Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#21

Post by astrodust »

ComradeTaco wrote: post #19
broysox wrote: post #6

It's surprising to see Boston this high on the list despite the insurmountable limits it faces building upward: 1) The Logan height restriction that much of downtown faces due to the airport's proximity: https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_d... 2) The city's most desirable neighborhoods (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Charlestown Navy Yard) are protected as historical districts: http://bosto…

Much of it has to do with the preposterous price of real estate and pent up demand in Boston. Finding a condo anywhere near a transit station 20 minutes out will cost you north of 400K. 10 minutes and you're looking at 600K.

Sounds like a bargain compared to some other cities.

Urban demand is at record levels. San Francisco's prices are basically nonsensical at this point.

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#22

Post by chordatum »

jpatokal wrote: post #14

Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range. Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of t…

  150 meters 
   = 45 floors 
     @ 10 feet / story
I guess that's a large building to enter and experience as a human space, but how does it affect the skyline?

If the horizon crests at ~25 miles at sea level here on earth, what's the distance from which it can be seen. I think that's a relevant measure for the effect of a building on its surrounding community.

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#23

Post by pcr0 »

chordatum wrote: post #22
jpatokal wrote: post #14

Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range. Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of t…

150 meters = 45 floors @ 10 feet / story I guess that's a large building to enter and experience as a human space, but how does it affect the skyline? If the horizon crests at ~25 miles at sea level here on earth, what's the distance from which it can be seen. I think that's a relevant measure for the effect of a building on its surrounding community.

In Hong Kong, most apartment buildings built in the last 15 years are about that height or taller. New commercial buildings are often double that.

Though your measure of effect on the surrounding community wouldn't really apply here as the buildings aren't that tall when compared to surrounding mountains.

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#25

Post by chordatum »

pcr0 wrote: post #23
chordatum wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

150 meters = 45 floors @ 10 feet / story I guess that's a large building to enter and experience as a human space, but how does it affect the skyline? If the horizon crests at ~25 miles at sea level here on earth, what's the distance from which it can be seen. I think that's a relevant measure for the effect of a building on its surrounding community.

In Hong Kong, most apartment buildings built in the last 15 years are about that height or taller. New commercial buildings are often double that. Though your measure of effect on the surrounding community wouldn't really apply here as the buildings aren't that tall when compared to surrounding mountains.

I agree. That particular horizon figure is the only one I know off the top of my head, due to reading up on naval ballistics. Hence the remark about sea level.

Anything else requires some napkin math about the circumfrence of the earth and radial offsets for non-sea-level terrain, combine with a bit of triangulation, to estimate skyline impact. Then, heaped on top is the effects of local topography contours and relative relationships with other human structures.

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#26

Post by hoodwink »

The history of tall buildings is that of huge egos. Sure, market forces cause rational developers to build more density when land prices are high... but not skyscraper high. The risk is too significant. The existence of these monoliths, in my opinion, is best explained by psychology, not standard economics.

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#27

Post by sho »

jpatokal wrote: post #14

Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range. Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of t…

> Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta

No it's not? It's true that the cities are basically connected by urban sprawl, but administratively it's definitely a separate entity.

A case could be made that it's part of Greater Jakarta but that's a pandora's box of definitions and interpretations...

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#28

Post by sho »

astrodust wrote: post #20
jpatokal wrote: post #14

Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range. Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of t…

It is odd picking that metric. Those are exceptionally tall buildings. For example, somehow one of the largest cities in the world, São Paulo, didn't even make the list despite having an outrageous number of tall buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? I'm confused why these were omitted.

> Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong?

The graphs are for new completions, which almost by definition favours developing countries. Evidently Tokyo and HK didn't complete any 200m+ buildings in 2015. And while São Paulo has a very impressive concentration of tall buildings, it has zero above 200m.

I agree about 200m+ buildings being a strange metric, though. For all intents and purposes there's little difference, from an urban dynamics perspective, between 150m and 200m construction.

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#29

Post by TheArcane »

hoodwink wrote: post #26

The history of tall buildings is that of huge egos. Sure, market forces cause rational developers to build more density when land prices are high... but not skyscraper high. The risk is too significant. The existence of these monoliths, in my opinion, is best explained by psychology, not standard economics.

Can any economist here explain why skyscrapers are a bad idea?

Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

#30

Post by astrodust »

sho wrote: post #28
astrodust wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is odd picking that metric. Those are exceptionally tall buildings. For example, somehow one of the largest cities in the world, São Paulo, didn't even make the list despite having an outrageous number of tall buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? I'm confused why these were omitted.

> Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? The graphs are for new completions, which almost by definition favours developing countries. Evidently Tokyo and HK didn't complete any 200m+ buildings in 2015. And while São Paulo has a very impressive concentration of tall buildings, it has zero above 200m. I agree about 200m+ buildings being a strange metric, though. For all intents and purposes there's little difference, from an urban…

There are many cities where building a 200m+ building is impractical, ridiculous, or totally out of character, yet these cities are highly dense, and by any definition, "great" cities.

I'm really confused as to why they'd pick this particular metric. Later on in the article they talk about density patterns which is a much better predictor of health.

Post reply on HN