4 ms·

I don't get why people don't like skyscrapers. They're cool. I am from NYC, so maybe I'm used to it. My understanding is the major reason they aren't build as m

I don't get why people don't like skyscrapers. They're cool. I am from NYC, so maybe I'm used to it. My understanding is the major reason they aren't build as much outside of Manhattan is because the bedrock in Manhattan supports heavy structures.

kibwen 3y ago
As cool as skyscrapers are as achievements of engineering, they're only a good solution when land is so expensive that the cost of the land dominates the cost of the building. Skyscrapers just aren't materially cost-efficient and don't scale well; as they get taller, a larger and larger percentage of the floorspace must be sacrified in order to accommodate structural elements and elevators. And then you have other problems, like how they have to pump their own water rather than relying on ordinary water towers, or how wind and earthquake risk has to be accounted for as the height increases.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  That is definitely true. On the other hand, we also aren't fully accounting for the cost of sprawl. All infrastructure gets much more expensive with sprawl and that cost is usually equalized over an entire metro area with the urban core incurring very little infrastructure cost per person while the suburbs frequently come out negative on contributing tax$ - infrastructure cost. Carbon emissions which are higher with low-density are another cost that's not priced in. It makes it really hard to find the equilibrium point if we aren't pricing everything in.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    Yes, I'm not advocating for unchecked sprawl, all I'm saying is that there's a middle ground between suburban hell and Blade Runner dystopia, which brings me back around to my recommendation for six-ish-story buildings. European cities are the natural experiment that show how well even relatively "short" buildings can leverage the benefits of density.
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      I think we are pretty much in agreement.
    - tehjoker 3y ago
      For what it's worth, I thought blade runner was cool in that respect. Parts of Blade Runner were dystopian, but not the idea of having a big city (the advertising was dystopian iirc). My feeling is that if we have a strong urban core, we can rescue the countryside and nature from over-development. It's also nice to walk around cities. I have to drive everywhere outside of urban areas which sucks.
      - ajmurmann 3y ago
        It also was surprising to me to learn that the Blade Runner city is considered dystopian. I had some of my greatest times in Asian mega cities like Shanghai and Tokyo. I think the key is to get away from subjective preferences in either direction, price in externalities, remove red tape, but also direct or indirect subsidies in either direction which right now benefits the suburbs by paying for their huge infrastructure needs. Maybe the result will still be that everyone wants to live in a SFH, but I think reality is gonna be a more diverse mix of options and in general more density because it's not economical. We also have a lot of people who right now cannot afford any home and I'm sure they'd prefer a shoebox between hundreds of other shoeboxes over a whole in the ground under a freeway bridge
telotortium 3y ago
That might have been true in the early 1900s when skyscrapers were new, but they can build skyscrapers on any kind of soil these days.
- ghaff 3y ago
  A good chunk of the tallest buildings in Boston are built on late 19th century landfill (Back Bay). Admittedly not an earthquake-prone area but still.

kibwen 3y ago

As cool as skyscrapers are as achievements of engineering, they're only a good solution when land is so expensive that the cost of the land dominates the cost of the building. Skyscrapers just aren't materially cost-efficient and don't scale well; as they get taller, a larger and larger percentage of the floorspace must be sacrified in order to accommodate structural elements and elevators. And then you have other problems, like how they have to pump their own water rather than relying on ordinary water towers, or how wind and earthquake risk has to be accounted for as the height increases.

ajmurmann 3y ago
That is definitely true. On the other hand, we also aren't fully accounting for the cost of sprawl. All infrastructure gets much more expensive with sprawl and that cost is usually equalized over an entire metro area with the urban core incurring very little infrastructure cost per person while the suburbs frequently come out negative on contributing tax$ - infrastructure cost. Carbon emissions which are higher with low-density are another cost that's not priced in. It makes it really hard to find the equilibrium point if we aren't pricing everything in.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Yes, I'm not advocating for unchecked sprawl, all I'm saying is that there's a middle ground between suburban hell and Blade Runner dystopia, which brings me back around to my recommendation for six-ish-story buildings. European cities are the natural experiment that show how well even relatively "short" buildings can leverage the benefits of density.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    I think we are pretty much in agreement.
  - tehjoker 3y ago
    For what it's worth, I thought blade runner was cool in that respect. Parts of Blade Runner were dystopian, but not the idea of having a big city (the advertising was dystopian iirc). My feeling is that if we have a strong urban core, we can rescue the countryside and nature from over-development. It's also nice to walk around cities. I have to drive everywhere outside of urban areas which sucks.
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      It also was surprising to me to learn that the Blade Runner city is considered dystopian. I had some of my greatest times in Asian mega cities like Shanghai and Tokyo. I think the key is to get away from subjective preferences in either direction, price in externalities, remove red tape, but also direct or indirect subsidies in either direction which right now benefits the suburbs by paying for their huge infrastructure needs. Maybe the result will still be that everyone wants to live in a SFH, but I think reality is gonna be a more diverse mix of options and in general more density because it's not economical. We also have a lot of people who right now cannot afford any home and I'm sure they'd prefer a shoebox between hundreds of other shoeboxes over a whole in the ground under a freeway bridge

telotortium 3y ago

That might have been true in the early 1900s when skyscrapers were new, but they can build skyscrapers on any kind of soil these days.

ghaff 3y ago
A good chunk of the tallest buildings in Boston are built on late 19th century landfill (Back Bay). Admittedly not an earthquake-prone area but still.