:: Erections for the rich ::

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Recently I have begun to notice that more and more very tall buildings are mostly or completely residential. While not directly affecting the proportion of all skyscrapers that are residential buildings, it is telling that out of the tallest 50 exclusively-residential buildings in the world, only one was built before the year 2000 (and that in 1993).

Some of the new construction, notably in New York, Chicago, and Hong Kong (which has 40 out of the top 100), is simply the logical extension of past development in highly dense, relatively new (using a global timeline) cities of high economic output. But the remarkable thing happening recently is that we are seeing very tall residential buildings constructed in cities with almost no comparably tall commercial structures. Malmö, Moscow, and Australia's Gold Coast are prime examples.

In the past, the high height of a building was (mostly) a necessary evil, driven by the need for a quality location within a given city - a cost balance between horizontal and vertical space. See: New York, Chicago, and Hong Kong. The new buildings don't ignore location as a motivating factor - tall real estate is still real estate - but they tout their height independently, sometimes sitting far from the city center like London's 1 West India Quay or Moscow's Triumph Palace. Far from wanting to fit in a row of mid-rises like Miami Beach the desire is to accentuate the marquee nature of the structure through separation. Consider too that this new breed of tall residential buildings is, well, really tall: as tall as or taller (in some cases by far) than the tallest downtown commercial building you're likely to see in all but a handful of American cities. They are this way not to economize space, but to (nominally) afford views and, more importantly, provide prestige.

This motivation is further supported given the new construction on the Gold Coast and in Dubai, where a series of structures are vying for the title of world's tallest abode. Placement in these vacation locales suggests that the units will not be the primary, or at least not the sole, residences of their owners, indicating affluent purchasers. Apartment height is in danger of becoming opulent - another signifier of luxe alongside six-burner Viking ranges and walk-in wine closets. Though the project in question fits a more traditional model than the buildings I have referenced so far, torch-bearer of opulence qua self-worth Donald Trump has even expanded his gaudy high-rise residential empire beyond New York, a move consonant with the above reasoning (you could almost say he was... taking it to new heights?). And, speaking of Trump's project, an identical trend is in full swing in the hotel industry (though statistics are harder to come by since most super-tall hotel buildings are mixed-use).

Of course, I'm a fan of tall buildings, so count me in (me and all the avid BASE jumpers). So much for those who said it was over.

Posted by morland @ 07:17 PM

:: Comments ::

brilliant title, Senor.

Posted by: Albert on February 14, 2007 08:10 PM

why get a viking when you can get a Wolf?

Okay, well real Vikings probably could kill real wolves.

Posted by: josh m on February 14, 2007 10:59 PM

- Post a comment -

« untitled | Main | Another Bad Creation »