Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bay_Area, on a recent thread on this board, questions the effect that San Francisco high rises has on existing views. It is a legitamate concern. San Francisco needs to be highly vigiliant on where it places its skylines to retain its magnicent, hill-inspired sight lines.

All cities share with San Francisco their unique characters. Progress will always be made and change is inevitable, but a city must protect its past and its essence. what types of elements of a city's character must be retained, must be planned for retention?

What part of your city's today must essentially be part of tomorrow's?

I'm thinking along the lines of:

Chicago's lakefront must always be free and open with parkland and without large scale buildings that block the views

for governmental buildings to retain their grandeur, high rises should continue to be verboten in Washington, DC

Areas like Miami Beach's art deco South Beach or New Orleans's French Quarter must always be protected from new construction.

Any tall building in St. Louis must be designed to show respect for the Gateway Arch

Milwaukee needs to retain its early German inspired architecture.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
518 Posts
for governmental buildings to retain their grandeur, high rises should continue to be verboten in Washington, DC
I disagree. The city is much larger than the National Mall. As it is, you can see the Arlington skyline all the way from the steps of the Capitol and that's not ruining anyone's perspective of the National Mall. I think that skyscrapers should be allowed in Northeast and Southeast D.C. where there really aren't any monuments or government buildings. After all, when the statue of standing liberty was put on top of the US Capitol, they faced it towards the east because that is where they expected the city would grow.

If anything, skyscrapers would frame the national mall much like skyscrapers frame central park. Soon congress won't have a say in the DC height restriction!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
I disagree. The city is much larger than the National Mall. As it is, you can see the Arlington skyline all the way from the steps of the Capitol and that's not ruining anyone's perspective of the National Mall. I think that skyscrapers should be allowed in Northeast and Southeast D.C. where there really aren't any monuments or government buildings. After all, when the statue of standing liberty was put on top of the US Capitol, they faced it towards the east because that is where they expected the city would grow.

If anything, skyscrapers would frame the national mall much like skyscrapers frame central park. Soon congress won't have a say in the DC height restriction!
washington DC was designed to look like a european city,
even though many european cities have highrises now, the cities skyline should be retained to cathedral towers, monuments, and goverment building domes. It gives it a nice character, but everyone else seems to just want to build highrises and destory the historical look of the skyline.
In things like this, I dont see DC having skyscrapers even in the next hundred years. The restrictions are so high, and supported highly by preservationists, historians, etc. DC probably wont ever have many(if any) skyscrapers.
Its just not how the city was designed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
I think what should be retained in a city, is its historic structures, we just bulldoze over buildings saying we are moving into progression, but more like destruction. The victorians should always be preserved, even if there are alot. I mean, once its gone, its gone, there goes some of the character in your city. I think we should always retain things like old street names(its easier for later documenting) old structures, natural features, and our known looks. This doesent mean we should keep it exactly the way we have it now,
but looking at photos a hundred years from now, we want it to look like the same place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
I think what should be retained in a city, is its historic structures, we just bulldoze over buildings saying we are moving into progression, but more like destruction. The victorians should always be preserved, even if there are alot. I mean, once its gone, its gone, there goes some of the character in your city. I think we should always retain things like old street names(its easier for later documenting) old structures, natural features, and our known looks. This doesent mean we should keep it exactly the way we have it now,
but looking at photos a hundred years from now, we want it to look like the same place.
NE and SE, the areas he mentioned, contain hundreds of industrial lots and vacated warehouses, should we preserve those too? Try to educate before you pass judgment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
edsg I will comment on south beach since I grew up in the area....in the 1970s there was a plan to raze all the Art Deco buildings since the majority housed poor elderly people and maintenance was lacking. It took one individual to change people's perception and that was Barbara Capitman who honeymooned on South Beach in the 1940s and cherised the architecture.
Her efforts resulted in the creation of the Art Deco disctrict as well as a designation in the National Register of Historic Places. I couldn't even imagine Miami today without the Deco district.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
NE and SE, the areas he mentioned, contain hundreds of industrial lots and vacated warehouses, should we preserve those too? Try to educate before you pass judgment.
if its of architectuall or historical signifigance, if its just soem basic brick building thats falling apart, and has no architectuall signifigance, then go ahead, tear it down for further development. But if it was say an old brick industrail building in good condition with beautiful exterior work, than preserve it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
While it's good to protect many old and loved buildings, let's not get carried away and protect the demolishment of buildings that are ugly that happen to be old. Although preservation is good, you can't freeze time...cities change.

I've heard about protests against the demolition of ugly prisons for goodness sakes. :eek:hno:
it depends yet again. If it is just some basic old prison that lacks any architectuall influences, then who gives a hoot? But if it is an architectuall jewl, then preserve it(if you can) but we shouldet just preserve things because they are old. Hell, my neighbors garage is old, and it is just a basic wood siding garage, nothing thrilling.
For prisons, there is this old beautiful jail and sherrifs house that I visited in crawfordsville Indiana, it is now a museum, and it is absuloutly gorgouse, even the jail section is ornate, things like that should be preserved, so we can look back at what jails were like, but not some mass bland prison that doesent have any architectuall influence.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
518 Posts
washington DC was designed to look like a european city,
even though many european cities have highrises now, the cities skyline should be retained to cathedral towers, monuments, and goverment building domes. It gives it a nice character, but everyone else seems to just want to build highrises and destory the historical look of the skyline.
In things like this, I dont see DC having skyscrapers even in the next hundred years. The restrictions are so high, and supported highly by preservationists, historians, etc. DC probably wont ever have many(if any) skyscrapers.
Its just not how the city was designed.
Here's an idea: how about every other city in America stops building skyscrapers and tears all their current ones down. This way they can have a "nice character" and a "great historical look" too!

Well thank god your elected officials will end their 200+ years of control over my local government. When DC no longer has to get all of its laws approved by congress (a body that its people have no representation in), expect some height restrictions to change.

As Ajoutz said, NE and SE have little to no resemblance to the rest of the city. I don't want skyscrapers in Federal Triangle, Near Southwest, Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Penn Quarter, Shaw, Capitol Hill, Tenleytown, Van Ness, Kalorama, Mass Heights, Dupont Circle, Petworth or Friendship Heights either. In other areas of the city though, it would be perfectly appropriate as they have little to no architectural or historical significance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
Here's an idea: how about every other city in America stops building skyscrapers and tears all their current ones down. This way they can have a "nice character" and a "great historical look" too!

Well thank god your elected officials will end their 200+ years of control over my local government. When DC no longer has to get all of its laws approved by congress (a body that its people have no representation in), expect some height restrictions to change.

As Ajoutz said, NE and SE have little to no resemblance to the rest of the city. I don't want skyscrapers in Federal Triangle, Near Southwest, Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Penn Quarter, Shaw, Capitol Hill, Tenleytown, Van Ness, Kalorama, Mass Heights, Dupont Circle, Petworth or Friendship Heights either. In other areas of the city though, it would be perfectly appropriate as they have little to no architectural or historical significance.
DC isnt like any other city.
Its sort of its thing, no skyscrapers. Other cities should build skyscrapers,
but why take away what is so rare these days? I think we should retain it, its unique, every other major US city has skyscrapers, but DC has its own special skyline. I dont give a shit if they build them outside of the city, but the city itself should keep the height limits to retain that character.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
if its of architectuall or historical signifigance, if its just soem basic brick building thats falling apart, and has no architectuall signifigance, then go ahead, tear it down for further development. But if it was say an old brick industrail building in good condition with beautiful exterior work, than preserve it.
They are all like corrugated iron and spray-painted cinder blocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
in Indianapolis I think what we need to retain is the over all milesquare and sourounding historic hoods,(since we lost so much in the urban renewal period) and over all retain things like the monuments, landmarks, history, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
523 Posts
Sometimes the significance or beauty of a building isn't realized until it's too late. The subjectivity of a statement like "That building is ugly and in disrepair." is exactly the reason we don't have the Singer Building, the Statler Hotel, old Comiskey Park, and many other structures that people regret being demolished. In current day standards, a building may seem like an eyesore, but if it is left standing and somewhat maintained...30 years from now it would most likely be a historic landmark for the city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
Sometimes the significance or beauty of a building isn't realized until it's too late. The subjectivity of a statement like "That building is ugly and in disrepair." is exactly the reason we don't have the Singer Building, the Statler Hotel, old Comiskey Park, and many other structures that people regret being demolished. In current day standards, a building may seem like an eyesore, but if it is left standing and somewhat maintained...30 years from now it would most likely be a historic landmark for the city.
true! So what the victorian building has busted in windows? Rotten shingles, chipped paint, and boarded up doors? Amagine it restored! The peotential for structures is rarely seen, and it happened here. Dozens of gorgouse downtown buildings, and several known landmarks were lost here in Indianapolis.
Thats why I bitch about preserving things like the Omega building, that ignorant people want to demolish.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top