SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Are skyscrapers becoming less special?

12K views 45 replies 22 participants last post by  No Change No Future 
#1 ·
With all the new towers in the world going up, does it seem like skyscrapers, even an 1000 foot building, are nothing special anymore?

Just curious on your thoughts, are skyscrapers becoming less special for cities?
 
#4 · (Edited)
Well it depends on where it is built and when IMO. Like someone else said, the Empire State Building is special because of it's iconic status and it is in what is more or less the capitol of the world, New York City.

Take a look at the Dubai Marina supertalls. In 20 years, who will remember those? There's too many of them, they're so close, and they all look more or less the same. Those aren't that special.

In addition, all of those random supertalls going up in cities no one's heard of until they got on this site and saw a new proposal or something under construction and look at that city and have never seen it before. Those aren't that special either.

Really, it all depends on what the skyscraper stands for. Let's take the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai for example. 421m, 88F. One of China's first supertalls, built in 1998. It is "the Empire State Building of China". Was once one of the world's tallest. Now take a look at a building of similar height, DAMAC Heights in Dubai. 420m, 85F. To be be built in the Dubai Marina, a supertall among supertalls.

Height is nowhere near everything, like many of these developing cities/countries are seeming to think. This is why skyscrapers like the Chrysler Building, Bank of China Tower and John Hancock Center will always be more "special" then these megatalls going up, like the Ping'an IFC, or the Golden Finance 117, or any Marina supertall.

So to answer your question: yes. Skyscrapers and supertall skyscrapers are becoming less important these days, when everbody and their mother has one.


If I am coming of as elitist, city-vs-city, or otherwise rude or ill-mannered, my apologies.
 
#5 ·
In addition, all of those random supertalls going up in cities no one's heard of until they got on this site and saw a new proposal or something under construction and look at that city and have never seen it before. Those aren't that special either.
Just to play devils advocate, I think others would say that is precisely why those skyscrapers are special. They take a city no one has ever heard of, and puts its on the map. And at the end of the day, that's why they're built for the most part.

But I agree with what you said. Height is becoming less and less important to me personally, at least in comparison to what is being built internationally because of the different way skyscrapers are financed in different parts of the globe. So it obviously comes to quality, which I think for the most part is less interesting in places where the buildings are more statement driven, than demand driven unfortunately for some reason. But that's a broad generalization, with exceptions, and each case is unique.
 
#6 ·
^I understand the point you are making, but I don't think I argued my point well enough. Skyscrapers are going up in many cities and are being built under the claim that they are "symbolic" or "representative" of their city's rise as an international city. Take Burj Khalifa. It was constructed as a symbol of Dubai rising up in the world, a growing, lustrous city. Now the building sits mostly unoccupied in a city of empty supertalls.

Or the Kingdom Tower. Call me a fool, but up until my interest of architecture (beginning about 4 years ago), I had never heard of Jeddah. Now Kingdom Tower is being advertised as "symbolic of Jeddah's rise."

To me, a world city is what constitutes the need (and want, but is mostly need driven) to build the world's tallest building. A world city makes a WTB. Building a WTB will not make a city a world city. Burj Khalifa, Kingdom Tower, and every building to take the WTB title in the future is basically built to say "Mine is bigger than yours." But not even the city's dick is bigger than the rest. Just that developer's dick is bigger than the rest.

To me, tall skyscrapers stopped being special when they stopped being about the people and the city and the pride they represented and more about money, ego and having a bigger dick for the sake of having a bigger dick.



In addition, if someone's aiming to build an icon, supertall skyscrapers have never been the way to go about that. People don't care for supertalls as identifiers for cities; they look at much smaller monuments: the Statue of Liberty, the Roman Coliseum, Stonehenge. These are all much more representative of a city or culture then any WTB can ever be (with the possible exception of the ESB and Chrysler).
 
#7 ·
Depends what you mean by special.

Some of the best and well thought out skyscrapers architecturally are the smaller kind. they're the ones i find more interesting and tend to pay most attention to. On a world scale, by size, 300m towers are less and less important, with that I would agree. In Dubai you sort of just say "oh, another 300m+, meh" - probably because they're not the most... architecturally forward skyscrapers
 
#8 ·
that's the thing, I used to think 300 meter towers were massive (I suppose they still are in their own way) but compared to the new buildings that are twice that size they're not quite as special as I used to think they are.

I feel like a city needs to build 500 meter towers or higher to really be considered a skyscraper city these days.

maybe I'm over exaggerating but 1000 footers are like the new 500 footers...
 
#9 ·
I think New York's Skycrapers are becoming a little dated. They're going the way of St Paul's Cathedral and Rio's christ the redeemer: iconic because of their historical value rather than their engineering value. The Empire State building isn't even that tall anymore, 19th in the world, behind buildings noone apart from skycraper fanatics even knew existed. There are now plenty of places with skylines comparable to Manhattan, so definitely the skyscraper skyline is becoming less special when pretty much every country in the G20 has a true skyscraper city.

I think it's a little unfair to say skyscrapers are becoming less special in general, since there is a pretty clear agenda behind that: a skyscraper in a developing country is automatically 'soulless' and 'mundane' compared with American ones. I think this judgment is extremely unfair, because American skycrapers post 1940 are horrifically uninteresting: the Arab ones in particular are much much more iconic: say what you like about the Abraj al Bait and Dubai, but they are considerably more inventive than the likes of Chicago and New York's new generation. Even the Freedom Tower in NYC is not massively exciting architecturally compared with the Burj Khalifa and the Jin Mao tower.
 
#14 ·
There are now plenty of places with skylines comparable to Manhattan...
Really? Name some. I can see Chicago and Hong Kong, but Manhattan is home to at least 90 buildings over 600 feet tall, pretty sure that's #1 in the world, and has the 2nd most buildings over 200 meters.

There are definitely skyscrapers in Dubai, and Abu Dhabi for example, that I like, but for the most part they are extremely tacky, and use cheap materials. That's my opinion, and you have yours.

In all fairness, the Empire State Building was built largely built out of ego too. It was called the Empty State Building for a while, and the guy who paid for it asked the architect while he was designing it, "How high can you build it, before it falls over?" And there were building contests between all the NY developers for who had the tallest building, going back to the Woolworth building, which was built taller than the Metropolitan Life Insurance Bldg (then the tallest in the world) on Madison n 23rd because Metro Life had once refused Mr. Woolworth a mortgage, or so the story goes.

So NY went through that type of phase as well, however even during the pissing contest NY developers had at the beginning of the 20th century, NY was already an economic powerhouse on a global scale, not a city attempting to become one.

Big buildings are simply a result of an economically important, and vibrant city, not the cause, case and point is London. I think this phenomenon won't be particularly long lived, with the global economy sputtering along at a snails pace, and the Dubai experiment not going particularly well.
 
#10 ·
Skyscrapers are as special as they ever where, this has not changed, however the height required for a skyscraper to be special has drasticaly increased. For thousands of years the Giza pyramids were considered megatalls and they were the tallest buildings in existence. Now they are cathegorized only as highrises. A thousand years ago 100 meters were something special. 20 years ago 300 meters were something special. Now, 500 or even 600 meters are needed for a building to be special and to not be just one out of many. Buildings less than 500 meters are now a common sight. Just as in the 70's and 80's only America had supertalls, now it lacks a single buulding that would be special with it's height. Though fortunately even thought they lack a 500 meters + building, their buildings have in my opinion by far the best design. It should be noted that height is only half of a building's success, the other half is design :cheers:
 
#11 ·
That is a legitimate question, and I'd have to say to a certain extent I think the answer is yes; when every city is packed full of "skyscrapers", they are definitely not the same source of wonderment as they were back in the '20's, '30's, etc...
The public's thirst for novelty is insatiable, and novelty shaped towers that please one generation are either forgotten or ridiculed by the next.
 
#12 ·
For Brazil... skyscrapers are still a dream... due to old laws and fears our tallest building has just 170m... but we have 2 over 180m being built, but no real 200m + skyscraper being built... So, I'll say, for brazilians, skyscrapers still have the strength, power and strong presence.
 
#16 · (Edited)
I don't know if skyscrapers specifically are becoming less special, but building as tall as possible isn't as cool as it used to be. Now the focus is more on good architecture, efficiency, and urban design, which is a good thing. In fact I think the whole taller is better trend ended decades ago. It's now about doing the most with limited space and building things that are actually useful to the surrounding community, whether it be skyscrapers, highrises, or even houses.

Shanghai or Hong Kong packing the place with cheap highrises isn't cool or a good thing, it's ugly and stupid. Also most of Dubai's architecture is ugly as hell too, only a few buildings are exceptions such as the Burji Khalifa. All the cities that are building as fast as they can with little thought to building standards or urban design are going to deply regret it a decade or two from now.
 
#18 ·
Even that being said, I don't feel I can look at NYC and Chicago's skyline the same anymore unless they start building 500 meter buildings or higher, hopefully one day that will be a reality.

The USA invented skyscrapers... The USA, even if not building the tallest of buildings, should at least keep up.
 
#21 ·
I'd say that since the market is so "over saturated" with really tall buildings, that it's often the buildings as a collective, than a each building, that is special. Of course there are always exceptions, and many skyscrapers are or become quite iconic. There are also tons that go widely unnoticed or are quickly forgotten. Since so many people just excpect the buildings to be there, and seemingly everyone is building them, they have certainly lost a bit of charm and mystique.
 
#22 ·
The true test of whether a building becomes "iconic", or not, is time. The Chrysler Building is iconic, whereas a lot of "unusual" structures that people initially liked are now just considered dated and a bit silly looking. I wouldn't count on every twisty building, or every building looking like a household or personal bedroom object to still be "iconic" looking twenty five years from now. ;)
 
#28 · (Edited by Moderator)
I still like, and its still special, even if the future is now...

Guangzhou's newest CBD, a main axis lined with museums and eco-supertalls on either side.
The park and water covered axis actually houses main train, parking and highway tunnels underground:



Its not so much the height, but the designs and city planning that will pique our interest in the future
 
#32 ·
All people know BK for is it's height. But even then, it's just us skyscraper buffs. Everyone knows the Empire State Building. Yes, Burj Khalifa is an iconic structure. But you claimed that it was the most iconic skyscraper in existence. And that is simply not right, no matter who's opinion we're asking for. Maybe in the future BK will be more iconic. But at present time, many skyscrapers are leagues ahead of it as far as being an icon goes.
 
#31 ·
I think skyscraper height does not matter as much as it did before, so yes, its not 'that' special. I think the focus now is on the CBD layout. That is something that has changed over the years. Not just China, but we see South Korea, Vietnam and India and Malaysia etc following that road. Cities are no longer throwing towers together like one big mess. Of course there are pros and cons to this, however, I think that it is this aspect that I think is the 'new special' aspect.

Its just like passenger jets really, the B747 used to be the most special plane on earth, seen like a hero really. Now with the 777/787/350 and A380, the 747 looks dated, however, people don't worship the A380 as much as the 747 but it doesn't mean that its not special.
 
#33 ·
^^ Your comment will lead to a new topic lol. The media representation!!!!

If almost every film you saw had the BK in it, then it will surely make it a world icon. The ESB is featured in almost all american films. Thats why its popular and well known. Its also because its american, that adds more attention to it as well.You should be aware of that by now.

Everyone in america knows about ESB just like everyone in China knows about the Great Wall. They know it because its been put in their face time and time again. why ESb is known world wide is because its been put in our face time and time again when we watch american films lol.

Trying doing that with the BK and over a few years, we will have the 'new' world icon
 
#35 ·
I don't know. I mean there are still quite a few people around the world who have never even heard of Dubai much less know that they have a 2,600 foot tall building.

Just because a building is tall doesn't automatically mean it's iconic. And only in rare occasions does a single skyscraper put a city on the map by totally transforming the city. Look at Oklahoma City. Before the Devon Tower, OKC was a city in the middle of the US with a modest skyline.



Now with the Devon Tower nearly finished, OKC redesigned a new park across the street and loads of other development are happening pretty much because of this tower.

 
#36 ·
Are skyscrapers becoming less special??

ridiculous that's like saying that
singers are becoming less talented--

oh... wait... they are

FFFFUUUUU

Seriously, i think they are not, the common skyscraper is becoming less special cuz there are a lot like him but there are some projects really interesting around the world, the thing is,...

Skyscrapers were really special when they started ( chicago ) because they were something new and revolutionary, but now a skyscraper is no longer only a tall building it has to be and DO something else. that's why the "only tall" buildings are boring nowadays.

cheers
 
#38 ·
the problem is that it used to be if you were the highest. that's it. famous building.

now, it seems to change every year. the claim lies in many cities. and there's all these ways to "cheat" like adding non functional or non-inhabitabal features, just to add on the extra feet.

it just makes it harder for most people to follow, notice, care.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top