# NO TO SKYSCRAPERS!!!



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Has your city and its residents ever opposed constructing a high-rise building to either a particular area or even the whole metro? 

This has been an issue in several major cities whether its decades ago or the present.

*SF* is one example as several of its residents are opposed to the skyscraper building boom in its financial district during the early 60s. The reason is skyscrapers destroy the city's charm and beauty. 

How about your city?


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Copenhagen is pretty much NIMBY city number one... 7 stories is called a highrise here and people oppose even that 

Recently the NIMBYs killed a 100m tower designed by Foster & Partners to be located in the corner of Tivoli facing the city Hall Square..

And that tower had been specially design to fit in - even deliberatly made shorter than the city hall tower.. :gaah:

Even in the upcomming Ørestad Buisness disctrict the height limit is 80m - apperently because there's an airport some 5 km away ( but none of the runways faces that direction ) but hey better keep it safe right? :crazy:

Basicly - you want to build more than 6 floors? FORGET IT!


----------



## canadave87 (Oct 8, 2007)

Ottawa had a height restriction downtown so that buildings wouldn't overshadow Parliament. It was lifted in the late-60s, I believe, but most new construction that gets approved tends to be in the mid-rise range - the tallest building downtown is 106 m, pretty short for a city with a metro population of 1.1 million.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Hong Kong is beginning to see a quality of life movement whereby tall buildings, especially near water, and being rethought to provide more spacing for ventilation and better recreation facilities. After the first big skyscraper (Harbourfront Landmark) came up in the 90s at the water's edge in Kowloon, people have started to wonder what effects these 'skyscraper walls' would have on the community. Now, skyscraper walls is a common discussion point among Hong Kongers.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Vancouver could be considered as one, though maybe to an lesser extent than other cities. The city's design rules place "view cones" and height limits to protect the views of the mountains. If it weren't for these rules, Vancouver could very well have some of the tallest buildings in Canada.

An example of the view cones/height limits:










Outside the downtown peninsuala, it's pretty much NIMBY to density/skyscrapers. But it's getting better....many areas are seeing condo towers pop up, and it looks like that the city is about to relax some of its view cone and height bylaws for the city centre.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

No building's supposed to be taller than Mont Royal here....something tells me our stadium's the one that reaches the highest....


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"No building's supposed to be taller than Mont Royal here....something tells me our stadium's the one that reaches the highest...."

What the hell does that mean? The tower at the stadium is not that tall.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

No, Hartford wasn't ever really that kind of place...

The main obstacle of high-rise development here is the fact that we have too much idle office space, which makes building more doing nothing more than just raising the vacancy rate. hno:

When your tallest building lost a major tenant to the suburbs (which happened recently), making excess space in the process, there is not much of a reason to build even more excess space that isn't going to be filled.

Not really opposition, just economics.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Hong Kong is beginning to see a quality of life movement whereby tall buildings, especially near water, and being rethought to provide more spacing for ventilation and better recreation facilities. After the first big skyscraper (Harbourfront Landmark) came up in the 90s at the water's edge in Kowloon, people have started to wonder what effects these 'skyscraper walls' would have on the community. Now, skyscraper walls is a common discussion point among Hong Kongers.


I find it somewhat strange that the "skyscraper walls" debate is brought up everytime a *lone* skyscraper is proposed, but 15 buildings of a similar (and reasonably tall) height are allowed to pass...

I may not have a degree in aerodynamics, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out which has the more damaging effect - an isolated, single, sleek, slim (even "fat" ones like Hanoi Road, Harbourfront Landmark and Langham Palace) 200m+ building or massive, literally, walls of mid/highrises.

Unless someone fancies showing evidence to the contrary...?


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

Why rejecting skyscrapers ? 

Skyscrapers are more nature-friendly than low-rises as they save plenty of land , and they are also very healthy for eyes to look at


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Skyprince said:


> Why rejecting skyscrapers ?
> 
> Skyscrapers are more nature-friendly than low-rises as they save plenty of land , and they are also very healthy for eyes to look at


Depends on the city: 

- Internally imposed restrictions : in some cities, or even regions, it may destroy the whole charisma of the place and clash with the surrounding buildings (Paris, La Defense aside, and that's a topic in itself - parts of London too; heck most "European" [stereotypical] cities) ~ pretentious examples aside, it would be strange to see even a 150m tower spring up in Hong Kong's little village Lei Yue Mun. Hong Kong also doesn't allow skyscrapers larger than the surrounding mountains, which take precedence.

- Skyscraper walls : refer to Hong Kong

- Poor architectural designs : can you imagine a city if its best looking skyscraper was the Hanoi Road Project in Hong Kong?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

_00_deathscar said:


> I find it somewhat strange that the "skyscraper walls" debate is brought up everytime a *lone* skyscraper is proposed, but 15 buildings of a similar (and reasonably tall) height are allowed to pass...
> 
> I may not have a degree in aerodynamics, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out which has the more damaging effect - an isolated, single, sleek, slim (even "fat" ones like Hanoi Road, Harbourfront Landmark and Langham Palace) 200m+ building or massive, literally, walls of mid/highrises.
> 
> Unless someone fancies showing evidence to the contrary...?


Harbourfront Landmark popped up right at the water's edge, which prompted opposition in nearby Whampoa, home to a lot of towers. The debate began with how developers were able to build so tall, blocking everyone. Then as developments along West Kowloon took hold, multiple towers at a time, old-time residents within the midrises questioned the wind effects of these skyscraper walls.

That's a history lesson in a nutshell. A concept that has evolved over time just as development styles in Kowloon changed. Skyscraper walls are a recent topic, with roots going back to the 90s. Those who don't know would confuse the two's subtle difference amidst many similarities.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Harbourfront Landmark popped up right at the water's edge, which prompted opposition in nearby Whampoa, home to a lot of towers. The debate began with how developers were able to build so tall, blocking everyone. Then as developments along West Kowloon took hold, multiple towers at a time, old-time residents within the midrises questioned the wind effects of these skyscraper walls.
> 
> That's a history lesson in a nutshell. A concept that has evolved over time just as development styles in Kowloon changed. Skyscraper walls are a recent topic, with roots going back to the 90s. Those who don't know would confuse the two's subtle difference amidst many similarities.


What?


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

philadweller said:


> What the hell does that mean? The tower at the stadium is not that tall.


Since the hell you perceive here's all yours, you oughtta be asking yerself the question, instead of the author who's gratefully proud that his city's tallest structure's nowhere close to the city centre, and who never claimed the world's tallest inclined structure as being all that bloody tall in the first place, you nincompoop. You oughtta do something about those balls of yours if you ever wan'em to both hang and swing about....

Just to stamp out any further, potential confusion on the city's structures here: Montrealers and Montréalais alike groan in harmony upon learning about some other stupid highrise going up -- you see, this pastime's plain reflective of the kind o' town I live in....


----------



## ChrisDVD (Apr 19, 2007)

the olympic tower is 175 meters tall..... but i also read one place where it said it was 200.... RIO website would tell us....


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ Exactly. Me too. I've read conflicting quotes on the height of its leaning tower....


----------



## zwischbl (Mar 12, 2005)

in Munich 2 150m buildings, 1 120m building and two 80m buildings couldn´t be built due to a 52.5 majority who didn´t (still doesn´t) want to see high buildings in this city. a building that was built recently should initially become like 200m high but was cut to now only 145m.


----------



## canadave87 (Oct 8, 2007)

Skyprince said:


> Why rejecting skyscrapers ?
> 
> Skyscrapers are more nature-friendly than low-rises as they save plenty of land , and they are also very healthy for eyes to look at


Well, in all three of the Canadian examples cited - Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver - skycrapers are controlled so that a particular feature of the city can be perserved. In Ottawa, the Parliament Buildings and the Peace Tower are meant to dominate downtown, so new buildings need to be sensitive to that. In Montreal, similarly, Mont Royal is supposed to stand over the downtown core, rather than vice-versa, and Vancouver wants to protect the views of the mountain backdrop to downtown, instead of having towers block out the mountains. Generally speaking, it's asthetics coming into play, at least in Canada.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Every skyscraper ever planned in London has been opposed by NIMBY's, English Heritage, politicians and journalists. Frankly it's a miracle there's anything over 100m here.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In the Netherlands, people tend to be against a tower which is higher as the historic church tower. However, some people are against everything.


----------

