Dakota79 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 This is an interesting (and somewhat depressing to me) article on skyscrapers in the current environment. I do think we will have another supertall at some point, but it'll take someone with a lot of ego and bucks. Where is a billionaire when we need one? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wilshire-grand-is-las-newest-skyscraper/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I can't believe they didn't mention 9/11, which I think is the singularly biggest reason why supertalls have tended to fall out of favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparrow Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 This is an interesting (and somewhat depressing to me) article on skyscrapers in the current environment. I do think we will have another supertall at some point, but it'll take someone with a lot of ego and bucks. Where is a billionaire when we need one?http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wilshire-grand-is-las-newest-skyscraper/ Tilman Fertitta. How long before he sees the vast sums of money he could make with overpriced rooftop restaurants, a swanky skyline hotel, and a tourist magnet observation deck? (Perhaps we'll need gambling to be legalized first.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I can't believe they didn't mention 9/11, which I think is the singularly biggest reason why supertalls have tended to fall out of favor.And yet more have been built post-9/11 than pre-9/11 (excluding the 1970s: Sears, Hancock, WTC 1 & 2, 1980s: Texas Commerce Tower, 1990s: US Bank Tower)... I'm missing the name of the one in Atlanta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 And yet more have been built post-9/11 than pre-9/11 (excluding the 1970s: Sears, Hancock, WTC 1 & 2, 1980s: Texas Commerce Tower, 1990s: US Bank Tower)... I'm missing the name of the one in Atlanta? 5 Built Since 9/118 Currently under construction13 Built before 9/11 (including the WTC). http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=67507286 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 5 Built Since 9/118 Currently under construction13 Built before 9/11 (including the WTC). http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=67507286 WTC is 2 buildings, but one development. Also, I'd like to exclude the Empire State and Chrysler from the list. We're talking "modern" and those are not modern buildings ...anymore! Also, There's a few Chicago buildings that are not considered "supertalls" except if you include the antenna, so on 1 list they make the cut, on another they do not. But I'll make the point that there are very few 270 meter + buildings designed any more in this country because it simply doesn't make sense to spend so much money building tall when there is ample room, and developers can still make money building a nice fat 40 floor tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 WTC is 2 buildings, but one development. Also, I'd like to exclude the Empire State and Chrysler from the list. We're talking "modern" and those are not modern buildings ...anymore! Also, There's a few Chicago buildings that are not considered "supertalls" except if you include the antenna, so on 1 list they make the cut, on another they do not. But I'll make the point that there are very few 270 meter + buildings designed any more in this country because it simply doesn't make sense to spend so much money building tall when there is ample room, and developers can still make money building a nice fat 40 floor tower. I'll cut you some slack on the second tower that I didn't include, but 300m is considered a supertall and if the building has a spire it counts as the height (ornamental, non mechanical). And the Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are modern, if your scale includes ancient pyramids While we are no where near the growth in scale compared to the Middle East and Asia, there have been a few proposals over the years since 9/11. Nashville, Miami, Seattle, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and even Jersey City come to mind. Of course, how many of those have or will come to fruition. I get your point. The American corporation is looking to squeeze every penny for profit, and building a super tall doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 WTC is 2 buildings, but one development. Also, I'd like to exclude the Empire State and Chrysler from the list. We're talking "modern" and those are not modern buildings ...anymore! Also, There's a few Chicago buildings that are not considered "supertalls" except if you include the antenna, so on 1 list they make the cut, on another they do not. But I'll make the point that there are very few 270 meter + buildings designed any more in this country because it simply doesn't make sense to spend so much money building tall when there is ample room, and developers can still make money building a nice fat 40 floor tower. tisk tisk If this is the direction we are going in shouldn't we be on point in using words like "contemporary" or "post-modern" to define current trends given that currently we aren't really in the "modern" era if you really want to get technical. Sorry it just really irks me when modern becomes the substitute of "contemporary". Empire State and Chrysler are Modern. Many of the new buildings going up today in New York in Chicago are flying the banner of Post-Modern, or simply Contemporary as the current industry refuses to have any type of dominant "style" or "movement". I completely agree with you though Arche that supertalls aren't really being built because it just doesn't make sound economic sense. Corporate culture and trends are just too conservative. We are no longer in the age where a single building defined an entire company. Most of those projects are now relegated to campuses not towers. While built to spec has always been a larger market than built to suit, the built to suit market continues it's spiral downwards since everyone is obsessed with trying to please everyone instead of looking for niche markets. There is simply no longer an environment where a buildings looks and height play into the symbolic views of the company's ideals. There is not a market for standing out when you are worried about the bottom line and when the individuals willing to take such risks is at an all time low. There are plenty of ways to reverse such trends, but thats for another post for another day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'll cut you some slack on the second tower that I didn't include, but 300m is considered a supertall and if the building has a spire it counts as the height (ornamental, non mechanical). And the Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are modern, if your scale includes ancient pyramids While we are no where near the growth in scale compared to the Middle East and Asia, there have been a few proposals over the years since 9/11. Nashville, Miami, Seattle, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and even Jersey City come to mind. Of course, how many of those have or will come to fruition. I get your point. The American corporation is looking to squeeze every penny for profit, and building a super tall doesn't make sense. Modern in terms of overall history, yes. But not in terms of the Skyscraper itself. That would be like considering The Polo Grounds a modern football stadium... (I'll give you that might be a bit of a stretch). I mean speaking in architectural history terms I'd break skyscrapers into these eras: - Emergence (1880s-1900) - Early 20th Century (1901-1919) - Roaring 20s (1920-1929) - Great Depression (1929-1945) - Post-war (1945-1960) - International Style Era (1960s-late 1970s) - Postmodernism (Pennzoil Place - late 1990s) - Modern Era (2000s - today) That's roughly how I break it down. And I don't know for sure - but I think very few highrises were built during the Second World War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 tisk tisk If this is the direction we are going in shouldn't we be on point in using words like "contemporary" or "post-modern" to define current trends given that currently we aren't really in the "modern" era if you really want to get technical. Sorry it just really irks me when modern becomes the substitute of "contemporary". Empire State and Chrysler are Modern. Many of the new buildings going up today in New York in Chicago are flying the banner of Post-Modern, or simply Contemporary as the current industry refuses to have any type of dominant "style" or "movement". I completely agree with you though Arche that supertalls aren't really being built because it just doesn't make sound economic sense. Corporate culture and trends are just too conservative. We are no longer in the age where a single building defined an entire company. Most of those projects are now relegated to campuses not towers. While built to spec has always been a larger market than built to suit, the built to suit market continues it's spiral downwards since everyone is obsessed with trying to please everyone instead of looking for niche markets. There is simply no longer an environment where a buildings looks and height play into the symbolic views of the company's ideals. There is not a market for standing out when you are worried about the bottom line and when the individuals willing to take such risks is at an all time low. There are plenty of ways to reverse such trends, but thats for another post for another day Built in the modern epoch - YES. But in terms of the actual skyscraper they are not "modern"! Would you call the original Hobby Airport Terminal a "Modern Terminal?" In certain contexts you can, but not in discussing a building typology that dates to maybe 1909 or so at the earliest! Skyscrapers as we define them today didn't come about until the late 1800's and even then only really when the Flatiron and Singer Buildings came about in NYC did we truly-truly consider them "skyscrapers". By that context the Empire State and Chrysler are not "modern." Who here considers the Woolworth Tower "Modern"? Anyone? Its not much older than the others. Do you consider Houston City Hall a Modern building? I don't. History has eras, same with architecture. If these buildings were churches then by all accounts would we consider them "new" and "modern!" They aren't. They're skyscrapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Built in the modern epoch - YES. But in terms of the actual skyscraper they are not "modern"! Would you call the original Hobby Airport Terminal a "Modern Terminal?" In certain contexts you can, but not in discussing a building typology that dates to maybe 1909 or so at the earliest! Skyscrapers as we define them today didn't come about until the late 1800's and even then only really when the Flatiron and Singer Buildings came about in NYC did we truly-truly consider them "skyscrapers". By that context the Empire State and Chrysler are not "modern." Who here considers the Woolworth Tower "Modern"? Anyone? Its not much older than the others. Do you consider Houston City Hall a Modern building? I don't. History has eras, same with architecture. If these buildings were churches then by all accounts would we consider them "new" and "modern!" They aren't. They're skyscrapers. Your actually right. I honestly don't know what I was thinking.....quite embarrassing really! Modern Epoch...yes. Modern architecture....no. Empire and Chrysler are definitively Art-Deco (though if we really want to have some fun then we could go on forever about Art Deco being the precursor to Modern or even Art Moderne). Woolworth is actually in the guise of Neo-classical (you are right that's like me or anyone saying the Chicago Tribune buiding was modern when it wasn't it's Gothic Revival) in skyscraper form as were many skyscrapers thanks to Louis Sullivan who championed the crown on early skyscraper design. I back peddle from my last statement, but only to a point. My argument about us no longer in the modern period of both culture and architecture still stands! While there are still many peoples and nations who are either in the middle or yet to get into the Modern era, we are most certainly in the Post-Modern in Aesthetic, culture, attitudes, and thinking and current architecture reflects this. I don't consider any current buildings as being "modern" unless they are dedicating themselves to a "modernist style". Even that is stretching though... Modern era if you really want to get technical began in the early 1800's and lasted until the 1960's and 1970's. Post-Modern is from 1970's to current. All of this is semantics of course lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 If we compared the cost of a "super tall" from, say, the 1970's to the inflation adjusted cost of one now, would the cost be higher, lower, or about the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 If we compared the cost of a "super tall" from, say, the 1970's to the inflation adjusted cost of one now, would the cost be higher, lower, or about the same? Probably higher, given the need for better life safety systems, more regulations on buildings in general, technology upgrades, LEED costs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.