The Case for Skyscrapers

Let me understand this, we can't have high density, low rise development w/ parks and open space? Is that really so crazy? I'm not sure it's the best option, but it certainly doesn't seem absurd. I've got to somewhat agree with her complaints about underground parking garages, too, since they contain high levels of CO and appear to be causing huge heath issues with the attendants. Underground parking garages are great because they hide one of the most unsightly aspects of a city, but if they can't be safe, we really shouldn't be building them...

Also, a couple of you guys are showing your sexist sides in this thread, and it's not pretty...
 
unterbau said:
Let me understand this, we can't have high density, low rise development w/ parks and open space?
Click to expand...

I don't know? Maybe? Do you have any examples?

None of the best urban areas I've experienced seem have the type of open space today's NIMBYs demand. (set-backs, large grassy parks, etc...)
 
Last edited:
Don't forget lots of parking. Of course then they'll complain about the traffic, but in general NIMBYs aren't good at putting two and two together.
 
I am a fan of building height, but think the urban model Boston should emulate is not NYC's but London's. London is incredibly densely populated, but it has a decent public transportation system and is, generally, lower rise (compared to NYC). Boston should absolutely have high rises (50+ stories) in the financial district and along the high spine over the Pike (and maybe even just south of the theatre district), and it should zone for 20+ story developments above T stations -- particularly in places like JFK/UMass or Ruggles, but the rest of the city should be between 4 and 10 story townhouses. (In other words, get rid of those ridiculous space-wasting triple deckers.)

I am somewhat apathetic about open space in a city like Boston. Our climate is such that open space becomes a hostile, windblown tundra for five months each year. I've never seen Vivien Li sitting on a park bench at the tip of Long Wharf on a blustery February afternoon. Let's not kid ourselves: we do not have the same opportunities as cities like Sydney or San Diego. The public would get so much more from open space like the Emerald Necklace, with jogging and bike paths immediately adjacent to densely populated neighborhoods than it would from wide open parks and plazas, particularly a block or two from the wide open harbor.

In my opinion, the city would be so much better served if it developed a system of linked small parks and then filled in the rest of the space with dense housing and commercial development.
 
statler said:
I don't know? Maybe? Do you have any examples?

None of the best urban areas I've experienced seem have the type of open space today's NIMBYs demand. (set-backs, large grassy parks, etc...)
Click to expand...
I didn't have anything specific in mind, I just didn't see why it wouldn't be possible. Aquaman definitely has a point about London, though. I was there last year and I noticed that the majority of the city was low/mid-rise buildings with an amazing level of density. Because the streets are narrow and the transportation system is excellent, you see tons of pedestrian traffic throughout the city. It's also a good comparison to boston due to the age of the city and somewhat similar climate.
 
It's unfortunately realistic to hope that the spaces between triple deckers will ever be "filled in". Despite the building stock of its central core, the majority of space within the 128 loop will never be solid with rowhouses and apartment buildings like the vast majority of metropolitan London is. Boston has instead to hope to focus densification at small nodes - and to build up to make up for lost space.
 
aquaman said:
I am a fan of building height, but think the urban model Boston should emulate is not NYC's but London's. London is incredibly densely populated, but it has a decent public transportation system and is, generally, lower rise (compared to NYC). Boston should absolutely have high rises (50+ stories) in the financial district and along the high spine over the Pike (and maybe even just south of the theatre district), and it should zone for 20+ story developments above T stations -- particularly in places like JFK/UMass or Ruggles, but the rest of the city should be between 4 and 10 story townhouses. (In other words, get rid of those ridiculous space-wasting triple deckers.)

I am somewhat apathetic about open space in a city like Boston. Our climate is such that open space becomes a hostile, windblown tundra for five months each year. I've never seen Vivien Li sitting on a park bench at the tip of Long Wharf on a blustery February afternoon. Let's not kid ourselves: we do not have the same opportunities as cities like Sydney or San Diego. The public would get so much more from open space like the Emerald Necklace, with jogging and bike paths immediately adjacent to densely populated neighborhoods than it would from wide open parks and plazas, particularly a block or two from the wide open harbor.

In my opinion, the city would be so much better served if it developed a system of linked small parks and then filled in the rest of the space with dense housing and commercial development.
Click to expand...

Except that London itself is reaching for the skies now. They have I think about 8 or more towers approved with the minimum height of 600 ft and the highest being over 1000 ft.
 
DarkFenX said:
Except that London itself is reaching for the skies now. They have I think about 8 or more towers approved with the minimum height of 600 ft and the highest being over 1000 ft.
Click to expand...

...and usually located in areas that were previously cleared courtesy of the Luftwaffe's urban renewal program.
 
But the fact is that the most skyscrapers being proposed are proposed in a location where other skyscrapers surrounds it. It's not like that the towers are being proposal next to a section of lowrise buildings.
 
Boston has come a long way over the last 15 years. Lot's of in-fills, mid and high rises. It's only a matter of time before they have to go up. You are starting to see a shift as to where mid and high rises are going. As much as people are against it, the Mass Pike Spine and along Stuart, Kneeland over to Essex is prime real estate. That is why you're seeing projects like CC, The Clarendon, W Hotel, Kensington, Kingston, Hudson....it's easy to get to, close to the airport, mass transit lines. Along the Pike a couple of high rise office mixed in with some mid rise residential towers would look great. Though, that is me and I am all for density. Get people to move into Boston. This is what any major city should want. More workers, more people to spend money, less people commuting, tying up the roadways. Boston has enough open space as well. I like the idea of trying to link some of these small parks together, but creating more, I don't think more means better. Boston has created acres of new open space over the last 15 years, I don't think creating more would do anything, other than under utilize space.
 
I think when it is all said and done there are a lot of good reasons why major cities should have skyscrappers in their downtown areas. And all the reasons against them are weak arguements coming from people that really arn't urban minded. I think in 50 years from now every big city, London and Paris included, will have a lot of towers rising upward.
 
GW2500 said:
all the reasons against them are weak arguements coming from people that really arn't urban minded. I think in 50 years from now every big city, London and Paris included, will have a lot of towers rising upward.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to wager that Paris will not have skyscrapers "rising upward" (within the city limits) as a result of the Tour Montparnasse disaster (you think OUR nimbys complain a lot). London will have pockets (like the Canary Wharf area) that have towers, but the majority of those cities will keep their low rise, narrow streets, and urban street walls as their primary urban landscape.

Also, there are plenty of good arguments against skyscrapers in certain locations. For example, the Transnational Place proposal would have no place on Newbury Street. Dense, pedestrian friendly street walls bring cities to life, not towering monstrosities. European cities (such as London and Paris, which is probably the model citizen as far as being pedestrian friendly goes) tend to have the best environments for pedestrians with sidewalk cafes, plazas and squares, and dense historic buildings, that's what makes them inviting.

If Boston ignored these people completely, it would be Houston, or Atlanta (or any other sun-belt city) with a fantastic looking skyline from a distance, but a trainwreck for pedestrians.

While the complaints of killer shadows and the push for every building to be set-back 15 feet are a bit over the top in many cases, it would be crazy to put in skyscrapers all over the city. What would happen to the neighborhoods that make Boston unique?

There are places for high rise development, and there are places for low-rise development... The problems occur when one group argues against one of those types going in its rightful place (for example, people complaining about the height of a new tower in the Financial district).

The key is to improve mass transit, build towers where towers should go, and keep the dense low-rise areas pedestrian friendly and inviting by encouraging use of mass transit and making sure new development fits the area.
 
Paris the model citizen for pedestrian friendliness! Have you ever attempted to cross the Place de la Concorde?

paris_place_de_la_concorde_auto_traffic_116014.jpg


Paris%20traffic.jpg


Aiie! I'd rather walk on a crumbling sidewalk next to a strip mall in Houston than be back in the middle of that.

Let's please stop treating Paris like the platonic ideal of the city?

199920.jpg

Paris or Seoul?

banlieue.jpg

Paris or Warsaw?

fr-paris-periph.jpg

Paris or LA? Hey look, they use breakdown lanes too...

banlieue0_1.jpg

Paris or Houston?

I know many here refer to Paris as shorthand for the lanes and boulevards lying inside the Peripherique. It's instructive to see that neither is the core so perfect nor were there no consequences when the 8 million other people Paris birthed/attracted had to move outside of it.
 
Last edited:
unterbau said:
I've got to somewhat agree with her complaints about underground parking garages, too, since they contain high levels of CO and appear to be causing huge heath issues with the attendants. Underground parking garages are great because they hide one of the most unsightly aspects of a city, but if they can't be safe, we really shouldn't be building them...
Click to expand...
The newer building codes require a much greater exchange rate of air for enclosed garages than was previously required. Garages are safe, but the existing garages are more than likely nowhere near compliance with current codes and therefore create a pollution problem inside them. If the existing building owners would address the problem then it should be a non-issue.
 
So Houston is more pedestrian friendly than Paris?

Obviously there are plenty of areas around Paris that have heavy congestion and high volumes of traffic (it doesn't help that Europeans drive 100mph on a street in which their mirrors clear by about 3mm on either side). It is one of the world's major cities after all. It's not perfect either, Champs Elysees is one of the busiest avenues I've ever walked on; especially around Place de la Concorde and the Arc de Triomphe (picture trying to cross the old Sagamore rotary except there are 6 rings of traffic and everyone's going much faster).

That being said, the low-rise buildings and density of Paris make the majority of the city very enjoyable to walk around. It's not perfect, no city is, but Paris is ideal in most ways when considering how to make a major city pedestrian friendly.

For the record, I was referring to Paris within the city limits and more specifically Boulevard Peripherique as that is what most people consider to be the center of Paris. Most of the high-rise development in the Paris area takes place outside the city limits (La Defense, notably, in terms of commercial development).
 
Last edited:
^czsz, you chose your pictures very, very carefully...
 
You two: please go back and read the last paragraph I wrote.
 
Lrfox, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I mean that wear appropriate, why should build big. And I agree Newbury St. should stay as it is, trendy and stuck up, but I'm just trying to say that in the downtown area, let there be a couple of tall towers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top