Yet, as I remember, the two(I think that is the number) tallest buildings in the world were built after 9/11 (though not in the West).

"The only megatowers left standing a century hence may be in those third-world countries who so avidly imported the bric-a-brac of the industrialized world without realizing the damage they were inflicting on their cities." - Kunstler

Whether they make sense from an urban planning and aesthetic / technical / cost point of view is sort of a different story,

I would rather reformulate your quote as "the era of the utilitarian skyscraper is at an end". It's not the metric height but the excessive number of floors which causes systemic problems. Applied science and technology undertake typological experiments in controlled conditions. They don't fly civilian passengers in experimental planes: nevertheless, that is exactly what modernist architects have been doing for three generations; they literally build buildings which are not ready for common use.
- Leon Krier to Kunstler & Salingros

The tragic absurdity of the World Trade Center is that a very poor piece of architecture has become an involuntary martyr, a phantom tombstone of monstrous scale. A fake architectural monument (i.e. private economic activities dressed in a monumental garb, and housed in memorial pillars, totems and the like) has become a true memorial through its disappearance. By its bodily dissolution it has gained the (immortal) soul which had so far eluded it.

There are lots of good reasons to build high symbolic structures, such as the Washington Memorial, the Capitol Building, the Eiffel Tower, St. Paul's Cathedral; there exists no sound reason, however, for building excessively high utilitarian buildings (with the exception of financial gain). Their collateral damage is such that society cannot afford such absurdities as general propositions; the problem today is not so much that they exist, but that some architectural thinkers want to make us believe that they are inevitable and necessary even in the future. These buildings make a very large impact as sex and power symbols, but considering the very real damage they do to their host cities, users, and neighbors, they may not only be considered now to be fragile and dangerous, but also obscene rather than powerful.

Interesting subject, but this quote is pretty ridiculous:



What a bunch of fluff..."sex symbols"? Why not give the numbers on the collateral damage? Is it just the terrorist threat?

Yeah, those artsy types. A bunch of fluffy poofs if you ask me. I mean they see dicks everywhere. There's no such thing as a phallic symbol, no way, I don't believe it. :sarcastic:

Do you see skyscrapers as sex symbols?

You can see anything as a symbol if you memorize it as such of course. But how many people look at a sky scraper and think "sex" compared to how many see a swastika and think "nazi's, hitler, war, genocide"?

The problem with modern art is that many of it's symbols are only symbolic to modern artists. In this case he seems to be trying for some pseudo-psychological "phallus=masculine=egotistical, aggressive and arrogant" Freudian nonsense.

Symbol of power is closer to the truth for skyscrapers, they are naturally awe inspiring when you look up at them.

Traditional architecture and urbanism is not an ideology, religion, or transcendental system. It cannot save lost souls or give meaning to empty lives. It is part of technology rather than style; it is a body of knowledge and know-how allowing us to build practically, aesthetically, socially, and economically satisfying cities and structures in the most diverse climatic, cultural, and economic situations. Such structures do not ensure happiness but they certainly facilitate the pursuit of happiness for a large majority of people. - Leon Krier

Yes, you make good points and I agree. Sometimes symbols are imposed upon us. I do sometimes think of skyscrapers as sex symbols but maybe I've been brainwashed to some extent and yes sometimes a skyscraper is just a skyscraper. A symbol of power then? That much cannot be denied and as Kissinger said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

However, if you read some of the rest of the Krier interview you'll see that Krier in no way focuses on the idea of the skyscraper as sex symbol but rather delves in to some of the technical and philosophical aspects of the designing buildings and urban environments.

This quote is perhaps more representative of Krier:

Modernism is a totalitarian ideology which, like all dogmatisms, is based on unprovable assumptions. It is unable to tolerate, let alone accept opposition, contradiction, or refusal. If you accept such fantastic assumptions you necessarily abandon your own cognitive capacities and blind yourself to overwhelming evidence, in spite of interior and exterior contradictions.

There is strictly speaking no correlation between demographic pressure and high rise buildings (with the rare exception of the type of conditions found in Hong Kong). In the U.S. or Europe the "scarcity of land" argument is promoted and maintained by people with a variety of contrasting agendas, reaching from those of landowners to those of ecologists. It is an artificially fabricated myth which dissolves into thin air when we look down onto those continents from the air. We will then realize that our towns and landscapes do not suffer from a scarcity of land or generalized road and building congestion, but rather from badly used land, hence from bad planning. For instance, while Paris doubled its population it spread its buildings over a territory 15 times that of central Paris, despite the proliferation of utilitarian high rise buildings.

What is impractical about height? As populace grows outward, structure grows upward. Advances in structural engineering and new material enable man to defy gravity. Or at least, for space to defy gravity. Not many more places to go but up. Why contradict our ability to do so?

Well, it's putting all eggs in 1 basket ..so to speak. Should a great disaster strike, then thousands of people will perish.

..but yes, it's very practical with tall buildings, it's a logically choise for logistically reasons.

Architectural and engineering innovation also decrease risk. Besides, we can always lay more eggs. Victims are martyrs to progession. Necessary links in the chain? I'm not a cynical determinist, but growth is necessary.

As time goes by our fears subside, and we will again do what we desire much.

Maybe not in 10 years, maybe in 100 or more. It will come! ..eventually.

Tall buildings just don't seem that amazing anymore and they never were the best buildings.

What? Why aren't they the best buildings?

See original post.

I see nothing but superstition in original post.