Vertical Architecture : The Role of Skyscrapers in the 21st Century
Skyscrapers were a dream of the 19th century made real in the 20th. As we grow into the 21st, the role of vertical architecture comes back into question. Is taller actually better? Should cities continue to grow vertically?
A Dream of Great Heights
In 1854, Elisha Otis introduced the “safety elevator” at the New York World’s Fair. In his demonstration, Otis stood high above a massive crowd of curious faces. At his command, an assistant began to sever the same ropes used to elevate him high above the showroom floor. Onlookers were shocked, horrified! Surely this man would plunge to his death. Otis stood confidently on high and just as the last fiber of rope was cut… he jolted downward. But just as quickly, Otis stopped. He had moved maybe just a few inches, but by some miracle the platform he stood upon had been secured. The crowd erupted! The elevator was born.
Otis’ “safety elevator” was the beginning of cities thinking vertically. The dream of a modern skyscraper was born on that day in 1854. Finally, fears of heights seemed less terrifying. An assurance of safety pushed building and construction methods to the next level. It took another handful of decades but reinforced concrete came along, then steel. Cities like New York pushed into the clouds for the first time. Engineers and architects stretched their visions to new heights. A new global competition began.
Re-thinking Monumentality
The skyscraper formula has been passed around the world for decades now. Everyone, from just about every geography, is building essentially the same thing. Design a floor plate around an elevator shaft, extrude it dozens or even hundreds of times. Boom, there you have it. A modern city. But is there a problem in this formula? Should contemporary cities look and feel (essentially) the same way everywhere we go? There’s an architectural term I like to use called vernacular. In essence, this term means local.
- Vernacular : (noun) The language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region. Also, architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than monumental buildings.
Traditional Monumentality might not be necessary everywhere you go. Depending on your environment, economy and culture you might be better off building something horizontal or distributed. The Evolo Skyscaper competition recently unveiled a series of proposals that seek to challenge our presumptions of "Skyscaper." These projects are by and large (pun intended) conceptual. However, a lot of these proposals challenge vertical as part of the new formula... Here are a few interesting examples:
Steemit, what do you think?
How should cities evolve? Are skyscrapers a solution for the 21st century as they were for the 20th? How will our growing understanding of the environments and technologies around us influence the built world and work ahead of us?
Wow, so many great ideas and thoughts shared in here. Where to beginning answering is a bit baffling...
I remember reading on this subject after having had a load of experience relating to this matter. I can't help but think that we are slowly but surely forcing ourselves into a much more condensed style of architecture while spreading the communities here and on the specific areas where resources will still be available #1 being healthy lands and water!
Secondly, I was so glad to see that your presentation included both energy and food security. In deed, building in heights allows us to use a monumental amount of wind power greatly underused at the moment in the styles of architectures we see around the world. I very strongly believe the turbines/fan should be included within the building and so should the food growing system.
Since we save so much energy by living together and rising by opposition to spreading, the architecture designs of the near future will have to move toward efficiency and the rise and grouping of our buildings will coalesce toward maximum efficiency points depending on the ecosystems we'll find ourselves.
Thanks again for this great opportunity to share and for your triggering questions. What a pleasure! All for one and one for all! Namaste :)
Just put a blindfold on me so I don't have to look down. Man you guys are good! These are all good questions. I wonder what the future will be? That Dubai shot is crazy. I had no idea there were so many that tall.
So surreal to see ALL of those buildings peeking out from the clouds!
fun post @voronoi, you are a wealth of information and clearly it runs in the family! I have to say that while sky scrapers amaze -especially the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building- I prefer the skyscraping trees. When I came to the photo of the giant redwoods, my whole being relaxed. I know that's beside the point of your post ;-)
Those trees are so beautiful. While the premise of this project is pretty ridiculous I have to say that I enjoyed and was seduced by the imagery... I mean, look at this...
Thanks for sharing! This is an interesting project of horizontal/vertical elevator also. Thanks and good luck again!
Fantastic! Thanks for sharing this. A very clever illustration and design concept. I REALLY like the linear + vertical elevator shaft idea.
Interesting article and many choices to consider!
Thanks @team101, many paths moving forward. Hopefully they don't all have to be scraping the sky...
I see indoor vertical gardening as the big trend going forward.
Likewise! I think there's a lot of potential there that needs to be explored :)
Some very good Ideas here. But you seem to over look the obvious. In stead of going up; Why not go down. While it is not a new concept, it has been mostly used with a survivalist mentality. There are many benefits to going down. First and foremost is the geo-thermal constant. After so many feet down the temperature remains the same at approximately 70 degrees F. With advances in fiber optics sunlight could be transferred hundreds of feet under ground. As far as earthquakes or ground shift goes; shock absorbers could be utilized around the perimeter of the structures. They would be no less safe than a skyscraper. Even better , you would have to worry about plummeting thousands of feet to your death. Being buried alive is an issue that would have to be resolved though.
Great thoughts and ideas here @roswellrockman! I think one of the biggest hinderances here would be cost. Excavating below-ground is insanely expensive when you compare with constructing above-ground. You're dealing with so many unknowns below grade. Perhaps, you could argue that there's a geothermal benefit that may (one day) outweigh the burden of the construction costs. We'll see!
This is my shiz. Keep it up.