While documenting EBD (evidence based design) research at
the office the other day, I was surprised by an article I stumbled into entitled
“the five most pressing issues you should
have, as a patient in the healthcare field”. While it turns out that article was a
shameless plug from a pharmaceutical company by which to better market opioids,
I was curious what the same outcome for skyscrapers could
be!
Sadly, while considerable critique exists about individual
skyscrapers at almost every stage of history, it is not easy to find an easy list through any simple Google searches, or from a dearth of professional articles and journals. Most articles remain sensationalist 'feature stories', also shamelessly promoting themselves, or minor design etiquette.
Thankfully, both philosophy and architectural theory teaches us to downplay sensationalism, and instead focus on "first principles", or "essence": what is truly important, and fundamental to a particular topic.
As I begin a new blog site (and as I attempt to have some form of central theme for these ramblings), creating a central list of critical topics list towards sustainable skyscraper practice remains prime. In this sense, these five subjects would likely remain as central topics affecting the community at large, or else were topics that seem to pop up time and again in publishing’s, reviews, or general critiques of modern structures. While this list can (and will likely) continue to be updated as I go along, it will hopefully align with such 'first principles' concepts.
But without further ado, onto the 5!!!
- Continued separation from urban environment. The most pressing issue with skyscrapers now still seems to be the same arguments and concerns that plagued the typology 50 years ago. While many Jane Jacobs have come and gone since the first buildings went up in the late 1880s, developers can't seem to get it through their heads, that non-fortress skyscraper options do exist….and they can also be profitable. Dozens of small scale structures have come about that seamlessly integrate into their urban environments, are beneficial to a variety of users, and received incredible amounts of positive reviews/press[1]. (Apparently, you don’t have to put a moat around your building, to make it appealing to potential buyers.)
Unfortunately, many current
structures suffer from the same urban design problems that plagued their
historical counterparts. One World Trade
Center has been lambasted repeatedly for its design segregation[2], even
after the many problems witnessed/expounded upon in the first iteration back in 1973. The Moscow Federation Complex[3]
too, has gotten similar quotes. Many
other structures continue to turn their backs upon metropolitan environments, or
else remain difficult buildings to approach, access, or simply navigate
through. While many residents have continued to push
for mixed-use in the last five decades, serious questions remain for structures
now coming to fruition. This topic
remains front and center, of any current skyscraper discussion.
- Energy Use. An average 600’ skyscraper uses the same energy as an entire American suburban township of 30-50k[4]. Double that figure for hotels, or other high-energy environs. The two tallest buildings in the world are located in some of the most extremely searing environments on earth, yet are completely covered in glass.
A little problematic, if you’re
trying to sell such the future of buildings as ‘green’, or take one of them off
of the grid, no?
- Blank-space Buildings. While a multitude of developers continue to have financial churn out as many tall buildings as they can, a large conundrum seems to exist about filling such massive buildings with people, once their external shells are bought and done. The Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) has often been 1/3rd or more empty, for a good chunk of its life. So is the recently completed Burj Khalifa[5]. Moscow’s Federation Complex has been turned over to hostel travelers, due to lack of business clientele[6]. Heck, anyone here in my hometown of Detroit would be glad to tell you the oddities and trivialities that comes with empty buildings…. In early 21st Century America, we even have enough empty homes and towers to end homelessness[11].
So the question is: are we planning
for actual population growth with tall buildings, or is it all continuing to be
a very large, very expensive game of monopoly?
- Questions of Design/Material Quality. Say what you will about the design style of prior generations, today’s tallest buildings often look cheap. 2 billion dollars blown for the new World Trade Center, and all it got the public was a weirdly wavy glass facade, a 1776’ symbolic height, a ‘flashing friendly’ look on its corners, and a hundred foot tall ‘blast shelter’ encircling the buildings base. Many other of second rate buildings are popping up pretty much everywhere else. Heck, even Frank Ghery’s 800 foot gorgeous metallic megalith is rising on an odd pedestal of red brick.
Mies' buildings continue to be
praised for his attention to quality, to detail, and specific approaches: does
that concept still remain in place today?
- Height. How high is too high, not high enough, or even the ‘just right height’ for internal needs? Everyone wants the world’s tallest building, but controversy seems to follow in the wake of each and every supertall high-rise that’s ever been built[7]. One of the world’s first supertalls blocked natural daylight off from its neighbors back in 1915[8]. The current world champ has to have its sewage taken out in dump trucks[9]. The future world champ is being built 15 miles from the center of its nearest population center, and has been heavily criticized as a costly white elephant[10]. Designers continually call for the competition of a Mile High Tower, even as serious debate continues about whether the world needs something so tall in the first place. Are we doing tall buildings for show? Or to actually fill in for a real problem?
While serious debate has happened
in every generation of supertalls, Rem Koolhaas proved with his CCTV Tower in
2008, that there are other ways to design gorgeous buildings, than just being
the tallest kid on the block…..
(Temp?) Conclusion.
While this list remains an ethereal feature, I was surprised to find that many of these topics have enormous impact
on developments occurring today, and even greater potentials for future
prospects. With luck, that will continue
to be the case as the site progresses, and (maybe) be of some use to somebody,
somewhere.
If not, at least we have a list to start from!
Regards,
-M.
[1] CTBUH. "2009 Best Tall Building Overall and Asia & Australia."
Council of Tall Buildings Website. CTBUH, 2009. Web. Accessed June 6th, 2015. <http://www.ctbuh.org/Events/Awards/BestTallBuildingWinners/09_LinkedHybridBuilding/tabid/1020/language/en-GB/Default.aspx>.
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/nyregion/residents-suing-to-stop-fortresslike-security-plan-for-world-trade-center.html?_r=0
[3] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0403/Skyscraper-fire-reignites-controversy-over-Moscow-s-building-boom-video
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/09/burj-khalifa-vainest-building_n_3894341.html
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/realestate/commercial/in-moscow-a-financial-district-that-is-anything-but.html
[7] Lawrence, Andrew (1999). "The
Skyscraper Index: Faulty Towers". Property Report. Dresdner Kleinwort
Waserstein Research, January 15, 1999.
[8] "Shadows Cast by Skyscrapers", Building
Management, November 1918, p.38
[9] http://inhabitat.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-the-burj-khalifas-poop-is-trucked-out-of-town/
[10] http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/August-2011/The-Kingdom-Tower-Skyscraper-for-the-Next-Financial-Collapse/
[11] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/
[11] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/
0 comments:
Post a Comment