32 ms·

Why do we need skyscrapers? Why don't we spread horizontally? When we are spreading horizontally can we ensure that most of the daily commute is within a short

Why do we need skyscrapers? Why don't we spread horizontally? When we are spreading horizontally can we ensure that most of the daily commute is within a short radius. If the commute has to be outside of that short radius can we use info highways before actual ones a.k.a work remotely. Europe does not have skyscrapers so it is possible.

rektide 3y ago
Manhattan is a huge peninsula. The boroughs around it do spread out. But having people together is the essential distinction of a city.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  > Manhattan is a huge peninsula No, it’s an island. You can’t build horizontally on an island very much.
  - mc32 3y ago
    And a rather small one, though not tiny. That said I was under the impression much of Manhattan island was on top of bedrock. Of course a few hundred billion tons does add weight… but unlike one of our House of Reps members might believe, this will not “tip Manhattan over!
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
crooked-v 3y ago
> Europe does not have skyscrapers There are two dozen in Paris alone, going by the modern definition of a skyscraper being a narrow building at least 150m tall.
- bombcar 3y ago
  People don't realize that Europe has skyscrapers because Europe doesn't knock down the old town tourist area to build them. Every European city of size has a Central Business District which Americans would call "downtown".
Retric 3y ago
Skyscrapers aren’t that much taller than normal city buildings. Don’t assume a city filled with 30-40 story buildings is particularly different from one that has a handful of actual skyscrapers. Even 20 stories is a freaking huge building and London has 12 50+ story buildings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_... Going horizontally requires ever faster speeds to have similar reach. Walking 3.5 MPH past 100 story buildings is the same as 175 MPH going past densely packed 2 story buildings. That’s why cities go vertical.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  20 stories is a skyscraper.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    my dad was in commercial construction, and 20 story buildings was the bread-n-butter for the companies he worked at. these were quite explicitly described as NOT skyscrapers.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    From Wikipedia: Modern sources currently define skyscrapers as being at least 100 meters (330 ft)[1] or 150 meters (490 ft)[2] in height, though there is no universally accepted definition, other than being very tall high-rise buildings. Historically, the term first referred to buildings with between 10 and 20 stories when these types of buildings began to be constructed in the 1880s.[3] Skyscrapers may host offices, hotels, residential spaces, and retail spaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper
lwansbrough 3y ago
I'd prefer not to destroy the environment unnecessarily, personally.
PlunderBunny 3y ago
While I agree that a lot of office space is under-utilised and unnecessary, vertical housing is an enormous boon for urban planning - it's vastly more efficient than urban sprawl (e.g. it's cheaper for local government to provide services), and arguably better for the environment (e.g. making good public transport practical). For many people, it's a better living experience too - I used to live in a bungalow in the suburbs, but once I'd experienced living in a good apartment in the middle of my home city, I decided I'd never go back. Not everyone feels that way, I understand, but if we're want to preserve our valuable land for farming and nature, we need to densify.
tobinfekkes 3y ago
> Europe does not have skyscrapers That's an odd thing to say when we all have the same access to the internet, image search, Google Maps, or Europe itself.
- chihuahua 3y ago
  We should never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Especially if it provides an opportunity to use the phrase "information superhighway."
neilparikh 3y ago
> Europe does not have skyscrapers so it is possible. I'll steelman your argument to be "Europe has less skyscrapers than NYC" (which I think is true, IIRC). If you need to get away with less super tall buildings, you need to spread out the density elsewhere; that is, have medium density everywhere. In US and Canada, we've decided that the suburbs are untouchable, so the only solution is to have super tall buildings in a few areas. That's how you get 30 story apartments literally next to 2 story houses [0]. This is an intentional choice. I think it's the wrong one, but overcoming it is going to take a lot of convincing. 0 - https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stock-photo-aerial-view-of-north-york-from-highway-401-and-yonge-street-89332754.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stock-photo-aerial-view-of...
- cperciva 3y ago
  In US and Canada, we've decided that the suburbs are untouchable Not in Metro Vancouver! Of buildings >= 500' in height, 7 are in Burnaby, 4 are in Vancouver, and 1 each are in Coquitlam and Surrey; under construction are another 4 in Burnaby, 3 in Vancouver, and 1 in New Westminster. There's a dense urban core surrounded by SFHs and then as soon as you cross the border into the suburbs you suddenly get density again.
ajmurmann 3y ago
People downvoting you, but I think you are unknowingly touching on something interesting. We can get really high density without skyscrapers by building consistently somewhat high. The cores of Paris, Barcelona and Begin all have fairly consistently 4-5 story buildings without much space between them. It's also largely mixed use. I believe that the density of actually higher than many parts of Manhattan like the village or even parts of the upper east side. I think that's often outcome of somewhat central planning though and building up massively where demand is is an easier way to dynamically adjust to emerging needs. My favorite though is as high and dense as possible and increase the likelihood that many people might even live and work within the same building. Connecting buildings on floors other than the ground floor is also something I'd love to see more of.

rektide 3y ago

Manhattan is a huge peninsula. The boroughs around it do spread out. But having people together is the essential distinction of a city.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
> Manhattan is a huge peninsula No, it’s an island. You can’t build horizontally on an island very much.
- mc32 3y ago
  And a rather small one, though not tiny. That said I was under the impression much of Manhattan island was on top of bedrock. Of course a few hundred billion tons does add weight… but unlike one of our House of Reps members might believe, this will not “tip Manhattan over!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

crooked-v 3y ago

> Europe does not have skyscrapers There are two dozen in Paris alone, going by the modern definition of a skyscraper being a narrow building at least 150m tall.

bombcar 3y ago
People don't realize that Europe has skyscrapers because Europe doesn't knock down the old town tourist area to build them. Every European city of size has a Central Business District which Americans would call "downtown".

Retric 3y ago

Skyscrapers aren’t that much taller than normal city buildings. Don’t assume a city filled with 30-40 story buildings is particularly different from one that has a handful of actual skyscrapers. Even 20 stories is a freaking huge building and London has 12 50+ story buildings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_... Going horizontally requires ever faster speeds to have similar reach. Walking 3.5 MPH past 100 story buildings is the same as 175 MPH going past densely packed 2 story buildings. That’s why cities go vertical.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
20 stories is a skyscraper.
- dylan604 3y ago
  my dad was in commercial construction, and 20 story buildings was the bread-n-butter for the companies he worked at. these were quite explicitly described as NOT skyscrapers.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  From Wikipedia: Modern sources currently define skyscrapers as being at least 100 meters (330 ft)[1] or 150 meters (490 ft)[2] in height, though there is no universally accepted definition, other than being very tall high-rise buildings. Historically, the term first referred to buildings with between 10 and 20 stories when these types of buildings began to be constructed in the 1880s.[3] Skyscrapers may host offices, hotels, residential spaces, and retail spaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

lwansbrough 3y ago

I'd prefer not to destroy the environment unnecessarily, personally.

PlunderBunny 3y ago

While I agree that a lot of office space is under-utilised and unnecessary, vertical housing is an enormous boon for urban planning - it's vastly more efficient than urban sprawl (e.g. it's cheaper for local government to provide services), and arguably better for the environment (e.g. making good public transport practical). For many people, it's a better living experience too - I used to live in a bungalow in the suburbs, but once I'd experienced living in a good apartment in the middle of my home city, I decided I'd never go back. Not everyone feels that way, I understand, but if we're want to preserve our valuable land for farming and nature, we need to densify.

tobinfekkes 3y ago

> Europe does not have skyscrapers That's an odd thing to say when we all have the same access to the internet, image search, Google Maps, or Europe itself.

chihuahua 3y ago
We should never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Especially if it provides an opportunity to use the phrase "information superhighway."

neilparikh 3y ago

> Europe does not have skyscrapers so it is possible. I'll steelman your argument to be "Europe has less skyscrapers than NYC" (which I think is true, IIRC). If you need to get away with less super tall buildings, you need to spread out the density elsewhere; that is, have medium density everywhere. In US and Canada, we've decided that the suburbs are untouchable, so the only solution is to have super tall buildings in a few areas. That's how you get 30 story apartments literally next to 2 story houses [0]. This is an intentional choice. I think it's the wrong one, but overcoming it is going to take a lot of convincing. 0 - https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stock-photo-aerial-view-of-north-york-from-highway-401-and-yonge-street-89332754.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stock-photo-aerial-view-of...

cperciva 3y ago
In US and Canada, we've decided that the suburbs are untouchable Not in Metro Vancouver! Of buildings >= 500' in height, 7 are in Burnaby, 4 are in Vancouver, and 1 each are in Coquitlam and Surrey; under construction are another 4 in Burnaby, 3 in Vancouver, and 1 in New Westminster. There's a dense urban core surrounded by SFHs and then as soon as you cross the border into the suburbs you suddenly get density again.

ajmurmann 3y ago

People downvoting you, but I think you are unknowingly touching on something interesting. We can get really high density without skyscrapers by building consistently somewhat high. The cores of Paris, Barcelona and Begin all have fairly consistently 4-5 story buildings without much space between them. It's also largely mixed use. I believe that the density of actually higher than many parts of Manhattan like the village or even parts of the upper east side. I think that's often outcome of somewhat central planning though and building up massively where demand is is an easier way to dynamically adjust to emerging needs. My favorite though is as high and dense as possible and increase the likelihood that many people might even live and work within the same building. Connecting buildings on floors other than the ground floor is also something I'd love to see more of.