# Cities that look 'older,' without much newer construction



## davidearl (Sep 10, 2007)

*Las Vegas as ecological disaster*



TalB said:


> Even building the WTB isn't going to make Dubai any better. The thing about Dubai is that it never really grew organically, which is by the people itself. Those who built it up were mainly businessmen and other realtors. Another thing about the boom in Dubai is that they are building like there is no tommorrow. Also, the location isn't very sutiable for uses that involve a lot of water being that the UAE has barely any rivers. I think of what Las Vegas became when hearing about the boom in Dubai, and once it runs out, it can lead to a major drop in poverty. On a side note, I used to remember seeing a commercial for First Union (now Wachovia) when they showed a commercial of a city that relies on a boom and showing what happens when it runs out, and Dubai could end up the same way. I am not trying to offend anyone who likes Dubai by saying this.


I find the whole city of Las Vegas [and Phoenix ] to be an ecological disaster waiting to happen...... pumping water from 1,000 miles away to build a city in the desert...just fucking stupid and wasteful!


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

hudkina said:


> While the city does have a lot of newer construction, it is the older skyscrapers that still dominate.
> 
> 
> Detroit:


liked this pic, some buildings look really good. That one with 1001 in front of it is a work of art, and i like the other one with a green turquoise roof.

very impressive for such a city.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

That one behind 1001 Woodward is called Comerica Tower and is actually the newest major skyscraper in the skyline, though it was built in 1992... It was designed to compliment the older art deco skyscrapers that dominate the skyline.


----------



## PhilippeMtl (Aug 17, 2005)

Epi said:


> 1960-70s
> Montreal
> 
> 
> Of course this really only applies to the central city, not the surrounding areas.


Are you serious about Montreal??

Montreal Skyline in 1963



















Montreal skyline in 2007


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

davidearl said:


> I find the whole city of Las Vegas [and Phoenix ] to be an ecological disaster waiting to happen...... pumping water from 1,000 miles away to build a city in the desert...just fucking stupid and wasteful!


It has been found that artifical islands are also ecological disasters in that they do long term damage to aquatic enivorments.


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

Milan is one of economic centres of Europe, yet seems to have no building built after 80's.


----------



## rossie1977 (Jul 17, 2007)

davidearl said:


> I find the whole city of Las Vegas [and Phoenix ] to be an ecological disaster waiting to happen...... pumping water from 1,000 miles away to build a city in the desert...just fucking stupid and wasteful!


you don't know much about las vegas do you :bash: Hoover Dam, colorado river, lake mead; ring any bells :lol: las vegas also sits on a raging underground river, the hilton hotel sits on top of part of it.

i think your anger should be directed more towards los angeles.....


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Fallout said:


> Milan is one of economic centres of Europe, yet seems to have no building built after 80's.


they have a few skyscrapers UC now...the tallest will be 218m!


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Sometimes new construction can have it flaws in that it causes rents in the areas they are built to go higher and price out those who have been living there for a while.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

bobbycuzin said:


> "older" looking cities definitely have a lot more character than the new skylines popping up all over the world that no longer differentiate one city from another


To be fair, the older architecture in New York City, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc aren't that much different from each other either.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"To be fair, the older architecture in New York City, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc aren't that much different from each other either."

I completely disagree. Each of those cities has its own flair.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

philadweller said:


> "To be fair, the older architecture in New York City, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc aren't that much different from each other either."
> 
> I completely disagree. Each of those cities has its own flair.


They're about as different from each other as the new architecture is. I think modern skyscraper architecture is just as varied, if not more so, than it ever has been.

Not to say there will ever be another Chrysler Building though.

However, just like then, there's a lot of fairly similar architecture throughout the same time period with many individual structures that really stand out.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Most mid-sized cities in the Northeast, (not the big ones).

Specifically Upstate New York and Pennsylvania. Possibly Connecticut too (outside Hartford and Stamford).

Hartford's skyline feels relatively modern compared to say, Albany.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

rossie1977 said:


> you don't know much about las vegas do you :bash: Hoover Dam, colorado river, lake mead; ring any bells :lol: las vegas also sits on a raging underground river, the hilton hotel sits on top of part of it.
> 
> i think your anger should be directed more towards los angeles.....


They are fighting with serious problems of decreasing Colorado levels aren't they?. The city of Las Vegas consumes more than is sustainable through those mentioned resources. 

Of course it will be enough for quite some more time, but the city eats up its future.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

bob rulz said:


> They're about as different from each other as the new architecture is. I think modern skyscraper architecture is just as varied, if not more so, than it ever has been.
> 
> Not to say there will ever be another Chrysler Building though.
> 
> However, just like then, there's a lot of fairly similar architecture throughout the same time period with many individual structures that really stand out.


The difference is that those older buildings followed certain rules. That means there could be reached nice variety and unique structures while there is however a overlaying harmony.

In modern architecture it looks to me like there are mostly two categories. Those modernist buildings who follow to a large extend their blunt and simplistic functional rules, which looks not harmonic but monotone, and on the other side you have those post modern chaotic solitaires. In fact I like many of them... as single eye catcher of an entire district, but they are rather unsuitable for more as their is absolutely no harmony left anymore. Every star architect wants to make its own building as unique as possible, if too many of those buildings are next to each other the result is however the opposite, the chaos becomes monotone as well. I heard about a super rich man who wanted to build an entire district with buildings from those star architect. When he saw how such a district would look like, he came to the conclusion that those buildings did not multiply together in their impression, but rather lead to look boring altogether. He canceled the entire project.

I dont say that there are alternatives to those two described patterns, but they are quite dominant in modern days.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

tigerboy said:


> Montreal is a great great town but is a bit stagnant architecturally.


A bit?!? Me, I'd say a *lot*, but then again there's nothing unique about such a claim....


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> The difference is that those older buildings followed certain rules. That means there could be reached nice variety and unique structures while there is however a overlaying harmony.
> 
> In modern architecture it looks to me like there are mostly two categories. Those modernist buildings who follow to a large extend their blunt and simplistic functional rules, which looks not harmonic but monotone, and on the other side you have those post modern chaotic solitaires. In fact I like many of them... as single eye catcher of an entire district, but they are rather unsuitable for more as their is absolutely no harmony left anymore. Every star architect wants to make its own building as unique as possible, if too many of those buildings are next to each other the result is however the opposite, the chaos becomes monotone as well. I heard about a super rich man who wanted to build an entire district with buildings from those star architect. When he saw how such a district would look like, he came to the conclusion that those buildings did not multiply together in their impression, but rather lead to look boring altogether. He canceled the entire project.
> 
> I dont say that there are alternatives to those two described patterns, but they are quite dominant in modern days.


Well, I do agree to an extent. There's definitely a certain amount of charm that comes with the older buildings that newer structures couldn't hope to match, and some of the most striking buildings are from the 1920s and 1930s. But I love the variety and uniqueness that comes with the newer buildings, and again some of the most striking buildings are modern, as well. And, of course, some of the worst buildings come out of this modern age, too. I agree that a huge mishmash of modern buildings can look pretty bad if done wrong, but when done right it's perhaps the coolest and most amazing architectural achievement.


----------



## Beware (Oct 30, 2007)

*There are (2) two reasons Why, certain, cities " look " older than Others:* *Economics* is the first reason for Architectural and Real Estate " booms " or recessions. *Image* is THE, other, reason Why some cities appear older than Others! Most cities, worldwide, don't place as much value on aesthetics or cosmetics as " world class " cities . It's, understandably, NOT a priority for Them in comparison to overall civic welfare (ex: infrastructure, public safety, etc.) 

*Smaller cities, eager for development, won't mandate design standards for fear of jeopardizing developments. * Many places, including in the United States, don't have the financial resources to pursue architectural trends. If a contemporary, futuristic, etc. appearance isn't a civic priority.... a city's skyline will tend to reflect That mindset! NOT Everyone believes that....


*" Image is Everything! "* - Andre Agassi (Canon " Rebel " camera commercial)​


----------



## PhilippeMtl (Aug 17, 2005)

trainrover said:


> A bit?!? Me, I'd say a *lot*, but then again there's nothing unique about such a claim....


Move to Calgary if you are not happy here, idiot.


----------



## res8qr6m (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned St. Petersburg, Russia.


----------

