# How do you feel about the towers we are getting now?



## thryve (Mar 5, 2005)

After decades of the skyscraper, things have changed.

There was once the Empire State Buildings of the world, then Sears Towers and Lever Houses... the world outside of North America slowly got into the game and put up its towers.

Today around the world we have massive projects in Dubai, the Chicago Spire, NYC's NY Times tower, Shangri-La in Vancouver, Eureka Tower in Melbourne, towers in Bahrain, China, Singapore, and the list goes on...

I know I've left 99.99% of buildings (historically and in modern times) out of this posting, but this thread is for everyone... how do you feel about the architecture and towers we are getting today? It's obvious we're booming, as a world economy... are you happy about this?

Please make reference to specific buildings, as I did to some extent in this posting.

-thryve


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

to me, design nowadays is going for the "sleek, clean-cut, and awe-inspiring" phase. We used to have the Grand old days where one skyscraper would put a whole country on the map, now it is more of a City pride deal.

take for example Taipei 101. awe-inspiring, to say the least. but what else does it do for us, other than be the WTB? its ugly.

now look at 2IFC in hong kong. verrry sleek. almost to the point where it is basically setbacks, forming a slowly rounded top, with an interesting crown. but what does it do for us? Ill admit that it is probably the worlds most beautiful building, but it is so simple. 

burj dubai. I wont even go there because for this little teeny tiny UAE to be doing this is simply a publicity stunt.

clean cut....hmmm. that OTHER HK skyscraper the bank of china comes to mind. As you can see, China has the modern formula for skyscrapers down pat.

petronas towers....way overdone.

as you can see, the golden days of the skyscraper are over. I wasnt even alive during these days, yet Im still aware they will never return. All the mega tall skyscrapers nowadays are too flashy and lack real feeling.
and that is sad. there are many great designs out there, too many to count. my only grudge is against the style of scrapers today in general, when compared to back in the day


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

I really think that we should slow down with the supertalls. They're getting taller and taller, I'd much rather really nice 200m buildings. I think that we're racing to build taller but also forgetting about the nice design.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Most of today's scrapers are glass and steel especially the ones in HK. But I find alot of new scrapers innovative in design like the Chicago Spire for example.

Dubai on the other hand has an overkill of skyscrapers with several planned and approved buildings over 1000 ft.


----------



## ramvid01 (May 31, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Most of today's scrapers are glass and steel especially the ones in HK. But I find alot of new scrapers innovative in design like the Chicago Spire for example.
> 
> Dubai on the other hand has an overkill of skyscrapers with several planned and approved buildings over 1000 ft.


For me personally, I think the building of these uber supertalls like Burj Dubai kinda kills the whole WTB race. It just doesn't have the flair anymore, and also, how big is too big, sure it looks nice, but what does it matter if it's not completely in scale with the rest of the area (not to mention that the designs aren't always as nice as the height).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

ramvid01 said:


> For me personally, I think the building of these uber supertalls like Burj Dubai kinda kills the whole WTB race. It just doesn't have the flair anymore, and also, how big is too big, sure it looks nice, but what does it matter if it's not completely in scale with the rest of the area (not to mention that the designs aren't always as nice as the height).


Unless the Millennium Tower in Tokyo is built then the Burj will have a competition.

Yes The Burj is much taller compared to its neighbouring scrapers. But really, does Dubai need such megastructure?


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

WANCH said:


> But really, does Dubai need such megastructure?


ahh, but what a megastructure it is! :lol:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Rizzato said:


> ahh, but what a megastructure it is! :lol:


It defintely is. And I think Dubai deserves to have one since it's positioning itself to become a world city and the centre of the Middle East.

But again, I still raises the question if Dubai needs one.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Dubai is on a whole different level, and shouldn't be compared with other cities of the world. Dubai has a lot of money, and can spend their way to get architectural masterpieces that other cities simply can't afford. In the end, what we get is what companies want to build to break even and profit.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Well, there's a worldwide boom nowadays but surely there must be some good reason why so many supertalls are being built. Have they worked out how to build cheaper, save floor space, better elevator systems, etc?
The whole fake or sterile feeling is because there are so many and all new. Sure they don't have the same feeling as the ones built in the good old days but that's only because they're been around for ages and everyone recognises them. I'm sure in 50 years time we'll be looking back on the new ones built today in the same way


----------



## thryve (Mar 5, 2005)

Yes, we may look back someday at towers built around 2007 and see them as classics as well, but isn't it safe to say "They don't build them like they used to"? Perhaps the new towers will never look as substantial and powerful as those old stone ones?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*i think they are improving after a low level or crap ones!!!*

i think that skyscrapers were at the height in the 1920s-1930s with the empire state building and rockerfeller centre! but in the 60s and 70s yes they were taller e.g. sears tower , world trade centrebut they didnt look as good. but now i think that the modurn galss wonders we get now are realy good!


----------



## thryve (Mar 5, 2005)

^^ So we've come full circle in a sense... back to good towers again?


----------



## Marcanadian (May 7, 2005)

I think that as the buildings get higher and higher, the designed get lazier and lazier. I find that many buildings being built now are just all glass and it takes away from the whole skyscraper feeling.


----------



## Ginza (May 13, 2006)

I belive the towers/skyscrapers being built represent what we are and what we will become


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

thryve said:


> ^^ So we've come full circle in a sense... back to good towers again?


Depends on if you like the stuff in the 50's-70's. I certainly do, but many people on this forum just write off those buildings as "boxes."


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

I really disagree with the people criticizing todays designs. You have to remember when the empire state building was built, people raised the ame questions and eventually everyone started to love them. I find that todays designs are very artistic and very representative of its time. I am sure they will become classics in the future.


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

Zaki said:


> I really disagree with the people criticizing todays designs. You have to remember when the empire state building was built, people raised the ame questions and eventually everyone started to love them. I find that todays designs are very artistic and very representative of its time. I am sure they will become classics in the future.


thats exactly how I feel, that the designs we have now are GREAT
but the whole sleek, glassy artistic building theme is not my favorite. I like art deco and more humble buildings...not this burj dubai and moscow tower crap. chicago spire is a nice design, call me biased, better than BD and moscow.


----------



## billyandmandy (Jun 6, 2006)

most new designs are really nice but they all look the same in a way, when you come to think of it. They're all glass and concrete, lots and lots of concrete. Now back in the 1920s and 1930's, now that's real artistic beauty- the details were important. The height too, of course but still... I like old classic skyscrapers more (though I love the IFC in Hong Kong and Federation Tower in Moscow).


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

billyandmandy said:


> most new designs are really nice but they all look the same in a way, when you come to think of it. They're all glass and concrete, lots and lots of concrete. Now back in the 1920s and 1930's, now that's real artistic beauty- the details were important. The height too, of course but still... I like old classic skyscrapers more (though I love the IFC in Hong Kong and Federation Tower in Moscow).


If you go look at the 30s architecture from New York or Chicago, you ll realize that they are all pretty much the same too. Infact i think we have far more variety in today's designs.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

^I agree with billyandmandy, at least the first sentence. Nowadays most starchitects seem to rehash the same designs and buildings in each city. So basically every city wants a Gehry building, a Piano museum expansion, etc.

There were definitely some very influential architects in the 20's and before, but they tended to limit their work to one or two cities, whereas today's architects have buildings everywhere and not enough variety.


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

Zaki said:


> If you go look at the 30s architecture from New York or Chicago, you ll realize that they are all pretty much the same too. Infact i think we have far more variety in today's designs.


wow man. how wrong you are! also, I invite you to prove your point.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

^^ Well, a lot 20s towers do have similar features, colours, etc.

Someone made a really good point yesterday (not in this thread I think) as to why people generally prefer older buildings. His point was "old buildings look like they were crafted by men while new ones look like they were crafted by machines".


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

I think all this debate is mostly: "They have it, not us ... so it must be crap ..."


----------



## billyandmandy (Jun 6, 2006)

^^ that is so true. but hasn't it always been like this. ex: parisians hated the Eiffel at first, but now it's the city symbol. The Empire State Building was nicknamed the Empty State Buiding because people didn't like and rent it. In some thirty years today's skyscrapers will be classic beauty compared to the one's then.  (they'll probably be 1-2km high giants with cities being buit around them just to service them (like Versailles :cheers: ))


----------



## billyandmandy (Jun 6, 2006)

the above refers to what malec siad


----------



## Inkdaub (Dec 28, 2006)

I love the tall buildings no question. I love the ultra-modern designs and I love the gothic, the art deco, the fusion pieces...etc. What worries me is the speed with which some of these buildings are going up. Burj Dubai has cracks in it's foundation...will this be an isolated problem? To be honest I don't know how common it is to have cracks in the foundation of any building, much less one as big a Burj Dubai. It sounds like a problem, though. I guess what I worry about is that the competition to build taller and taller and faster and faster will cause problems in the future.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Rizzato said:


> wow man. how wrong you are! also, I invite you to prove your point.












They all look pretty similar to me. Brown boxes tapering off with small windows. With todays scrapers, you have everything from plain boxes, to egg shaped buidlings, to twisted buildings, to setbacks, to leaning towers, and snake like towers, and the list goes on and on.

I guess the main thing is, if you don't live in a city where there is a lot of QUALITY new constuction, yu start believing things like all modern towers suck. What you have to remember was not all the buildings built in the 20s and 30s was a chrysler or empire state and that most places of the world didn't see the quality you are speaking of. And in the same way, there is still a lot of quality skyscrapers going up, just in other parts of the world.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Muhaha so much crap in this thread. 
The WTB titel isn`t so special anymore because there are so many new taller skyscraper..... :nuts: 

We will have 3 new WTB`s in a timespan of 10 years. And your problem is?

The world had between 1890 and 1899 5 new WTB (in only 9 years)
Between 1908 and 1913 we had 3 new WTB`s (in only 5 years)
Between 1930 and 1931 we had 3 new WTB`s (that`s onyl one year)
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/tallest.htm


We are now in the biggest boom with the greatest designed skyscrapers since 1930 and you are complaining? Too shiny ? Are you stuck in the past? 

Designes like this will write a new part in the histroy of architecture.

















You don`t like it? Who cares?!
Your children will praise such builngs if you don`t do it by yourself


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

it's absolutely great how many skyscrapers are UC/Proposed/Approved today, especially the lots of supertalls. i love skylines with a dense wood of skyscrapers (like NY)


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Tom_Green said:


> Designes like this will write a new part in the histroy of architecture.


You're looking at the "gems" of these developments, but look at the surrounding buildings - most of them suck.

Whereas in this photo, even the filler towers are full of detail.


----------



## salvius (Aug 4, 2004)

^ I think you've hit it. I'm a big fan of properly done modernist, international style buildings. But there's so much crap out there too. And yet if you look at the old days, even second rate buildings, hell even FACTORIES and WAREHOUSES we covet for lofts nowadays, had splendid architectural detail.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

Yes, yes, mine is good ... yours is bad.


----------



## Alle (Sep 23, 2005)

spyguy said:


> You're looking at the "gems" of these developments, but look at the surrounding buildings - most of them suck.
> 
> Whereas in this photo, even the filler towers are full of detail.


I believe many/most of the buildings around BD in that render are just placeholders and not the actual buildings going to be built on those plots. Atleast those in the DIFC area, and scrapers alongside SZR next to BD.

Whereas your example (New York?) is a actual photograph, i believe when u take a photo of the BD area in 2010 you will also see a lot of unique and detailed buildings and cityscaping in general.

The lack of detail can also be a result of the increasing strive to accomplish more stylistic pure deisgns. Its a matter of taste as different architectural styles have more or less detailed facades, more or less ornaments etc.


----------



## salvius (Aug 4, 2004)

AltinD said:


> Yes, yes, mine is good ... yours is bad.


Please explain. I'm not sure I understand your comment; this criticism holds for any city.

There is no DOUBT that secondary buildings today receive far less care than they had at one time; the masonry I see on a FACTORY built hundred years ago often holds exquisite detail vs an average residential building. Think about the warehouses of today and warehouses of yesterday. That's the reason people like lofts. Nobody is going to be turning those non-descript modern-day warehouse boxes or factories into this a 100-150 years or so from now:



Not gonna happen!

Times are different and materials are cheaper, that's just how it is.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

I can't say that higher=uglier because I like the design of Burj Dubai and it is easy to build 200m skyscrapers that look like shit. 
But yes, the materials are cheaper and it's really a shame because in the year 2030 warehouses built today are worth nothing.


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

Zaki said:


> . With todays scrapers, you have everything from plain boxes, to egg shaped buidlings, to twisted buildings, to setbacks, to leaning towers, and snake like towers, and the list goes on and on.


exactly my point, you proved it! I hate how buildings nowadays are seen as cool because they are some new stupid shape! I like buildings with class like the WTC, chrysler building, eiffel tower. modern buildings are cool...but are tacky when compared to classic architecture. enjoy your buildings (shaped like eggs)


----------



## Alle (Sep 23, 2005)

Rizzato said:


> exactly my point, you proved it! I hate how buildings nowadays are seen as cool because they are some new stupid shape! I like buildings with class like the WTC, chrysler building, eiffel tower. modern buildings are cool...but are tacky when compared to classic architecture. enjoy your buildings (shaped like eggs)


Once again, i think that shows clearly its a matter of taste. Personally i mostly prefer less detailed, "clean" designs.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

I'm definitely a fan of things like ESB, Chrysler, and then Sears, etc. But times have moved on, and I really love the glassy scrapers we are building nowadays, feels so much like the future sci/fi world we see in the movies. Personally, I love it when we build scrapers in context. 

T101, for example, is not a bad tower, though not my fav, but is seriously out of place, just plopped in the middle of Taipei, so out of context. 

2IFC, even, is a fantastic building, among my favorites, but is built too far out, and grabs too much attention from even a skyline like HK

Like hkskyline said, Dubai cannot be compared, I have to wait until its all done to comment on it. They're just very rich, and smart to invest in something before the world starts running out of oil. But to me, this amount of capital seems to turn Dubai into a plastic, mass manufactured city. The results might be good though.

Freedom Tower in NYC is another glassy, and I absolutely love it. 

Nothing else is coming to mind right now.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Rizzato said:


> exactly my point, you proved it! I hate how buildings nowadays are seen as cool because they are some new stupid shape! I like buildings with class like the WTC, chrysler building, eiffel tower. modern buildings are cool...but are tacky when compared to classic architecture. enjoy your buildings (shaped like eggs)


What your saying is just taste. Some people don't like unique buildings, others find that unique buildings are great when done right. And although today you can find many unique builings done wrong, you can also fine more unique buildings done right than the number of buildings they had back in the 20s. What you call class, i call old, its just a matter of perspective.


----------

