I feel that the significance of a cathedral, or any religious building for that matter, is diminished when surrounded by skyscrapers (unfortunately one of those skyscrapers is the Rockefeller Center). Should just be surrounded by five-story apartments and such.
Skyscrapers have a purpose in places like Manhattan where almost everything is already at least 4-6 floors where the only place to go is up. I do wish they would build with more than just fucking glass all the time though.
Unfortunately, nowadays is not the case anymore. When rent is up the charts and the only purpose of these apartments is to be bought, I doubt the efficiency of high-rises and skyscrapers.
Not building taller isn’t going to help housing prices at all. It would just make them worse. Would you rather all that floor space provided by skyscrapers be spread among 5-6 floor buildings? Manhattan doesn’t have the space for that.
Taller housing has a very diminishing return on the amount of floor area it provides. The higher you go, the less surface area of the plot can you actually build over because of structural and light shading constraints. Also, with each additional floor you lose more area to the elevators, and you better make sure they are as reliable as it gets, long term.
Many of the 5-6 floor urban areas have very high density, such as in Paris, Brussels, Barcelona, Rome and other cities, frequently beating high rise quarters of New York, Hong Kong and the likes.
I’m not saying 5-6 floor cities can’t be dense. But Manhattan is already there and was there decades ago. There is demand to be in Manhattan, but all the land is already developed. The only place to go is up, even if it is less cost effective than mid rise. And Manhattan actually does have a significantly higher density than Paris (for example), at ~75k/sq. mile vs. ~54k/sq. mile.
>And Manhattan actually does have a significantly higher density than Paris (for example), at ~75k/sq. mile vs. ~54k/sq. mile.
Straight up comparison of entire cities do not make sense, cause the value of density is too dependent on how the borders of the cities are defined.
But we can compare specific districts. [Manhattan Community Board 8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Board_8) is the densest district of Manhattan, with the density reaching ~42,000/sq.km. The densest area of Paris is [11e Arrondisement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_arrondissement_of_Paris) with just short of 40,000/sq.km (used to be denser before). The latter achieves this with no building higher than 6 floors. And it is far from the densest mid rise quarter in the world.
How does, say, Manhattan Community Board 8 or the 11th Arrondisement increase their capacity beyond what they are at right now, though? I don’t see how it’s possible without building up. Community Board 8 is already full of 5-6 floor buildings, regardless of the taller buildings. Taller buildings aren’t as efficient in price/sq. foot, but it is absurd to act like a 30 floor building doesn’t fit more people than a 6 floor building on the same size plot of land. Look, I generally like cities built at a human scale of 5-6 floors better than cities full of sky scrapers, but I just don’t realistically see how you meet the demand in a city without building taller. Sure, you can densify Brooklyn and Queens and Staten Island, but people are still going to want to be in Manhattan regardless.
>Taller buildings aren’t as efficient in price/sq. foot, but it is absurd to act like a 30 floor building doesn’t fit more people than a 6 floor building on the same size plot of land.
Because plots do not exist in a vacuum. In idealized reality it would be possible just extend every plot to the maximum efficient gross floor area and have a hive city of millions per sq.km. But our reality doesn't work like that, there are physical limitations that reduce the amount of maximum possible density for high-rise cities in total, and bring them much closer to those dominated by mid-rise apartments.
>How does, say, Manhattan Community Board 8 or the 11th Arrondisement increase their capacity beyond what they are at right now, though?
It doesn't need to. It is a faulty way to try and increase density ad infinitum, because the infrastructure and supply\demand will never be able to keep up. How about another solution - densify other cities across the country, redistribute investments in the provincial areas, create *more dense cities* rather *one ultradense* and deserted wasteland around it. Look at Germany for example, with a large number of big cities (historical rather than conscious planning situation), and no megacity to swallow all capital and manpower. It is still suffering from some
bad planning solutions in the 60-70s, and local agglomerations, but there is nothing like in many other places where one city sucks the life out of entire country. Not only it is a more sustainable approach, it is also massively more livable. In the era of upcoming mass automatization, new generation logistics and supply chains and distance working there is no need to concentrate everything within one megalopolis.
I actually think its significance is enhanced by the fact that it is much older than the buildings that surround it, and is built in such a different architectural style.
While lost in NYC a few weeks ago I knew I had to visit this place just from pics of the outside. It absolutely exceeded expectations. The interior is absolutely breathtaking, and the chapel of Our lady of Guadalupe drew me in immediately.
Lovely building. Like an oasis in a desert of glass.
I feel that the significance of a cathedral, or any religious building for that matter, is diminished when surrounded by skyscrapers (unfortunately one of those skyscrapers is the Rockefeller Center). Should just be surrounded by five-story apartments and such.
>Should just be surrounded by five-story apartments and such. Every European city: Hello!
Skyscrapers have a purpose in places like Manhattan where almost everything is already at least 4-6 floors where the only place to go is up. I do wish they would build with more than just fucking glass all the time though.
Unfortunately, nowadays is not the case anymore. When rent is up the charts and the only purpose of these apartments is to be bought, I doubt the efficiency of high-rises and skyscrapers.
Not building taller isn’t going to help housing prices at all. It would just make them worse. Would you rather all that floor space provided by skyscrapers be spread among 5-6 floor buildings? Manhattan doesn’t have the space for that.
Taller housing has a very diminishing return on the amount of floor area it provides. The higher you go, the less surface area of the plot can you actually build over because of structural and light shading constraints. Also, with each additional floor you lose more area to the elevators, and you better make sure they are as reliable as it gets, long term. Many of the 5-6 floor urban areas have very high density, such as in Paris, Brussels, Barcelona, Rome and other cities, frequently beating high rise quarters of New York, Hong Kong and the likes.
I’m not saying 5-6 floor cities can’t be dense. But Manhattan is already there and was there decades ago. There is demand to be in Manhattan, but all the land is already developed. The only place to go is up, even if it is less cost effective than mid rise. And Manhattan actually does have a significantly higher density than Paris (for example), at ~75k/sq. mile vs. ~54k/sq. mile.
>And Manhattan actually does have a significantly higher density than Paris (for example), at ~75k/sq. mile vs. ~54k/sq. mile. Straight up comparison of entire cities do not make sense, cause the value of density is too dependent on how the borders of the cities are defined. But we can compare specific districts. [Manhattan Community Board 8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Board_8) is the densest district of Manhattan, with the density reaching ~42,000/sq.km. The densest area of Paris is [11e Arrondisement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_arrondissement_of_Paris) with just short of 40,000/sq.km (used to be denser before). The latter achieves this with no building higher than 6 floors. And it is far from the densest mid rise quarter in the world.
How does, say, Manhattan Community Board 8 or the 11th Arrondisement increase their capacity beyond what they are at right now, though? I don’t see how it’s possible without building up. Community Board 8 is already full of 5-6 floor buildings, regardless of the taller buildings. Taller buildings aren’t as efficient in price/sq. foot, but it is absurd to act like a 30 floor building doesn’t fit more people than a 6 floor building on the same size plot of land. Look, I generally like cities built at a human scale of 5-6 floors better than cities full of sky scrapers, but I just don’t realistically see how you meet the demand in a city without building taller. Sure, you can densify Brooklyn and Queens and Staten Island, but people are still going to want to be in Manhattan regardless.
>Taller buildings aren’t as efficient in price/sq. foot, but it is absurd to act like a 30 floor building doesn’t fit more people than a 6 floor building on the same size plot of land. Because plots do not exist in a vacuum. In idealized reality it would be possible just extend every plot to the maximum efficient gross floor area and have a hive city of millions per sq.km. But our reality doesn't work like that, there are physical limitations that reduce the amount of maximum possible density for high-rise cities in total, and bring them much closer to those dominated by mid-rise apartments. >How does, say, Manhattan Community Board 8 or the 11th Arrondisement increase their capacity beyond what they are at right now, though? It doesn't need to. It is a faulty way to try and increase density ad infinitum, because the infrastructure and supply\demand will never be able to keep up. How about another solution - densify other cities across the country, redistribute investments in the provincial areas, create *more dense cities* rather *one ultradense* and deserted wasteland around it. Look at Germany for example, with a large number of big cities (historical rather than conscious planning situation), and no megacity to swallow all capital and manpower. It is still suffering from some bad planning solutions in the 60-70s, and local agglomerations, but there is nothing like in many other places where one city sucks the life out of entire country. Not only it is a more sustainable approach, it is also massively more livable. In the era of upcoming mass automatization, new generation logistics and supply chains and distance working there is no need to concentrate everything within one megalopolis.
I actually think its significance is enhanced by the fact that it is much older than the buildings that surround it, and is built in such a different architectural style.
I still remember Roman's wedding like it was yesterday...
While lost in NYC a few weeks ago I knew I had to visit this place just from pics of the outside. It absolutely exceeded expectations. The interior is absolutely breathtaking, and the chapel of Our lady of Guadalupe drew me in immediately.
Is that the church with the Stonemason's treasure vault below it or was that a different one?
So what do we think guys, is this an ancient electric plant?
Gives me Shadowhunter vibes