Yule Heibel's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
Ed Glaeser on development limits. (This fits in with the recent spate of interest in Vancouver around Market Urbanism, too.)
QUOTE
The relationship between housing supply and affordability isn't just a matter of economic theory. A great deal of evidence links the supply of space with the cost of real estate. Simply put, the places that are expensive don't build a lot, and the places that build a lot aren't expensive. Perhaps a new 40-story building won't itself house any quirky, less profitable firms, but by providing new space, the building will ease pressure on the rest of the city. Price increases in gentrifying older areas will be muted because of new construction. Growth, not height restrictions and a fixed building stock, keeps space affordable and ensures that poorer people and less profitable firms can stay and help a thriving city remain successful and diverse. Height restrictions do increase light, and preservation does protect history, but we shouldn't pretend that these benefits come without a cost.
UNQUOTE
This sentence, "Simply put, the places that are expensive don't build a lot, and the places that build a lot aren't expensive," applies very well to greenspace-eating suburban sprawl, too. It's cheap to build single-family homes for Victoria families on Langford's Bear Mountain or in the Cowichan Valley, but our city politicians (and NIMBY community organizations) continue to ensure that it's prohibitive (if not impossible) to develop (tall) buildings right downtown, where we have ridiculous height restrictions to go with a moribund economy and scores of empty storefronts. Further down in the article, Glaeser also notes: "One could quite plausibly argue that if members of the landmarks commission have decided that a building can be razed, then they should demand that its replacement be as tall as possible." This makes sense, and again, we don't do it (here), insisting that razed, empty parking lots in heritage-designated districts can only be built up according to severe height and density restrict
-
The cost of restricting development is that protected areas have become more expensive and more exclusive. In 2000, people who lived in historic districts in Manhattan were on average almost 74 percent wealthier than people who lived outside such areas. Almost three-quarters of the adults living in historic districts had college degrees, as opposed to 54 percent outside them. People living in historic districts were 20 percent more likely to be white. The well-heeled historic-district denizens who persuade the landmarks commission to prohibit taller structures have become the urban equivalent of those restrictive suburbanites who want to mandate five-acre lot sizes to keep out the riffraff. It’s not that poorer people could ever afford 980 Madison Avenue, but restricting new supply anywhere makes it more difficult for the city to accommodate demand, and that pushes up prices everywhere.
-
The land costs something, but in a 40-story building with one 1,200-square-foot unit per floor, each unit is using only 30 square feet of Manhattan—less than a thousandth of an acre. At those heights, the land costs become pretty small. If there were no restrictions on new construction, then prices would eventually come down to somewhere near construction costs, about $500,000 for a new apartment. That’s a lot more than the $210,000 that it costs to put up a 2,500-square-foot house in Houston—but a lot less than the $1 million or more that such an apartment often costs in Manhattan.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
File under "inspiration":
QUOTE
Over the past two years, the Brazilian artist has created a series of photographs of the facades of contemporary architectural gems from a skewed point of view. Looking straight up the surface of modern skyscrapers, [Bruno] Cals composes pictures that look more like surrealist landscapes than depictions of buildings.
UNQUOTE
Interesting interview with Kenneth Yeang on building green skyscrapers & cities.
QUOTE
The industry must revolutionize the entire building cycle, says Mr. Yeang, "from the extraction of materials to make the building material...to [their] transportation, storage and delivery, to the design, construction and assembly of the building, to the...transportation and movement of people to and from the building." The goal is to build structures that not only have a minimal impact on the natural environment but also benefit the ecology of the site and the world's climate.
UNQUOTE
Impressive-looking vertical farming on a 26-storey tower to be built in Singapore.
Photos & text about the planned 200 m. tall triangular skyscraper (called Le Projet Triangle) by Herzon and de Meuron, for the Porte de Versailles in Paris. Allegedly so slim that it will hardly cast a shadow, it will also incorporate solar and wind power components.
-

-
Paris’ new pyramid will be the first high-rise to be approved for construction is the city’s center since 1977, thanks to the recent lifting of a 31-year-old ban established by the previous Mayor of paris, Jacques Chirac.
- 3 more annotation(s)...
Nice article by Richard Rys about architecture critic Inga Saffron in Philadelphia. Ok, I know I can't be her, but I loved the article, if only because I wish I had the energy to dress like her -- my perennial jeans & t-shirt thing is wearing thin (literally). (Although I DO have a Pashmina shawl EXACTLY like the one she's wearing. Hmmm, maybe there's hope -- if only sartorial? -- for me yet!)
- one of many pages on "Innovations for the Built Environment" conference coming up in London, Feb. 26-28/08. This page is from the "seminars" section, which lists many sessions over those 2 days. Other sections include links to the "exhibit," "attractions," "the arena," "conference," and more.
Four and a half minute video of Santiago Calatrava's planned "Chicago Spire" (also called "Fordham Spire"), which will be the tallest residential building in the world. Looks beautiful -- as does Chicago.
-
Suddenly it seems Toronto has become Skyscraper City, Vertical Village, the high-rise capital of Canada.
Just yesterday, word came that Aura, a 75-storey, mixed-use condo tower, will be built at the corner of Yonge and Gerrard Sts.
Last week, it was One Bloor, an 80-storey tower at Bloor and Yonge.
The week before that, it was Donald Trump's 59-storey hotel-condo at Adelaide and Bay.
More than ever, it seems, the sky's the limit. But in fact, there's really nothing new about this reach for the stars. Since the days of our tiny-perfect former mayor David Crombie's 45-foot height bylaw, the city has come a long, long way.
-
But if you're talking about Bloor and Yonge, does it really make a difference if it's 70, 80 or 90 storeys tall? What matters is the pedestrian experience and the building's relationship with the street.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in skyscrap...
-
skyscrapers
Items: 8 | Visits: 1
Created by: Mr. Tang
-
Ad Server Solutions 2011 | ad server management software
Ad Server Solutions affordab...
Items: 5 | Visits: 7
Created by: secure downloads
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo


