."
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
11th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Aparently
I received a different curse... you know- the one that mentions being forced to read a grammatically painful rant.
Posted by ddferrari
Updated - 11th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Must be one of those 'occupiers' clogging up Wall St...
Too busy occupying their time creating a public nuisance to worry aboutl the unimportant things, such as going to class!
Posted by kaninelupus
11th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
A place for skyscrapers
In many respects, our major cities do not have many options in the the type of buildings they erect, particularly for residential purposes. It is a sad fact that spaciousness in a modern city is a luxury and as more and more people migrate to cities, the only options are to build up or build out. That said, the next question is; how do we do it. Skyscrapers are of great assistance in compaction process, but for them to be acceptable, strong standards covering their design and location must be stringently enforced. The article also mentions row-houses (called terraces in Europe) approvingly and certainly, these are a very useful alternative to single-lot houses, particularly on the fringes of a city, where they can help to restrict the outwards expansion. Both of these types of building help to restrict the amount of road/rail in frastructure required.
A major problem with all domestic dwellings is that many different types are required, whether for families, singles, those in care and so forth. Buildings are established to cope with demand, which can vary over time, so that prices can rise or fall, in the latter case to the point where the cost of maintenance becomes a real problem,sometimes resulting in the creation of slums.
I have proposed in a post "The Urban Landscape For A New Era" in my blog reengineeringaustralia.wordpress.com that dwellings should be steel-framed (following ideas put forward in the German Huf Haus) so that interior walls can be moved around. A house designed for a large family can later be subdivided into two or more units by empty-nesters and even changed back again when the next generation starts breeding. This methodology also lends itself to supporting roof-top gardens or the construction of an additonal floor or two when required.
In summary, it is not the type of building that is good or bad, but how we construct, maintain and service them. With populations rising round the world, there has never been a more fertile ground for innovation in this area.
Posted by jimw@...
12th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!