Skyscraper City Forum banner
181 - 200 of 240 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,981 Posts
I wouldn't say that London's skyscrapers are that great.
With all due respect, many of skyscrapers in London are not particularly attractive.
They are weird, strange, special, but attractive is not the word I would use.
Same applies to Moscow city.
The truth is, skyscrapers feel out of place both in Moscow and London (at least city center).
Its the same reason, why skyscrapers don't look good in Jerusalem.
I don't think skyscrapers mix well with historic architecture.
For the most part, the Moscow skyscrapers are just poorly conceived and poorly built. They're kitschy. I agree that a lot of the London skyscrapers aren't great either but many are top-notch architecturally and in terms of quality of execution, especially in Canary Wharf, much more so than in the City, IMO. To me, there's really no comparison between Moscow and London.

I think this compound is overbuilt but it's kind of a cool departure for Tel Aviv. It's very "big city." The buildings themselves, while they look similar, are all pretty attractive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
For the most part, the Moscow skyscrapers are just poorly conceived and poorly built. They're kitschy. I agree that a lot of the London skyscrapers aren't great either but many are
They are mostly using similar level international architecture firms in Moscow City and in London.

Moreover, skyscrapers in Moscow were built with British engineering firms like Arup, so the idea they are more "poorly built" than in London is unlikely, as they are the same engineers supervising construction in the two cities. The same engineering firm is contracted for The Shard in City of London or Imperia in Moscow City. In Moscow City they are using mainly a Turkish construction company (Enka Insaat) which also builds in London.

The reason the result looks worse in Moscow City than in City of London, is not the quality of the construction, or the architects (which is the same level across the two cities), but because in Moscow City too many striking skyscraper designs are placed far too close together, and built in a dedicated zone, rather than being an organic part of the city.

Each of the skyscrapers in Moscow City might have looked nice individually, as a centrepiece. But putting them together creates a mess. To a lesser extent, the same is also true in City of London - but the situation is better there, with more spacing.
top-notch architecturally and in terms of quality of execution, especially in Canary Wharf, much more so than in the City, IMO. To me, there's really no comparison between Moscow and London.
The skyscrapers in Canary Wharf are generally cheaper or "less prestigious" projects, than in the City of London. In Canary Wharf the skyscrapers are conventional enough that they don't have nicknames, while in the City of London they have a special nicknames: "The Cheesegrater", "The Shard", "The Gherkin", "The Walkie Talkie", etc.

This might be partly why you prefer the buildings in Canary Wharf though, as they have more classical square shapes, while near the City of London there are more unusual and "strange shaped" skyscrapers like "The Shard" or "The Gherkin" penned personally by famous architects like Renzo Piano and Norman Foster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
I don't agree with that general rule- both NYC and HK skylines look great despite high skyscraper density. The main problem here, in my opinion, is that the towers' height is pretty much the same so they look like a giant wall. Having 25-30-35 floors would have looked much, much better than 30-30-30.
But TBH- I don't care too much in this particular case since the towers aren't too high, so they can serve as nice skyline fillers. What we do need are a few actual skyscrapers- a 55-60 floor tower in Maariv junction will be a great start.
I'm not sure Hong Kong is a good example, as the towers in that city are too close together IMO. Towers look better when they are spread out at least to the extent that you can appreciate their design individually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I think the main problem visually is that the towers are located too close together. It would be better if the towers could be taller, and there was more spacing between them.

As a general rule, towers look better when there is more spacing between them, and spread out more. That's why Moscow City looks worse than the skyscrapers in the City of London (in City of London there is a bit more spacing between the towers, while in Moscow City they are too close together). Although even City of London is soon going to be overcrowded with towers too.
Remember back in December 2019, TLV municipality made a statement against towers mostly covered in glass?
Well, this was exactly one of the things they pointed out (along with thermal concerns). They said parts of the city is covered in glass boxes.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
in Moscow City too many striking skyscraper designs are placed far too close together, and built in a dedicated zone, rather than being an organic part of the city.
Doha, Qatar is probably the best example for what you're describing.

While I don't particularly like the repetition seen in Tel Aviv's skyline, it's better than this.
800471
 

·
arctic tern
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
I'm not sure Hong Kong is a good example, as the towers in that city are too close together IMO. Towers look better when they are spread out at least to the extent that you can appreciate their design individually.
Which looks better, this:
802386

Or this:
802389


I think most people would agree that the 1st picture looks better- and it seems like Google agrees as well since that's the most common angle you get when you search "Los Angeles skyline".
And I don't think most people agree about your statement either. Firstly because at least in SSC I think most people agree that HK has the 2nd best skyline in the world. Secondly most people don't actually care about the design of specific skyscrapers- unless it's not the world's tallest skyscraper, nobody cares. What people DO like is an urban skyline- a bunch of skyscrapers stuck together. Definitely not something like this for example:
802425
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #187 ·
I think density is good in a skyline, but only up to a point.
When the towers start to be too close and start hiding behind each other, it doesn't add to the skyline imho.
I don't know what is preferable, a more spread out skyline with bigger gaps between the towers, or a smaller one with all the towers bunched together.
I guess it depends on the towers comprising the said skyline, the background (as LA photo demoonstrates, maybe lighting, weather in which the photo is taken etc.
Obviously having a bunch of identical towers (be it pairs, triads or heaven forbid fours (like the future final state of the Wholesale market development) is not a good thing for a skyline.
Having towers that have weird shapes/stand out too much (like in London and in Moscow city) imo isn't a good thing either.
I don't believe the Rubinshtein twins and other towers in the Hasan Arafe area, will be a major problem though.
They are not that tall and at the end won't really stand out.
They will just blend in the background and only contribute to the density, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
There will be a plenty of towers that will stand out and will define Gush Dan's skyline.
Azrieli spiral, Azrieli Sarona, the original Azrieli towers (like it or not, they are a landmark), Elite towers, Eurokom/Shachar/Hi tower(s) in Giv'ataim.
No towers in Hasan Arafe area will be tall enough to spoil the skyline imo.
 
181 - 200 of 240 Posts
Top