# Urban Planning Thesis on Skyscrapers



## Manazir (May 13, 2009)

Hey guys,

For my Bachelors thesis in Urban Planning, I am looking for some ideas and options for a discussion topic on my paper and after some brainstorming, I came across several topics which I am interested in and since skyscrapers are virtually "vertical cities" and are an important part of many big cities/urban developments around the world, I thought, why not write about it? 

But the problem is, I have been finding it a bit hard to come up with a really catchy theme/question/topic..

So far I have come across something like:

"Significance of skyscrapers for a sustainable (future) urban growth/development" 
or
"Necessity of skyscrapers in overpopulated/overcrowded cities - a case study of.. let's say.. an Asian megacity" etc..

Basically I would love to focus on emerging skyscraper developments in developing (aka '3rd-world') countries. I would like to make the connection of the building boom with urban development. 


So if there's anyone here who is/are kind enough to give me their opinions and thoughts on this topic and/or give me some excellent ideas what I can write about, that would be really awesome and appreciated!  

Thanks a lot ladies and gents!


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

I like the first idea focusing on sustainability. I've encountered a fair amount of disagreement regarding the environmental friendliness of skyscrapers. Some people cite the density aspect in that skyscrapers can allow a parcel of land to accommodate a larger number of people and uses, and since we know that greater density is generally more sustainable and environmentally friendly, it would stand to reason that skyscrapers are also environmentally friendly. Other people argue that the amount of concrete and other environmentally harsh materials that are often used, along with a need for additional internal utility spaces such as elevators and stairwells and the extra energy used to provide heating/cooling and other services that they're overall not good for the environment. I'd be interested in someone researching the topic in greater depth in an attempt to settle this debate.

Of course it would be necessary to establish what we mean by "skyscraper" because definitions vary with some calling any multi-story highrise a skyscraper at the low end, and others restricting the term for buildings over 150m, 200m, or more. It would be interesting to see someone determine the most environmentally friendly height.

Another angle is that there are new, sustainable building materials being introduced. Wood highrises have been getting a lot of attention lately due to advances in fire resistence, as have newer types of concrete that require less energy and lower CO2 emissions. Obviously wood isn't _necessarily_ an environmentally friendly material if it's not grown or harvested in an appropriate way, but it _can_ be done right at which point producing the material results in low embedded energy, and carbon neutrality. Perhaps you could examine the significance of organic, biodegradable building materials to the future of sustainable skyscraper construction? 

Another possible topic would be the battle between ground/street life and air/sky life and possible ways to reconcile the two. What I mean is that in many cities - at least in North America and Europe, people oppose highrises due to shadowing and street level presence (not human-scaled). Is it even possible to reconcile these issues? Or will many cities restrict highrises to small geographic areas such as central business districts or lower income areas while most of the cityscape remains off limits? Can highrises be mixed into lowrises areas without negatively affecting them? And how much are the negative affects of highrises real vs perception?

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Best of luck and let us know how things turn out!


----------



## Manazir (May 13, 2009)

^^
Thanks so much for your valuable input! 

Seems like the topic of sustainability is popular among everyone. So I am also inclined to discuss this issue on my paper. I've also heard negative opinions on skyscrapers, especially here in Europe, which is why there are only a handful of European cities where you would actually come across skyscrapers. And even those are concentrated mainly at the CBD/central downtown areas. Excellent examples are Frankfurt, Warsaw, and London. 

In other cases, for example Paris or Madrid or Moscow or Istanbul, special financial districts away from the city center have been built to accommodate tall high-rises. This negative European sentiment on skyscrapers is why I also don't want to discuss about skyscraper developments in a European context on my thesis case study. For me it is more interesting to discuss Asian cities and their urban developments in relation to skyscraper constructions because these cities are still growing and developing, and there are so many issues you can discuss right there, from population growth to traffic to environmental issues. It's a broad topic. Plus they don't oppose skyscrapers as much as they do in Europe so that argument can be off the table.

While I do agree on the materials part, I think that would be more of a job for an architect. If I was studying Architecture, then that subject would be more focused on my thesis. But as an urban planner, I think I should stick more to the planning and environmental part than the actual construction and materials part. Of course that can be mentioned, but not in-depth-coverage. 

For me personally, skyscrapers are high-rise buildings which have a height of 200+ meters! 

But I do like the questions you pointed out on that last paragraph of yours! 

Let me know what you think of my feedback. Thank you once again and of course will keep everyone updated if something significant happens 

P.S. Suggestions/opinions/advice/help from others are still welcome!


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Your response makes me wonder: what's the reason for the huge difference in acceptance of highrises in some cities and regions compared to others? Do the people in places such as South America and Asia not mind them due to cultural differences? Or do they mind them but their governments are less responsive to their wishes? Or perhaps highrises are seen as the only practical option to house the large and growing populations in those places. I can understand why people in latitudes nearer the poles might have a greater dislike due to the larger shadows they cast, although I'm not sure if there's a correlation.


----------



## Rufus (Feb 9, 2006)

I have a Masters in Urban Studies, and rarely skyscrapers are discussed, so i find this super interesting. 

Maybe reshape the idea of the skyscraper within a cultural and regional context? It's very clear that each region of the world developed different urban planning styles, but the skyscraper has been pervasive throughout the world as a means of urban development. So, maybe your question can be: 

What does the skyscraper pose for regional/cultural urban planning contexts?


----------



## Manazir (May 13, 2009)

Nouvellecosse said:


> Your response makes me wonder: what's the reason for the huge difference in acceptance of highrises in some cities and regions compared to others? Do the people in places such as South America and Asia not mind them due to cultural differences? Or do they mind them but their governments are less responsive to their wishes? Or perhaps highrises are seen as the only practical option to house the large and growing populations in those places. I can understand why people in latitudes nearer the poles might have a greater dislike due to the larger shadows they cast, although I'm not sure if there's a correlation.


To answer your question briefly, European cities have strict laws on building heights and architecture to protect the historic buildings which are found in the city center as well as in other parts of the cities, and also to protect the aesthetics. This historical importance is also one of many reasons why Europeans are so keen on preserving the cities the way they are.

Think of Eiffel Tower in Paris for example. Imagine there were high rises all around it at the core of the city, how would the cityscape/skyline look like? Definitely an eyesore and and important landmark like Eiffel Tower would be completely out of view right? 

Also, land cost, building regulations, demographics, and space restrictions influence the building of skyscrapers in European cities. If land is cheap, building a skyscraper would be costly. Plus, population growth is not a huge issue in European cities as they have plenty of space. 

Some European cities which were completely destroyed in WWII like Warsaw and Rotterdam have a higher density of skyscrapers in their downtown because well, their historic buildings were already destroyed and they needed to recover and go vertical to cope with their post-war urban development. 

These examples are not present in Asia, and also in Asia, money talks. So that's why Asian cities have more skyscrapers.


----------



## Manazir (May 13, 2009)

Rufus said:


> I have a Masters in Urban Studies, and rarely skyscrapers are discussed, so i find this super interesting.
> 
> Maybe reshape the idea of the skyscraper within a cultural and regional context? It's very clear that each region of the world developed different urban planning styles, but the skyscraper has been pervasive throughout the world as a means of urban development. So, maybe your question can be:
> 
> What does the skyscraper pose for regional/cultural urban planning contexts?


Thank you so much first of all!  I was always into skyscrapers and neo-modern architecture, and I live in a European city - Hamburg - which is the second largest city in Germany with over 1.8 million people and there are virtually no skyscrapers to speak of, same goes for Berlin and Munich and many other major European cities. So I was wondering, why the hell there aren't any skyscrapers here like in North America or Asia or Australia?

I do like the question you suggested. It is a very good one indeed. Another good example I just thought of is from the GCC. 

Dubai and Doha are both on a skyscraper race. But their neighbor city Muscat is experiencing similar levels of development (although kinda behind Dubai/Doha) yet there are no skyscrapers to speak of there! Muscat's construction industry is huge and booming! But they are mostly building modern buildings which are no more than 10-15 stories but incorporate architecture elements reflective of the Omani culture. 

So from this I could also think of a very good discussion topic I suppose


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Manazir said:


> To answer your question briefly, European cities have strict laws on building heights and architecture to protect the historic buildings which are found in the city center as well as in other parts of the cities, and also to protect the aesthetics. This historical importance is also one of many reasons why Europeans are so keen on preserving the cities the way they are.
> 
> Think of Eiffel Tower in Paris for example. Imagine there were high rises all around it at the core of the city, how would the cityscape/skyline look like? Definitely an eyesore and and important landmark like Eiffel Tower would be completely out of view right?
> 
> ...


So your preferred explanation is that European cities tend to have a larger number or proportion of historical buildings than Asian cities and therefore highrises look less appropriate because their modern designs clash with historical styles? Or is it simply that Europeans have different aesthetic tastes? The scenario of Paris and the Eiffel tower is a great example of what prompted the original question. The fact that skyscrapers would be "Definitely an eyesore" from your European perspective suggests that Europeans consider them aesthetically unattractive, but this view seems to be less common in other parts of the world with regard to skyscrapers near major landmarks and monuments. It also seems that the idea of architectural aesthetic "clash" has been part of the European mindset for quite some time considering the Eiffel tower itself was originally considered a horrible eyesore on the cityscape.

Perhaps it's that Asian cultures are more likely to see beauty in individual buildings rather than an urban landscape. Or that they find beauty in contrast and juxtaposition rather than in consistency and cohesion. Of course I realize this is too complex a question for anyone to answer without doing significant research, but the answer would have major implications to urban development in the respective regions.


----------



## sophiesd (Nov 6, 2021)

Hey guys, I am in a double degree with my business school in France, and a university in Shanghai to study Management science and Engineering. I chose for my final thesis to talk about Skyscrapers and their sustainability, from an European point of view. But actually I am pretty lost and I don't know where to start. The problem is im in a business school so I don't have any models on the topic I chose. Would you mind sending me some models of thesis ?? 

It would be very helpful to have an example... thank you very much ))


----------

