Which is better, for Europes growing cities!?
A financial area outiside the city centre and away from cultural bulidings? (e.g. Paris):
http://members.chello.se/kuini/Paris.jpg

OR a financial area intergrated with the older areas and cultural buildings? (e.g. Frankfurt)
http://members.chello.se/kuini/Frankfurt.jpg

(Don't think too much of the pictures though, they're just examples of the issue)

Outside.

Clearly outside - in the 50s and 60s and even at the end of the 19th century too much of original architecture has been distroyed. Frankfurt is also the most americanized city in Europe and the example of how not to do it... nothing against its skyscrapers but not in the center. Paris - great! Napoli, London also on the limit.

Inside!

Can't imagine to have Frankfurts skyscrapers somewhere outside in the Suburbs. They belong to the downtown area.

Frankfurt is also the most americanized city in Europe and the example of how not to do it...

Well, Frankfurts center was totaly destroyed and after war the downtown area was rebuild with ugly and cheap postwar architecture. With the Skyscrapers which were built in the 80s and 90s, Frankfurt got a new soul and heart.

However, in cities like Paris or Rome it would be WRONG to build them in the center. But Frankfurt is another story.

Aah ok well, thanx for the info..
don't get to stuck with the examples tho..

Milan is building them right next to the city centre... however in this case as Milan was also quite destroyed it's not a big problem... in Rome I would not like it.

I think it should be totally outside. I am really happy the way Sarajevo is developing, it's building the skyscrapers and high-rises on the completely other side of the "Old Town". It's comming along well! :)

It depends on the city as well. For example you cannot have 20-30 etc story buildings in Central Athens as they would totally hide the Acropolis and other ancient monuments. So for Athens, the outer areas would be perfect. But for somewhere like Frankfurt or Milan, then maybe the central area would be more better suited.

I like the "bit of both" system London uses. It has buildings of more architectural merit in the actual city (Swiss Re, London Bridge Tower, etc.) but has an unrestricted business development at Canary Wharf where people can stick up large, functional blocks. Seems to work well.

In Riga so far everything was mixed up in historical city. Many offices are located even in the medieval Old City, which has really high entrance fee for cars. Businesses so far unsed mainly historical buildings, reconstructing them under close surveilance of Heritage Inspection.

Pros of this approach: Even comparatively smaller city then is vibrant, lively throughout the day, central part feels like much bigger metropolis.

Cons:
- Transportation in historical part of the city is slow, jammed. Parking problems are not possible to solve.
- Historical buildings are not well suited for modern offices. There is no space and no wish to build modern buildings among the historical buildings.
- Suburbs are not developing, everything is centered very much.

Thus Riga has decided to build new business district with shiny highrises in the other coast of river opposite the Old City. But this district would be multifunctional, with shops, apartment buildings etc. We do not want pure breed financial district, which is dark and silent in the night.
Early version of this vision, already 7 months old. Now a lot more has become clear and the idea seems to be high success so far.
http://img91.exs.cx/img91/6886/bilde9.jpg

In general - each city should develop its own way, which suits best its:
- size;
- business activity;
- historical skyline;
- character of architectural heritage
and some more factors...

frankfurt is an odd case. Technically, the highrises are outside the city core, much like La Defense or Canary Wharf, with the exception that they are closer than L.D.

What I mean is, that Frankfurt's main city core, where most of the people are, and the shopping is, has pretty much no highrises.

So, technically, it's out of town as well, just not as far out.

I think the difference is more that L.D. and C.W. are completely "new" area's, with little original history remaining, i.e. designed from scratch.

WITHIN, without ANY doubt.

City centers should be urban, and skyscrapers are urbanity itself.

frankfurt is an odd case. Technically, the highrises are outside the city core, much like La Defense or Canary Wharf, with the exception that they are closer than L.D.

What I mean is, that Frankfurt's main city core, where most of the people are, and the shopping is, has pretty much no highrises.

So, technically, it's out of town as well, just not as far out.

I think the difference is more that L.D. and C.W. are completely "new" area's, with little original history remaining, i.e. designed from scratch.

Well, for me the city core is the area from the Zeil (shopping) to the central station. This includes the banking district (skyscrapers) and even the redlight districts.

However, now I understand your compalints about the lack of food in Frankfurt downtown. If you reduce Frankfurts core to the Zeil then its clear that you don't find that much variation.

:lol:

I never said anything about the food in this thread, but now that you brought it up...

But my point is quite valid. For example, in Sydney or Melbourne, you have a CBD which is also clearly divided between the business sections and shopping sections, much like Frankfurt, however, in those two cities there are equally as many skyscrapers in the shopping area's as the business area's. In Frankfurt there are no skyscrapers in the shopping area.

And just like Sydney and Melbourne, the business part of the CBD is deserted on the weekends or after business hours, but the shopping area isn't.

That was my point. There is only skyscrapers in the business part of town in Frankfurt. The main shopping area is void of any real highrises-

outside is better!

For Istanbul, let's consider Bosphorus as the cultural center of the city.

Skyscrapper Districs Maslak and Leventare quite outside but not very far away from the Bosphorus but they are located so well behind the hills that except few angles you won't be able to see them (or can just see their tops) while touring the historical peninsula or the Bosphorus. In order to see scrapers with Bosphorus, you should go to higher places in the Asian part!

Though few years ago some kind of dumb built a scraper (named Gokkafes) just near the Dolmabahçe Palace, the trial of that building still continues :bash:

Scrapers should be kept away from Historical Buildings!!

The examples already tell the difference.
Any city that has been bombed will have a scraper citycenter together with the left over old buildings.
Any old city which survived humans will put their scrapers outside that cultural area.
I have not seen a real famous old citycenter with a new scraper inside

As an American going to Frankfurt the mix kinda seemed weird. I mean it felt like the skyscrapers were so spread out from one another and it made it feel as if each skyscraper was more a tall American office park surrounded by all this old historc architecture. It felt as if the city itself didn't know if it wanted to go "modern" or stick with its past.
I think its better if the buisness center and skyscrapers were left to their own district. It often bodes well for the skyscrapers and skyline itself and for the historical integrity of the old city centers as well.
That said I can't say either is the right or wrong way. Both are just more differant and have pros and cons to them. What is far more important is that whatever is built is nice and whatever is already nice is well worth preserved and cherished.

I don't know, I like the setup of London, where it's not right together, but it's fairly close.

Outside the centre.


And I would like more trams and tubes for Stockholm, snälla.

It depeds by each city. I like how other the contrast really modern buildings make with ancient architecture. It draws attention, adds excitement. Modern architecture should be in cultral centers as long as it does not require to destroy old buildings, or asphyxiates the.

Warsaw no ????????

Depends on city. Helsinki center southern town is full. 40 years many many nice buildings were destroyed because of stupidity. Near the center is the place. Good connections are there. The other parts are full of buildings which can't be destroyed.

It should be in between, not in the old city center but near it.

I think it really depends, but I prefer ourside. Now the question is where outside, and there it depends aswell.
In Zürich there are two good places for it.
In Zürich-West the Harbrücke area (outer district 5) and in Zürich-Nord the area around the Hallenstadion/Zürich Exibition Center.

I would like to see some nice scrapers in Zürich-West as a nice backdrop for the city in the north, kind of a counterweigt to the alps in the south.
There are 3 projects in that area at the moment. (About 60 - 120 meters high)

I like what Paris did with La Defense because it preserved the old buildings in the touristic area and build alternative architecture not far from it in a cluster: you have the best of both worlds. However, for those cities that were heavily bombed in WWII I think that building skyscrapers in downtown makes a lot of sense. What I don't like is a city with few skyscrapers that are far away from each other and don't have any relationship with what surrounds them.

I think no other city in Europe in the last 15 years as strongly changed as Berlin

above, underneath :)

I afree with urbane. Although we are past the 1970's brutalistic modernism, which means that even if new buildings may be built in the historoc centres, probably the designs will not look as harmful compared to what they would have been 30 years ago, preserving the old and building new structures outside, where you cab design everything (almost) from scratch is better.

Now, for Frankfurt (and partly London) they say that building close to their historic cores is an eyesore. I have to confess though that from the pics that I've seen, it's OK. However, I believe that the rule is that especially for densely populated European cities, whenever they have a historic core to preserve, the best solution would be to build away from there.

I think no other city in Europe in the last 15 years as strongly changed as Berlin

You can say the same thing about Warsaw :) No other city has changed that much as Warsaw has :cheers:

I think historical towns should be preserved and not mixed with modern architecture.

Historical - don't destroyed in WW2. This is my idea.

It should be in between, not in the old city center but near it.I fully agree with this. Actually, I think the best is when the skyscraper cluster is making an expansion of the city center but separated from the historical center.

I like what Paris did with La Defense because it preserved the old buildings in the touristic area and build alternative architecture not far from it in a cluster: you have the best of both worlds.Actually, I also like La Défense location. Some people consider it as too remote from the city but it is actually right at its margin, and ending perfectly the perspective of the Champs-Elysées.

My only trouble with La Défense is that it's been built outside the traditional street pattern on a pedestrian platform, which tends to isolate it from the neighbouring areas. That's actually why I wouldn't mind La Défense being expanded at the street level in order to make a more progressive and less brutal rupture in the environment.

In this regard, the fact they may build new highrise buildings in Neuilly-sur-Seine, right along La Défense perspective, is certainly a great evolution.

On the other side, I would say that the Centro direzionale from Naples or even Canary Wharf in London seem to me too separated from the center of those cities.