Taller means more floors. More floors means smaller floors for the same square footage.
If you want big floor plates you build fat.
If you limit the total square footage with FAR, it also means short. That's what FAR is all about.
I knew that ablarc. I was just being facetious, as per the smiley faces next to my statement.
^ Sorry. I apologize.
Thanks. I got to say if New York was preserved in amber after 1945, we'd have one of, if not the most beautiful city on the planet. If only modern architecture could be built with the same vigor as its predecessors.
Just spent half an hour taking in all the goodness, while sipping tea and listening to some good music.
What a great collection of pics!! Thanks.
Preach on, Brother Ablarc ...
BTW, everyone here should check out Ablarc's "streetwalls of Paris" at http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16869
Question for you. Assuming that we want ...
- human scale and visual interest at street level
- a mountain range of a skyline, as we had half a century ago
- and also the big floor plates that so many of a world-class city's office tenants demand today
... how can architects and planners best respond? You've made convincing arguments about what worked in the Paris of 1880 and the NYC of 1940. Are there any recent urbanistic success stories for world-class cities that came about through planning? Links you can recommend?
I'm sensing that the answer involves
- some loosening of zoning regs, especially on height and mixed uses
- paired with very aggressive landmarking of existing buildings
- and hoping for some technological advances to make supertalls more economical here ...
The second will be unpopular with myopic developers who haven't figured out its benefits in the big system.
Most folks and all NIMBYs think tighter zoning is the only thing standing between us and utter chaos. What they don't realize is that in many places (not New York) the zoning is in fact a guarantor of that chaos.