Do residential skyscrapers belong in a "real city?"

Haha, thank you Dan for answering that question exactly the way it went through my head after reading it.

If you did not have large residential towers then many many more people would live further from city cores. This means longer commutes, more sprawl, more transportation headaches, and dead city cores after normal business hours.

Actually those only scratch the surface of the myriad of reasons.

I would turn that question around and ask what serious buisness centers WOULDN'T have large residential buildings mixed in??

On the contrary I think an urban city is MORE SERIOUS when it has supertall buildings with residential in them (either fully or mixed use like in the Hancock). Its cities that lack high rise residential downtown that are dead in their cores at night and on weekends. I think the mixed use model is the best because the downtown needs a combination of office and residential space but super tall purely residential projects like the Chicago Spire have their place as well. I actually think the highest floors of the tallest buildings should be used for residential and/or observation decks/restaurants, ideally the Sears Tower would have residential on its upper floors IMO, if it did I would be living there instead of the Hancock. Why should the spaces with the best views be reserved for offices? Offices should either occupy the lower half of super talls like the Hancock or they should be in non super tall office towers like 311 Wacker, Chase Tower, IBM and the like. In a hypothetical utopian city designed by me the tallest skyscrapers would all be mixed use or all residential, imagine the density if most of the upper floors of the buildings in the Loop had residential. Segregated use zones is what creates sprawl and congestion in the first place. The Loop is well on its way to becoming more mixed use but it is still to much of just an office district to have that critical mass. I am a bit biased since I live on the 91st floor of the Hancock but thats how I have always felt.

First, absolutely residential high-rises should be a part of any "real" city. To have a few commercial high-rises makes you an Indianapolis, where 2 million people live in a gigantic area, and there's little if any sense of community. Density requires highrises, big cities require density. That's all there is to it.

Chicago103 said:

I am a bit biased since I live on the 91st floor of the Hancock but thats how I have always felt.

Click to expand...

Ugh. You live 1,000' in the sky? Didja have to mention it? :bash: :lol:

I was listening to WLS a few days ago and Burt Natarus was on. He was talking about the spire and said that he was for it 100% and what not. But he also said something interesting about maintaining the office space to residental ratio. It was something in regards to having adequate office stock.

What I think belongs in buisiness minded cities such as Chicago and NY are skyscrapers. This is due to economical reasons based upon the market and the laws of supply and demand. So it makes perfect sense to me that our newest residental towers would also be skyscrapers.

I have read comments from people that missed the good old days when the office towers were going up. I am personally enjoying the architecture much more on the current residentals going up than the office towers, especially in Chicago. If Chicago Spire gets built, our most prominant and tallest will be all residental and I am perfectly fine with that. Our skyline is being transformed from one of big business to one of grace and beauty and all the while adding greatly to the awe factor, how cool is that? The future of Chicago's skyline wouldn't nearly be as bright without the residentals so I think they absolutely belong here. I'm actually a little surprised at the degree to which we have embraced the residental skyscraper here in Chi. I see this as a good thing as it will increase population DT and add greatly to our architectural heritage.

Now an interesting question would be, at what point does the ratio between residental and office space have to be at to create a negative impact? I have no idea but maybe some ubran planner/economist could chime in.

there is no attachment to super tall buildings to either commercial or residential usage. the office-oriented skyscraper developed at a time when public transportation was the chief means of getting around. Cities by nature were highly centralized and their cores had to go upward since going outward was not an option. nobody had the dubious option of driving to an office park in schaumburg.

today's residential high rise boom is based on lifestyle, the draw of the city. and lifestyle issues bring the critical mass to cities that make them so enjoyable today.

so its all "normal"; going tall can be for any reason. in rural areas, that reason was storage; hence silos. in paris it was come-look-at-me and observation; hence the Eiffel Tower.

None of it is ordained.

Its one thing to only have residential skyscrapers like Ft. Lauderdale - that’s tacky! On the other hand Cities like NY and Chicago that host a whole variety of skyscraper uses with a healthy dose of commercial skyscrapers are the kinds of cities that a residential tower would not be tacky and fit in beautifully. Your friend is looking at it all backwards-Only in cities like NY and Chicago do residential skyscrapers NOT look weird.

wickedestcity said:

Its one thing to only have residential skyscrapers like Ft. Lauderdale - that’s tacky! On the other hand Cities like NY and Chicago that host a whole variety of skyscraper uses with a healthy dose of commercial skyscrapers are the kinds of cities that a residential tower would not be tacky and fit in beautifully. Your friend is looking at it all backwards-Only in cities like NY and Chicago do residential skyscrapers NOT look weird.

Click to expand...

and let's not forget that residential skyscrapers were marching up and down Lake Shore Drive throughout much of the commercial high rise construction era in the Loop.

I love Chicago's mix. It isn't flooded with skyscrapers like many Asian cities, nor is it devoid of skyscrapers like many other cities. I never really thought of skyscrapers being "touristy" before, more like hotels and midrise condos being touristy to me. When I visited my sister in St Petersberg everything there was a 2 or 3 story condo building.