TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities

84 pointsby misnamedover 8 years ago

9 comments

jpatokalover 8 years ago
Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don&#x27;t appear on the charts because they&#x27;re &quot;only&quot; in the 150m range.<p>Also, the &quot;cities&quot; are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of those Chinese cities.
评论 #13478424 未加载
评论 #13478657 未加载
评论 #13479700 未加载
broysoxover 8 years ago
It&#x27;s surprising to see Boston this high on the list despite the insurmountable limits it faces building upward:<p>1) The Logan height restriction that much of downtown faces due to the airport&#x27;s proximity:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.massport.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;11778&#x2F;BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_dec201_small.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.massport.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;11778&#x2F;BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_d...</a><p>2) The city&#x27;s most desirable neighborhoods (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Charlestown Navy Yard) are protected as historical districts:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;boston.maps.arcgis.com&#x2F;home&#x2F;webmap&#x2F;viewer.html?webmap=95cbbaff8b664fd9aac5f00ee50b8c05" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;boston.maps.arcgis.com&#x2F;home&#x2F;webmap&#x2F;viewer.html?webmap...</a><p>3) The overall NIMBY attitude toward new development (surmountable yet heavily suppressed by nearly 400 years of it):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bostonglobe.com&#x2F;metro&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;23&#x2F;boston-storied-history-nimby-ism&#x2F;ABus2RAm8JRWdIWjq15alM&#x2F;story.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bostonglobe.com&#x2F;metro&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;23&#x2F;boston-storied-...</a><p>That said, there are somehow 5 in the pipeline at 600+ feet:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;boston.curbed.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;boston-tallest-buildings" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;boston.curbed.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;boston-tallest-buildings</a>
评论 #13478353 未加载
评论 #13476684 未加载
评论 #13476271 未加载
评论 #13477270 未加载
hoodwinkover 8 years ago
The history of tall buildings is that of huge egos. Sure, market forces cause rational developers to build more density when land prices are high... but not skyscraper high. The risk is too significant. The existence of these monoliths, in my opinion, is best explained by psychology, not standard economics.
评论 #13479855 未加载
cwmmaover 8 years ago
Comparing cities is very tricky because different cities governments cover different things, think Minneapolis and St. Paul or Boston which didn&#x27;t annex many of it&#x27;s suburbs compared to cities like Chicago or New York hence why it has such a high building hight, because a real comparison would include Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Quincy, Newton and other jurisdictions that are part of the core city.
newswriter99over 8 years ago
I am surprised they left out Houston, which has the most urban sprawl of any US city. There&#x27;s tons of construction going on in the city as well. But for the lack of zoning laws, Houston would be a larger city than NYC.<p>Not that I would suggest other cities copy Houston&#x27;s (lack of) urban planning, but leaving out such a singular example seems strange. Especially since they included Austin.
评论 #13477340 未加载
spraakover 8 years ago
One example of being too flat is Mesa, Arizona.
评论 #13478896 未加载
ovulatorover 8 years ago
I know this is focusing on details, but there is no Ann Arbor, WI. The article copied over the typo from the study. Confusing.<p>I wish the study explained why they chose the 12 cities they did.<p>Also their populations do not match the census like they say they do, I am left to question any validity this study has.
评论 #13476473 未加载
评论 #13481867 未加载
wahernover 8 years ago
&gt; These areas boast an abundance of mid-rise, open-floor plan, historic buildings that create street-level interaction, where people and ideas can combine and recombine to form new innovations and startup companies.<p>Historic office buildings are anything but open-floor plan-based. Open-floor plans suck for startups because the square footage is usually immense, which means you can&#x27;t rent office space cheaply. That&#x27;s why early stage startups these days end up working in accelerators where they can share space, if they&#x27;re operating out of commercial space at all. Where startups operate with large open floor plans, it&#x27;s because they&#x27;ve migrated to cheap areas with lots of supply and low demand, namely vacant industrial areas. But those are becoming scarce within cities.<p>The image of startups in open floor plans is really an artifact of necessity, with rationalizations after-the-fact for why they might be better. And in any event, anybody who has worked in the 1970s and 1980s era single-story office buildings in Silicon Valley knows that the layouts were typically neither totally open nor closed, but had spaces with varying qualities.<p>I have a small (2-3 person max) private office in an historic building in San Francisco&#x27;s Financial District. Since the building was constructed in 1890, it&#x27;s been principally occupied by professionals--doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc--who don&#x27;t typically have many employees, if any. Over the past 5 years I&#x27;ve increasingly seen more tech startups here and it&#x27;s really ideal for them because they can rent just enough space for what they need. And while the building management has leased a few floors in their entirety to some businesses (a securities trading firm, a game company, a law firm), they seem committed to keeping most of their space in a more traditional[1] layout.<p>And I&#x27;m really thankful for that commitment because I hate open-floor layouts. I like having my own, truly private space that isn&#x27;t subleased from a larger office. These types of buildings are a rarity. I don&#x27;t have to walk past any other desk (other than the security desk downstairs) coming to or leaving from my office. I don&#x27;t have to worry about questions about why I come at noon one day and don&#x27;t leave until noon the next day (all-night hacking session), nobody knows if I&#x27;m taking a nap, doing my taxes, etc. Not that I&#x27;d be offended by such questions, it&#x27;s just that real privacy makes for a much less stressful and more productive environment for me, and I imagine many other people. At the same time, I really benefit from my work space and home space being separate.<p>[1] Very traditional, I should say, given that large open floor plans started in the 1950s. One of the earliest modernist skyscrapers in the now archetypal International Style--open floors, glass curtain walls, highly segregated service areas--the Crown Zellerbach Building, is one block from here, built in 1959. It&#x27;s just a completely different architectural style internally. Night &amp; day.
评论 #13475696 未加载
评论 #13477333 未加载
equaluniqueover 8 years ago
I&#x27;m amused this came up today, simply because I&#x27;m currently reading The Fountainhead.