4 ms·
>> It's well-understood that Europe doesn't build significant buildings anymore, and there's confusion about why a US city would want to build something large a
by sib 3y ago
>> It's well-understood that Europe doesn't build significant buildings anymore, and there's confusion about why a US city would want to build something large and noteworthy.
That seems a little unfair. For example, Philharmonie de Paris, France; Elbphilharmonie, Hamburg; The Shard, London; MAAT Museum, Lisbon.
- justrealist 3y agoThe Shard is the 47th largest building in the world. It's only notable in the absence of any other significant buildings in a nominally world-class city.
- hagurganus 3y agoWhile I love supertall buildings, I don’t think height or size necessarily equates with notoriety, especially in a place like London.
- wharvle 3y agoParis seems to do pretty OK on all of density, vibrancy, and aesthetics, while segregating all their somewhat-tall buildings to La Defense. I'm skeptical that moving all those into the city proper, let alone aiming for top-X-buildings slots, would improve the city in any way.
- sib 3y agoIf the comment meant "tall" vs "significant," then granted. I think that, as a term of architectural art, "significant" means more than tall...