Tall Buildings:
Skyscrapers are usually designed according to a template (a rectangular slab)
Ignore context and environment
Imposition of architect’s will
Can never arise from step-by-step adaptation
Unsustainable:
Skyscrapers can never be made sustainable
Using the latest technology does not alter their intrusive character
They introduce urban singularity
From a colleague (Michael Imber):
Claim that tall buildings are sustainable is a cruel fraud
Excessive heat gain and loss from unshaded exposures and typical glazing systems
“Heat island” effects
Require materials with very high embedded energy
Skyscraper floor plates are inefficient — excessive space requirements for lifts and for emergency exit stairs (more floors==more waste)
They block the sun and view (view is aesthetic - maybe not a big deal; sun builds Vitamin D in the skin and to avoid depression)
Create wind effects at the ground level (urban tunnels, downgusts, etc.)
Carbon benefits of urban density level-off at 4 to 6 storey building envelope
Social Problems:
Ground floor usually disconnected
Christopher Alexander’s pattern: children living more than 4 storeys from the ground feel disconnected (leads to child pathologies)
Leon Krier proposed tall buildings that are monuments, not residences
Religious icons:
Le Corbusier’s “Towers in the Park” has become a religious symbol
Worshiped by modernist urbanists
Despite repeated disasters, still used as “modern” typology the world over
…with towers of ever increasing height! People never learn…
Good tall buildings:
Must be very few in any city
Always in the high-density center
Ground floor helps urban fabric
Examples from late 19th Century, early 20th Century
Thin, not too tall, hierarchy of scales
No setbacks (from the street)
Conclusion:
There are several branches of New Urbanism practiced today
All of them are far better than zones car-dependent sprawl, or skyscrapers in the park — a monstrous idea
Communities the world over are building neo-traditional developments