I would like to know opinions on recent skyscrapers of North America against European counterparts. (for the sake of scope I will exclude examples of the far east)
The question I want to use to frame the discussion is:
What is the main difference between the tall buildings being built in North America versus the ones being built in Europe now? (Lets say now being the last 10-12 years or so) I am not so much interested in projects that are still on the board or under construction.
I think that because of its size and intensiveness of a skyscraper, its construction is motivated essentially by high land prices and transportation. To enable the developer to get the optimum returns from the high land price, the skyscraper has to have sufficient built up space to spread the land value over the total net rentable/saleable space. The higher the bldg, the more the land costs is apportioned upwards, thereby enabling greater financial rerturns. Now how I am looking at it right now, is that recent European experimentation in high rise buildings has dealt with the problem differently than in the North American context. For one thing, these skyscrapers are of moderate height and do not compete against each other. They are generally more contextual, establishing relationships with their surroundings. They also raise specific technical problems in relation to climactic conditions. I also see a difference in the treatment of site. Maybe to do with the motivation of economy, the site foot print is swallowed up by the building in a N.American context, where European models have allowed space to exist, and have had a much more balanced approach with this space. I would like to find out why the framework to why this may be so.
The examples I have been looking at thus far ar the Gas Natural building by EBMT in Barcelona, the Torre Agbar by J.Nouvel in Barcelona, and the Commerzbank bldg by Foster in Frankfurt.
I am also looking for more N.American examples that may prove/didprove what I have said thus far, as my opinion is largely based on memory and personal experience, and I am having a hard time finding literature on this.
Carol Willis: Form Follows Finance (1995), a comparative study of New York & Chicago towers that doesn't (as most books in this genre) focus on just the facade. That is your core text.
Have a look too at the CTBUH website.
Read my paper in the journal of special and tall buildings when it comes out at christmas.
European plot sizes are generally more constrained, as are planning regulations (e.g. the Germans employment laws stipulate that employees must have daylight, thus slimmer towers).
Heritage blight
Political will and "regulatory tax" (Glaeser et al 2005?)
Also look out for research coming out of University of Ulster from prof Parsi and prof McGreal - focusing on NY skyscrapers, but also including London data.
Check out the Davis Langdon cost model (April '07 in Building Magazine) for tall building costs in the UK.
I think there are a good number of European skyscrapers that are less contextual than American ones. The Torre Agbar doesn't fit into Barcelona at all, in my opinion, although it does bear some resemblance to the S.F.
You are probably right in general though. I think the issue is that many European cities have remain mid-rise until very recently, so any high construction immediately has a huge obstacle to overcome in trying not to seem out of place.
I would argue that skyscrapers in America are often brash in appearance compared to their neighboring buildings because they cannot compete for visual attention with their height alone, already being surrounded by high-rise development in most cases. In Europe, this is not the case...height alone, even modest, can still set you apart.
Further, the majority of American cities are so similar to each other, that having a unique building in their skyline is often seen as something to bolster the city's reputation--everyone wants their answer to the Empire State Bulding or Sears Tower. This is the same notion that brings you Generic Concert Hall/Stadium/Aquarium/Museum by John Q. Starchitect over and over again.
Finally, don't forget to consider scale! European cities are pedestrian based on the whole. They have pedestrian sized lots, pedestrian sized streets, and pedestrian sized buildings. Americans have car-sized lots, and car-sized buildings.
Of course our older cities aren't as bad. Most of what I've said has been based on places like Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte, LA... it doesn't apply so well NY, Chicago, Boston...
Sep 25, 07 10:06 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Skyscrapers: N.America and Europe.
I would like to know opinions on recent skyscrapers of North America against European counterparts. (for the sake of scope I will exclude examples of the far east)
The question I want to use to frame the discussion is:
What is the main difference between the tall buildings being built in North America versus the ones being built in Europe now? (Lets say now being the last 10-12 years or so) I am not so much interested in projects that are still on the board or under construction.
I think that because of its size and intensiveness of a skyscraper, its construction is motivated essentially by high land prices and transportation. To enable the developer to get the optimum returns from the high land price, the skyscraper has to have sufficient built up space to spread the land value over the total net rentable/saleable space. The higher the bldg, the more the land costs is apportioned upwards, thereby enabling greater financial rerturns. Now how I am looking at it right now, is that recent European experimentation in high rise buildings has dealt with the problem differently than in the North American context. For one thing, these skyscrapers are of moderate height and do not compete against each other. They are generally more contextual, establishing relationships with their surroundings. They also raise specific technical problems in relation to climactic conditions. I also see a difference in the treatment of site. Maybe to do with the motivation of economy, the site foot print is swallowed up by the building in a N.American context, where European models have allowed space to exist, and have had a much more balanced approach with this space. I would like to find out why the framework to why this may be so.
The examples I have been looking at thus far ar the Gas Natural building by EBMT in Barcelona, the Torre Agbar by J.Nouvel in Barcelona, and the Commerzbank bldg by Foster in Frankfurt.
I am also looking for more N.American examples that may prove/didprove what I have said thus far, as my opinion is largely based on memory and personal experience, and I am having a hard time finding literature on this.
Carol Willis: Form Follows Finance (1995), a comparative study of New York & Chicago towers that doesn't (as most books in this genre) focus on just the facade. That is your core text.
Have a look too at the CTBUH website.
Read my paper in the journal of special and tall buildings when it comes out at christmas.
European plot sizes are generally more constrained, as are planning regulations (e.g. the Germans employment laws stipulate that employees must have daylight, thus slimmer towers).
Heritage blight
Political will and "regulatory tax" (Glaeser et al 2005?)
Also look out for research coming out of University of Ulster from prof Parsi and prof McGreal - focusing on NY skyscrapers, but also including London data.
Check out the Davis Langdon cost model (April '07 in Building Magazine) for tall building costs in the UK.
Comment more often and ask less questions.
I think there are a good number of European skyscrapers that are less contextual than American ones. The Torre Agbar doesn't fit into Barcelona at all, in my opinion, although it does bear some resemblance to the S.F.
You are probably right in general though. I think the issue is that many European cities have remain mid-rise until very recently, so any high construction immediately has a huge obstacle to overcome in trying not to seem out of place.
I would argue that skyscrapers in America are often brash in appearance compared to their neighboring buildings because they cannot compete for visual attention with their height alone, already being surrounded by high-rise development in most cases. In Europe, this is not the case...height alone, even modest, can still set you apart.
Further, the majority of American cities are so similar to each other, that having a unique building in their skyline is often seen as something to bolster the city's reputation--everyone wants their answer to the Empire State Bulding or Sears Tower. This is the same notion that brings you Generic Concert Hall/Stadium/Aquarium/Museum by John Q. Starchitect over and over again.
Finally, don't forget to consider scale! European cities are pedestrian based on the whole. They have pedestrian sized lots, pedestrian sized streets, and pedestrian sized buildings. Americans have car-sized lots, and car-sized buildings.
Of course our older cities aren't as bad. Most of what I've said has been based on places like Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte, LA... it doesn't apply so well NY, Chicago, Boston...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.