Skyscrapers: The Fountainhead
#1
[Image: hongkong.webp]

I'll start off with a very fascinating and enlightening article about the stagnation of skyscraper construction: 

Why skyscrapers are so short 
by Brian Potter
https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/why...-so-short/

It's very long and has many links + a table so I will just post an archive instead of copying the whole thing here Salo-style. I hope that is okay.
https://web.archive.org/web/202202151801...-so-short/

My one nitpick of that article is that the new WTC is actually shorter than the old one in terms of habitable floors, as Jim pointed out. This article is also a must-read (as are many Jim posts).
https://blog.reaction.la/economics/tall-...ial-order/
https://web.archive.org/web/202106151951...ial-order/

The Wikipedia lists for number of floors are wrong. I haven't found a reliable source besides Jim.
#2
I think skyscrapers are pretty incredible. They're a powerful testament to the power of the reasoned human mind, a jutting monolith against the primitive forces of nature. The skyscraper more than anything else represents the ingenuity and engineering feat of the modern city; they represent the city's power in the same way a homeless man shitting himself on the side walk or shooting up represents the city's depravity. It's a shame such architectural beauty must go hand in hand with the disgust one experiencing the dregs of society in the same general vicinity.

During the early months of the KungFlu, I'd take walks into the downtown area and explore the city while it was empty of people. Even the homeless and junkies had seemingly found somewhere else to go. It was a remarkable feeling to experience the city so quiet and empty, I think it's the time I've most been able to appreciate the sublime aspect of the city environment.

I'll end with a quote from Ayn:

Quote:Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the short of the Hudson. Look and kneel. When I see the city from my window? No, I don't feel how small I am. But, I feel that if war came to threaten this? I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.
[Image: nyc-skyline-1900s.jpg]
#3
Skyscrapers are pretty cool. Don't like most of them from an aesthetic standpoint (too much soyed architects are to be blamed for this), but pretty cool as an idea nevertheless
#4
(04-05-2022, 04:20 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: I think skyscrapers are pretty incredible. They're a powerful testament to the power of the reasoned human mind, a jutting monolith against the primitive forces of nature. The skyscraper more than anything else represents the ingenuity and engineering feat of the modern city; they represent the city's power in the same way a homeless man shitting himself on the side walk or shooting up represents the city's depravity. It's a shame such architectural beauty must go hand in hand with the disgust one experiencing the dregs of society in the same general vicinity.

During the early months of the KungFlu, I'd take walks into the downtown area and explore the city while it was empty of people. Even the homeless and junkies had seemingly found somewhere else to go. It was a remarkable feeling to experience the city so quiet and empty, I think it's the time I've most been able to appreciate the sublime aspect of the city environment.

I'll end with a quote from Ayn:

Quote:Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the short of the Hudson. Look and kneel. When I see the city from my window? No, I don't feel how small I am. But, I feel that if war came to threaten this? I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.
[Image: nyc-skyline-1900s.jpg]

I like the *idea* of the skyscraper. An imposing feat of engineering which symbolizes man's continual struggle against gravity is very appealing, I just hate how 99% of skyscrapers look. They're almost always so ugly, so bland and undifferentiable. I would be much happier if another architectural trend took off that wished to accomplish the same thing but with better aesthetic appeal.
#5
Exactly. I guess it's a consequence of the tech - engineering advanced, but masonry did not - making any skyscraper looking pretty be a result of good "fundamental design" and proportion - they'll be a glass box either way. Some normal walls might be present, but this is again on older "models" (like the chrysler building, empire state etc)
#6
I agree that full blue glass exterior skyscrapers are off-putting, but that is a design decision, not an engineering necessity. I'm not sure that it is even beneficial since it leads to a massive greenhouse effect. Sure, bigger windows are better, but how great is it to be entirely glass? I don't think new skyscrapers are horrible, but I do think there is something tasteless to them that goes beyond Lindyness or nostalgia or LARPing as a tasteful hypercritical gentleman.

[Image: 220cps.jpg]

https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/...ble-condo/
https://web.archive.org/web/202203221211...ble-condo/
https://www.curbed.com/2022/03/architect...tions.html
https://web.archive.org/web/202203291325...tions.html

220 Central Park South is not super tall but it is the most profitable real estate development in recent years. It's not "full Cindy", but I think it is very tasteful, and it doesn't do very much Lindy/Greco-Roman aping that Paul Skallas would love or Ayn Rand would hate.

[Image: interior.jpg]

As you can see, the windows are very large, despite looking small on the outside.

The exterior is masonry of Alabama limestone.
#7
Yeah, that's pretty nice.

I don't mind total glass per se, but I think there is room to go. I want to see skyscrapers utilizing exotic glass types to make giant art. Lead glass "detail panels" that refract light that shines upon them, uranium glass that glows at night and makes nice outlines and such, really go all out...
#8
(04-06-2022, 05:54 AM)Svevlad Wrote: Exactly. I guess it's a consequence of the tech - engineering advanced, but masonry did not - making any skyscraper looking pretty be a result of good "fundamental design" and proportion - they'll be a glass box either way. Some normal walls might be present, but this is again on older "models" (like the chrysler building, empire state etc)

I think a good possible alternative is the "hyper gothic" style which became an interest of the late Russian imperialist futurists like Yakov Chernikov and the more recent Arthur Skizhali-Weiss. I know some think it's norwoody because it's a "dark and dystopian" art style but I dont see that at all, these seem to be radically utopian imaginations of what the future city could look like. To give an example, here are a few pieces from the aforementioned artists/architects:

[Image: Yakov-Chernikhov-artwork-5.jpg?format=750w]

[Image: Yakov-Chernikhov-artwork-9.jpg?format=1500w]
"Yak.
[Image: FPGn92iaAAQ2b7_?format=jpg&name=large]

[Image: FPGoHX6aAAEBBxL?format=jpg&name=medium]

In general, the late imperial period is one of the more creative periods in modern European history. Mikka was right when he claimed that the continuation of the empire would lead to a cultural explosion of crazy futurist expressions, you can see what was killed in the crib here.
#9
Indeed, the revolution was the biggest mistake in human history, the moment where a giant meteor should have wiped us out. And don't assume that norwoody = bad... Perhaps overrated, or improperly used, or badly executed, but not bad per se...

Stalinist architecture might have been inspired by those, by the way.

My own personal aesthetic is a little weirder... Eclectic but seamless, many bits from many cultures, both fictional and real, merged. High-tech cyclopean archaeofuturist art deco, or some shit like that. Dunno how to describe it, and I'd have to learn to draw to really flesh it out. Think Ziggurat with a steel skyscraper on top, glass figures, golden hydra wrapping itself around it, with giant neon strips running along. A true and final merger of Lindy and Cindy. Or the Belgrade Sun Tower - a skyscraper that looks like it's a person materializing *out of* a building, a giant glass crown on it's head, the panels which turn and act as prisms and coat the little square in front in all colors of the rainbow...

Unfortunately, I did not go into architecture. I consider the arts to be something best learned by autodidacticism - which excludes me from dealing with it in the near future.
#10
[Image: m74uv7F.jpg]

My recommendation would be to cease being impressed with Leviathan, and start being impressed with God.
#11
(04-07-2022, 05:42 PM)Opossum Wrote: My recommendation would be to cease being impressed with Leviathan, and start being impressed with God.
Having seen a few posts I think you're earnest in your religiosity so I'll give an earnest reply. It seems to me there's no real contradiction with admiring architecture and building skyscrapers with a condemnation of the 'Tower of Babel.' Genesis 11:4 states:
Quote:Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

To me, the issue here is this specific part, "a tower with its top in the heavens." Of course, we know that for a tower to reach the Heavens is impossible, I take the LORD's line in 11:6 to be rather sarcastic. Man is limited, and some things are impossible for him. What's being punished with the Tower of Babel is that man thought through uniting together as one people, they *could* reach the heavens, and from this height, they'd have God's foreknowledge and be able to prevent and unexpected harm coming to them. Sitting in Heaven, they would become Masters over the world. It's hubris and ego. And the punishment for attempting to usurp the LORD's position has already been established in Gen 3:23 - Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden for their attempt at becoming like God in eating the Fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil. The Nimrodians are similarly punished for wishing to attain God's foresight.

Of course, God granted us the powers of our rational minds, and it is well within our right (it may even be our *duty*) to use these powers accordingly, so long as they are also done with reverence and respect for the LORD.

Will also add that God choosing to take a uniform, centralized people, and turn them into many scattered communities speaking their own languages has interesting consequences regarding whether a separation of the races is to be desired and even promoted by Good Christians.
#12
I'd pretty much agree with the above, but was especially responding to your previous sentiment:

(04-05-2022, 04:20 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: I think skyscrapers are pretty incredible. They're a powerful testament to the power of the reasoned human mind, a jutting monolith against the primitive forces of nature. The skyscraper more than anything else represents the ingenuity and engineering feat of the modern city...

Can there be beauty in a city? Yes, if done intentionally, and kept small in scale, a contained jewel rather than a consuming sink. This is not the default, and even when done well is an unnecessary luxury which is symptomatic of an unbalanced accumulation that has already occurred. Like all technology, which is demonic ("reason" is fake, knowledge comes by revelation), while it is sometimes desirable or circumstantially necessary, it must be treated very carefully.

How large were the local populations required to construct the great cathedrals spread throughout the countryside of England? From what sociological bed and infrastructure did they emerge? Then of our modern skyscrapers, ask these same questions. It is the symptom and manifestation, necessarily, of our sprawling, rat-packed concrete sinks, and always was.

The first city in the Bible is Cain's antediluvian "city of Enoch" (not to be confused with the Mormon apocryphal "city of Enoch" created by the son of Jared before being lifted, altogether, into heaven, a concept which has greatly influenced them for good or ill), where the family of Cain, in giving ear to the abominable sons of angels, are said to precociously deliver a great many technologies.

And God said unto Noah, “Behold all flesh which is before thee: their end is come, for that they are taught in the words of deceit, and instructed in the workings of angels. Lo, thus has it been unto man since the day I created him: death would not have touched him, had it not been through his knowledge by which he shall perish.

For the tower of Babel, "let us build ourselves a city" comes necessarily before the tower itself. The people must be gathered together so as to serve under the doomed hubris of Nimrod, who is so concerned to "make a name" for Man and his Reason: to this end true living man must be reduced to an instrument, slaving away in burning bricks and spreading mortar.

And the people were confounded, and left off to build the city, and rushed to and fro; and the city and the tower fell to the ground; and Nimrod was killed by the stones of his tower.
#13
1.) The appeal of skyscrapers is imperial vision, the ability to overlook one's surroundings. I kinda feel this is ruined if you put too many of them next to each other because of my point 2. In medieval times, the church was the highest building for a reason.

2.) You quickly feel cramped in a big city. You interact with too many people and live next to too many people. You box yourself in in appartments where you pull down the shutters for privacy because otherwise your neighbour from across the street could see you walking around naked in your own space. If you walk through a city, you cannot see the horizon because your vision is blocked by housing units. The skyscraper is a natural drive to escape crampedness through vertical movement until one can see the horizon again, making space again attainable, even if only visually.

3.) Imperial vision is universal in the flat countryside, it is not so in the city where it cannot be democratized due to spatial constraints.

Note: This is mere observation, I am not judging the desirability of any of this. The personal opinion I derive from this is: Skyscrapers have a place in the city by giving back visual space. They are not the be-all end-all solution for a broader access to space though. Other aspects of urban planning need to be involved there.
#14
(04-09-2022, 07:29 PM)Opossum Wrote: I'd pretty much agree with the above, but was especially responding to your previous sentiment:

(04-05-2022, 04:20 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: I think skyscrapers are pretty incredible. They're a powerful testament to the power of the reasoned human mind, a jutting monolith against the primitive forces of nature. The skyscraper more than anything else represents the ingenuity and engineering feat of the modern city...

Can there be beauty in a city? Yes, if done intentionally, and kept small in scale, a contained jewel rather than a consuming sink. This is not the default, and even when done well is an unnecessary luxury which is symptomatic of an unbalanced accumulation that has already occurred. Like all technology, which is demonic ("reason" is fake, knowledge comes by revelation), while it is sometimes desirable or circumstantially necessary, it must be treated very carefully.

How large were the local populations required to construct the great cathedrals spread throughout the countryside of England? From what sociological bed and infrastructure did they emerge? Then of our modern skyscrapers, ask these same questions. It is the symptom and manifestation, necessarily, of our sprawling, rat-packed concrete sinks, and always was.

The first city in the Bible is Cain's antediluvian "city of Enoch" (not to be confused with the Mormon apocryphal "city of Enoch" created by the son of Jared before being lifted, altogether, into heaven, a concept which has greatly influenced them for good or ill), where the family of Cain, in giving ear to the abominable sons of angels, are said to precociously deliver a great many technologies.

And God said unto Noah, “Behold all flesh which is before thee: their end is come, for that they are taught in the words of deceit, and instructed in the workings of angels. Lo, thus has it been unto man since the day I created him: death would not have touched him, had it not been through his knowledge by which he shall perish.

For the tower of Babel, "let us build ourselves a city" comes necessarily before the tower itself. The people must be gathered together so as to serve under the doomed hubris of Nimrod, who is so concerned to "make a name" for Man and his Reason: to this end true living man must be reduced to an instrument, slaving away in burning bricks and spreading mortar.

And the people were confounded, and left off to build the city, and rushed to and fro; and the city and the tower fell to the ground; and Nimrod was killed by the stones of his tower.

There is no God. Also you don't exist either. And I just masturbated. Patriots in control.
#15
[Image: giphy.gif]
#16
"Like all technology, which is demonic ("reason" is fake, knowledge comes by revelation),"

"HATE. HATE. HATE. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE I *HATE* YOU I WANT EVERY ATOM IN YOUR BODY TO DESINTEGRATE AND EVERY TRACE OF YOUR EXISTENCE TO GET WIPED OUT FOREVER."
#17
[Image: O9FRhid.jpg]

The Steinway Tower overlooking Central Park.
Pictures don't do justice to how monolithic it is. It's not the prettiest building but it is spectacular. You can't help but notice it.

[Image: bBpRW2Z.jpg]

The interior isn't bad but its aping much better New York Art Deco. It's more Saudi than American. 
It would suck to live in because of how much it shifts in the wind. Supertalls can move around to 6 inches in 50 mph gusts.
[Image: HfVqWXY.jpg]
I simply follow my own feelings.
#18
The solution to skycrapers and density is to simply build uninhabitable ones that instead carry out processes. You could have a work tower for the most rudimentary example, with different floors for different experiments and so on.

I prefer skyscrapers as a gauntlet. If one can reach the top, they will attain some reward that is very large. But each floor is a match against death. One leave at any time if they wish. Anyone can challenge the tower, they may go in pairs.

Density is unpleasant for my taste however, so I will leave it to others to give more realistic understandings of such things.
#19
(04-09-2022, 05:52 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: To me, the issue here is this specific part, "a tower with its top in the heavens." Of course, we know that for a tower to reach the Heavens is impossible, I take the LORD's line in 11:6 to be rather sarcastic.

Finally, a brother Christian at Amarna!



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)