Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've raised this issue on different threads where relevant, but feel it deserves a thread of its own:

WHY IS THERE SUCH A PERVASSIVE OBSESSION ON THIS BOARD OVER OUR CITIES' GROWTH-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-GROWTH, DENSITY-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-DENSITY, HEIGHT-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-HEIGHT, ETC.

Where did we get the idea that there is a race for the biggest population, the most dense setting, the highest skyline?

From the late 19th century to the present, the earth's population curve has curved dangerously upward. with growth has come an unpresidented use of the earth's resources with an unpresidented negative effect on the planet.

Do we really want to see our major cities (metros) growing to populations of 30-40,000,000, presumably mostly affluent or at least well off growth. Do we really want to see that many more people in place depleting the globe's resources. Do we admire the population of places like Calcutta...and desire to emulate it.?

Would living in a city so dense and so high that the sky was rarely seen something that would positively improve our quality of life?

Despite dire predictions, we tend to ignore global warming and the human race's effect on it. We feel we can build with impunity and still keep the quality of life we desire. We can't.

This century sadly will see many faceless cities throughout the globe whose populations will exceed 30,000,000. At some point, there will be virtually nameless cities in Asia or South America whose skyline's height (but not majesty) will far exceed Manhattan's.

Our cities are real. They are not photographs on the skyscraper forum. They don't function well because we look at pictures and say, "Oh my God, look at that fucking density!!!!!!

Our current fascination with density, height, population, etc., but be viewed abysmally and detrminetly by mid-century when their very existence contribute to the inhabitability of the planet. Why should we wait until then to be concerned.

There is no race to the top. NYC and LA have long passed my city of Chicago in population; I'll concede the competiton to them and seriously pray we never do catch up (we won't). If Houston passes up Chicago in population sometime in the future, I won't skip a beat. I don't give a rat's ass. You see, my guess is that by mid-century, the largest cities in the world (and perahps the US) will be basket cases; the real power houses will those places that have been able to control their growth, their density, their excessive life styles.

Sorry if this came across as a rant. No doubt it did. But I sincerely believe we are travelling down a dangerous road and need to seriously look where it is taking us.
 

·
Tastemaker Extraordinare
Joined
·
308 Posts
IT IS HUMAN NATURE. JUST LIKE WHEN THE MAYOR OF CHICAGO SAID AT THE MAYOR'S ADDRESS IN THE WORLD FAIR OF 1893..."CHICAGO WILL PASS NY TO BECOME AMERICA'S LARGEST CITY AND EVEN LONDON WILL BE CAUGHT" tHAT SEEMS FUNNY NOW, BUT I GUESS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE BACK THEN.


edsg25 said:
I've raised this issue on different threads where relevant, but feel it deserves a thread of its own:

WHY IS THERE SUCH A PERVASSIVE OBSESSION ON THIS BOARD OVER OUR CITIES' GROWTH-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-GROWTH, DENSITY-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-DENSITY, HEIGHT-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-HEIGHT, ETC.

Where did we get the idea that there is a race for the biggest population, the most dense setting, the highest skyline?

From the late 19th century to the present, the earth's population curve has curved dangerously upward. with growth has come an unpresidented use of the earth's resources with an unpresidented negative effect on the planet.

Do we really want to see our major cities (metros) growing to populations of 30-40,000,000, presumably mostly affluent or at least well off growth. Do we really want to see that many more people in place depleting the globe's resources. Do we admire the population of places like Calcutta...and desire to emulate it.?

Would living in a city so dense and so high that the sky was rarely seen something that would positively improve our quality of life?

Despite dire predictions, we tend to ignore global warming and the human race's effect on it. We feel we can build with impunity and still keep the quality of life we desire. We can't.

This century sadly will see many faceless cities throughout the globe whose populations will exceed 30,000,000. At some point, there will be virtually nameless cities in Asia or South America whose skyline's height (but not majesty) will far exceed Manhattan's.

Our cities are real. They are not photographs on the skyscraper forum. They don't function well because we look at pictures and say, "Oh my God, look at that fucking density!!!!!!

Our current fascination with density, height, population, etc., but be viewed abysmally and detrminetly by mid-century when their very existence contribute to the inhabitability of the planet. Why should we wait until then to be concerned.

There is no race to the top. NYC and LA have long passed my city of Chicago in population; I'll concede the competiton to them and seriously pray we never do catch up (we won't). If Houston passes up Chicago in population sometime in the future, I won't skip a beat. I don't give a rat's ass. You see, my guess is that by mid-century, the largest cities in the world (and perahps the US) will be basket cases; the real power houses will those places that have been able to control their growth, their density, their excessive life styles.

Sorry if this came across as a rant. No doubt it did. But I sincerely believe we are travelling down a dangerous road and need to seriously look where it is taking us.
 

·
1981 Civic
Joined
·
2,911 Posts
edsg25 said:
I've raised this issue on different threads where relevant, but feel it deserves a thread of its own:

WHY IS THERE SUCH A PERVASSIVE OBSESSION ON THIS BOARD OVER OUR CITIES' GROWTH-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-GROWTH, DENSITY-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-DENSITY, HEIGHT-FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-HEIGHT, ETC.

Where did we get the idea that there is a race for the biggest population, the most dense setting, the highest skyline?

From the late 19th century to the present, the earth's population curve has curved dangerously upward. with growth has come an unpresidented use of the earth's resources with an unpresidented negative effect on the planet.

Do we really want to see our major cities (metros) growing to populations of 30-40,000,000, presumably mostly affluent or at least well off growth. Do we really want to see that many more people in place depleting the globe's resources. Do we admire the population of places like Calcutta...and desire to emulate it.?

Would living in a city so dense and so high that the sky was rarely seen something that would positively improve our quality of life?

Despite dire predictions, we tend to ignore global warming and the human race's effect on it. We feel we can build with impunity and still keep the quality of life we desire. We can't.

This century sadly will see many faceless cities throughout the globe whose populations will exceed 30,000,000. At some point, there will be virtually nameless cities in Asia or South America whose skyline's height (but not majesty) will far exceed Manhattan's.

Our cities are real. They are not photographs on the skyscraper forum. They don't function well because we look at pictures and say, "Oh my God, look at that fucking density!!!!!!

Our current fascination with density, height, population, etc., but be viewed abysmally and detrminetly by mid-century when their very existence contribute to the inhabitability of the planet. Why should we wait until then to be concerned.

There is no race to the top. NYC and LA have long passed my city of Chicago in population; I'll concede the competiton to them and seriously pray we never do catch up (we won't). If Houston passes up Chicago in population sometime in the future, I won't skip a beat. I don't give a rat's ass. You see, my guess is that by mid-century, the largest cities in the world (and perahps the US) will be basket cases; the real power houses will those places that have been able to control their growth, their density, their excessive life styles.

Sorry if this came across as a rant. No doubt it did. But I sincerely believe we are travelling down a dangerous road and need to seriously look where it is taking us.
Good question, Edsg. Here's my answer:
Yes, the people want super metroes.
Yes, the people want "fucking density".
Yes, the people want buildings with 500 floors.

Why, you ask?
-Ego
-Image
-Constantly shifting demographics

And here's the most important reason:
Because they can.

Of course, you and I will be long dead by the time these things take form!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
I agree completely with edsg. Quality of life has nothing to do with how high the buildings are or how dense the population. Quality of life in most cities is in the neighborhoods at street level, in the shops, the parks and the alleys. The real key to urban planning is the balance among all the features. A certain population is necessary to support the educational, cultural, and entertainment needs of the population but citizens of the major metropoli need to keep an eye out to see that certain aspects of the cities are not overbuilt. Some ofthe giant residential buildings in NYC away from Manhattan for example have this effect, the housing projects in cities like Chicago and Saint Louis that are in the process of being torn down were neighborhood killers just as Jane Addams recognized.

The people on this forum (mostly teenagers I suspect) who need to boost their home town by screaming that they have more tall buildings or more people per square mile are idiots. The questions should be "Why do you enjoy living where you do?" "What could be done to improve the quality of life there?", "Is there anything you have seen in an other city, that you would like to bring back to your home town and why?".

Cities are constantly changing organic entities. Are they changing for the better just because the buildings are taller? Is the NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles of the 21st century really better than the NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles of the 20th?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
SILVERLAKE said:
IT IS HUMAN NATURE. JUST LIKE WHEN THE MAYOR OF CHICAGO SAID AT THE MAYOR'S ADDRESS IN THE WORLD FAIR OF 1893..."CHICAGO WILL PASS NY TO BECOME AMERICA'S LARGEST CITY AND EVEN LONDON WILL BE CAUGHT" tHAT SEEMS FUNNY NOW, BUT I GUESS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE BACK THEN.
chicago is the greatest city in the world...to me at least
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
The increase of urbanization is probably the most pervasive demographic trend in the modern world. Urbanization has incredibly large implications for business, health and politics worldwide. Naturally, a trend so important will pique a few people's attention. As for your concerns of Malthusian resource/population strains, I will say this, density is the solution not the problem. There are whole books written on that subject which basicly state that urbanization leads to slower population growth (or even slow population decline). For instance, compare Europe to Asia. As for nameless cities with large populations, they are certainly not naimless for the millions of people that live in them.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
In the US for the most part, I dont think population growth and density have anything to do with each other because our fastest growing cities are booming at their suburban fringes as opposed to in the core urban areas-Miami is perhaps an exception, but most everywhere else, the march outward continues every year.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
No not really. The Inland Empire, part of LA's Combined Statistical Area, is growing outward at a very fast rate. In fact, its growing far faster then LA proper. The same can be said for San Francisco and its surrounding areas and just about everywhere else.
 

·
Tastemaker Extraordinare
Joined
·
308 Posts
I AM SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT SF WILL BE OUR THIRD METRO BY 2020! LA:NY:SF the holey trinity of US URBAN JEWELS!
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
Oh Silverlake,
You are entertaining and make me cringe at the same time-LOL

San Francisco will never be as big as New York or Los Angeles-its just not in our cards. Chicago is growing very fast at its fringes as well. Isnt Kane County, IL the second fastest growing county in the nation right now? I can see Chicago breaking the 10 Million barrier any day now.

San Francisco will only get that big by consolidating with our surroundings-which actually isnt a stretch to fathom.

I will say this about LA. I absolutely love what's happening down there-people who at present think they know LA really should go back. And Hollywood Blvd looks like its going to be what it was meant to be in the first place. I love LA(not only cause I have vested interest in that city, but because its a truly exciting city). There, that's my LA rave for the day!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Why Not?

What have we all got to lose?

Waht other place can you express all of these feelings/thought.

Not in school/work/mom's house you still live in after 15 years.

The size matters a lot to me because things that look beautiful, often look even better when they are big. There is only one exception:

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
svs said:
I agree completely with edsg. Quality of life has nothing to do with how high the buildings are or how dense the population. Quality of life in most cities is in the neighborhoods at street level, in the shops, the parks and the alleys. The real key to urban planning is the balance among all the features. A certain population is necessary to support the educational, cultural, and entertainment needs of the population but citizens of the major metropoli need to keep an eye out to see that certain aspects of the cities are not overbuilt. Some ofthe giant residential buildings in NYC away from Manhattan for example have this effect, the housing projects in cities like Chicago and Saint Louis that are in the process of being torn down were neighborhood killers just as Jane Addams recognized.

The people on this forum (mostly teenagers I suspect) who need to boost their home town by screaming that they have more tall buildings or more people per square mile are idiots. The questions should be "Why do you enjoy living where you do?" "What could be done to improve the quality of life there?", "Is there anything you have seen in an other city, that you would like to bring back to your home town and why?".

Cities are constantly changing organic entities. Are they changing for the better just because the buildings are taller? Is the NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles of the 21st century really better than the NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles of the 20th?
svs, i couldn't have said it better. it amazes me how so many people see growth in population being the result of a healthy and growing economy. do these folks realize we have a city in a neighboring nation that operates on the opposite premise? Mexico City's overpowering growth is based on poverty and a dysfunctional nation whose inability to work properly has displaced so many rural cities in Mexico City, swelling it in size, but hardly quality.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top