Reaching for the Sky

Technically,going past these tall towers is not impossible. Structural problems in going higher were solved long ago with the use of steel. Though,of course,we are all familiar with the lift (elevator) problem. First,the height of building was limited by the fact that there were only so many flights of stairs people could be expected to climb. Once Otis solved that,there still remains a pragmatic limit architects and planners must work with,because as a building gets taller,you need more lifts to take people up and down fast and efficiently,thereby imposing claims on floor space. Indeed,the rough rule of the thumb is said to be that costs start to up beyond 50 or so floors. In any case,when you go very much higher the wind factor kicks in — therefore the thin outline of the top floors of super-high structures.

The new building that’s changed the Manhattan skyline,at 8 Spruce Street,is much shorter than Burj Khalifa,much shorter too than the iconic Empire State Building. But it should reignite the debate on skyscrapers.

Designed by Frank Gehry,it rises 76 storeys and its facade gives the appearance of softly billowing steel. While Gehry’s iconic architecture has changed many cities — like Bilbao in Spain where his museum construction in one stroke rebranded the city — he has had his critics. The primary charges have been that he puts form over function and that this exhibitionism comes at a very high cost.

This is why it is interesting to see reviews of the New York building dwell on its relatively frugal budget and a standardisation-defying functionality retrieved from the odd shapes of apartments. And while the building houses luxury apartments,its lower floors have been given over to a public school and a hospital. Hopefully this combination of individuality — asserting outer form and inclusive use within — should reignite the debate on going tall without losing one’s soul.

In an article in The Atlantic drawn from his new book,Triumph of the City,Edward Glaeser makes a spirited case for “how skyscrapers can save the city”,arguing the economic and environmental case for dense neighbourhoods. Of course,such buildings can curb the cost of housing: because a large building can house more. But also because restricting building in some areas of a city increases costs elsewhere. Restrictions on building because of zoning and conservation efforts have effects far and wide,he says,giving examples from Manhattan and Paris.

But he adds: “It’s a pity that so few ordinary people can afford to live in central Paris or Manhattan,but France and the US will survive. The problems caused by arbitrarily restricting height in the developing world are far more serious,because they handicap the metropolises that help turn desperately poor nations into middle-income countries.” Glaeser focuses his outrage on Mumbai,refusing to be heartened by the high rises built recently,saying their isolation means that “cars,rather than feet,are still needed to get around”. He says: “If Mumbai wants to promote affordability and ease congestion,it should make developers use their land area to the fullest,requiring any new downtown building to have at least 40 storeys. By requiring developers to create more,not less,floor space,the government would encourage more housing,less sprawl,and lower prices.”

Perhaps nothing divides urban planners more than the height question,and a flurry of building activity around the world is bound to revive it.

mini.kapoor@expressindia.com