Comment 68307

By Mahesh_P_Butani (registered) - website | Posted August 20, 2011 at 17:59:29 in reply to Comment 68303

The irony is that those pushing for urban sustainability are also the ones pushing for High-rise buildings and unsustainable transit solutions.

High-rise are bad. Bad High-rise are worse. An irrational want for high-rise towers for the sake of identity, is a disease that has consumed many cites worldwide.

Manhattan's need for vertical was anchored in: its economy, its bedrock and its limiting geography.

"The island of Manhattan is built on three strata known as Manhattan Schist, Inwood Marble, and Fordham Gneiss. Schist forms the island’s spine from the Henry Hudson Bridge on its north end to the Battery on its southern tip; it dips abruptly several hundred feet below ground at Washington Square, and makes a gradual ascent beginning at Chambers Street. These dips and rises account for the gap between “midtown” and “downtown” in the Manhattan skyline, since tall buildings had to be anchored on solid bedrock, and not on the glacial till that fills the valleys."

What do you think Hamliton's bedrock calls out for?

Some thoughts on Low-Rise High Density:

Urban Density Misconceptions

Successful examples of high density development

DMAU

Low impact — high density residential development

A pleas for low rise density in Vancouver

An exception:Sweden: High-rise housing for a low-density country

LRT is good. Poorly timed and badly planned LRT is worse. It is important to develop a holistic approach to urban density and transit -- Developing Around Transit: Challenges for Cities and Suburbs

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2011-08-20 18:15:52

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds