Modern Architecture

[cacian]

Does it inspire you or is it as unsafe as it looks?
I feel after the 9/11 tragedy is a constant reminder that makes me think that building to the skies is perhaps not such a good idea any more. They are a real target to potential dangers.
For safety and aesthetic reason I much prefer traditional architecture because it is environemently friendly and low and so prevent anyone from thinking they can ride their planes into it.
I still find it genuinely incredible that after the twin towers architects are still reaching to the skies with their pointy wanky style. It is a true provocation to those who found this kind of building easy and inviting.
I feel that the lowest architecture is the better in a case someone deicded they could fly into it.

[JBI]

Does it inspire you or is it as unsafe as it looks?
I feel after the 9/11 tragedy is a constant reminder that makes me think that building to the skies is perhaps not such a good idea any more. They are a real target to potential dangers.
For safety and aesthetic reason I much prefer traditional architecture because it is environemently friendly and low and so prevent anyone from thinking they can ride their planes into it.
I still find it genuinely incredible that after the twin towers architects are still reaching to the skies with their pointy wanky style. It is a true provocation to those who found this kind of building easy and inviting.
I feel that the lowest architecture is the better in a case someone deicded they could fly into it.

Traditional architecture is far more likely to collapse, or burn down. Likewise, traditional architecture has worse plumbing and heating.

As for safety, the 9/11 event was a one in a million (or two in a million if you will), that isn't about to happen every day. I get a feeling that the event is perhaps more significantly felt in the US than the rest of the world though, so I am looking forward to hearing more opinions.

As for architecture itself, someone who is only appreciative of old stuff misses the point. Some of the best work I have seen has been post-modern and after, for instance, the Pudong strip of Shanghai, which is called the "showpiece" of modern China - of course, it is facing some nice late 19th, early 20th century French architecture too, which isn't bad. Shanghai in itself is an architecture wonderland.

[Shevek]

Does it inspire you or is it as unsafe as it looks?
I feel after the 9/11 tragedy is a constant reminder that makes me think that building to the skies is perhaps not such a good idea any more. They are a real target to potential dangers.
For safety and aesthetic reason I much prefer traditional architecture because it is environemently friendly and low and so prevent anyone from thinking they can ride their planes into it.
I still find it genuinely incredible that after the twin towers architects are still reaching to the skies with their pointy wanky style. It is a true provocation to those who found this kind of building easy and inviting.
I feel that the lowest architecture is the better in a case someone deicded they could fly into it.

That the WTC was a skyscraper is besides the point of why it was targeted. Not only was 9/11 an exceedingly rare event, but it is an instance of a rarely-used terror tactic. If you look around the world, most terrorism is smaller-scale (unless you consider state terror) and does not necessarily target skyscrapers. Also, tactics are shifting towards cyber- and biological-terrorism, so making "low" buildings will not get rid of the potential for terrorist attacks. Plane hijackings are simply not as feasible as they once were for terrorists.

Given the issues of space in cities, I doubt "pointy wanky" skyscrapers will disappear from architects' and city planners' plans anytime soon.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh goody. Another 9/11 discussion. And involving architecture, no less. I excitedly await the conspiracy theory nutballs.

Though it doesn't surprise me that we can add tall buildings to the list of things that disturbs/offends cacian.

[cacian]

That the WTC was a skyscraper is besides the point of why it was targeted. Not only was 9/11 an exceedingly rare event, but it is an instance of a rarely-used terror tactic. If you look around the world, most terrorism is smaller-scale (unless you consider state terror) and does not necessarily target skyscrapers. Also, tactics are shifting towards cyber- and biological-terrorism, so making "low" buildings will not get rid of the potential for terrorist attacks. Plane hijackings are simply not as feasible as they once were for terrorists.

Given the issues of space in cities, I doubt "pointy wanky" skyscrapers will disappear from architects' and city planners' plans anytime soon.

Well I don't know. I think we are building too high and not giving ourselves space to live in.
Tall building are a danger long term fire is one of them and the other is earthquakes. Reaching out to the skies to live seems extreme to me. I see it that if something goes wrong in these building it does take a long time for someone to get out.
It is easier to live in a house then in a building. Architecture is supposed to be geared to prevent dangers and help towards ensuring living is as safe as possible. Calculating the risks of living in a skyscraper is higher then a low one.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do you have any statistics/facts to back up these statements on the danger of tall buildings?

[cacian]

Do you have any statistics/facts to back up these statements on the danger of tall buildings?

Well there have few cases of fire started in blocks of flats where people have been unable to escape quickly. There is more casualties in blocks of flats tall building then there are in low ones.
It takes longer to evacuate a tall building that is on fire.
The idea of sound architecture is to make it so that people exit a building as quickly as they came in. Safety is paramount when it comes to people because anything can go wrong/
Many people get trapped on top floors in time of panic because the lift are not working and fire quickly rises as we know.
The higher you are the less likely you are to get out.
I don't personally find skyscrapers a good way of life because the risks involved.

[tonywalt]

I'm on the 6th floor!- does this qualify as too high up? If i leave would I be "letting the terrorists win" - in the words of Bush Jr. (who I saw speak this weekend at the Ritz Cayman- I yawned, I laughed, i snored, i left to get a drink at the bar and didn't come back.........)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well there have few cases of fire started in blocks of flats where people have been unable to escape quickly. There is more casualties in blocks of flats tall building then there are in low ones.
It takes longer to evacuate a tall building that is on fire.
The idea of sound architecture is to make it so that people exit a building as quickly as they came in. Safety is paramount when it comes to people because anything can go wrong/
Many people get trapped on top floors in time of panic because the lift are not working and fire quickly rises as we know.
The higher you are the less likely you are to get out.
I don't personally find skyscrapers a good way of life because the risks involved.

So, that's a "no," then?

[cacian]

I'm on the 6th floor!- does this qualify as too high up? If i leave would I be "letting the terrorists win" - in the words of Bush Jr. (who I saw speak this weekend at the Ritz Cayman- I yawned, I laughed, i snored, i left to get a drink at the bar and didn't come back.........)

I thought that was exactly what he was doing in this school he was at when he got informed about the 9/11. No changes there then.
tony it is no you that must give up anything it is the architecture that does.
I am only being cautious. I think after the 9/11 anyone would.

[cacian]

So, that's a "no," then?

It is neither. It is obvious to me that living closer to the ground is safer then living/working in a sky scrapper.
Of course you are to disagree and that is again fine.

[Dreamwoven]

The confusion comes from assuming "modern architecture" is synonymous with "High Rise".

[stlukesguild]

Size and Height in architecture is nothing new. The pyramids of Egypt, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Byzantine basilica (now Islamic mosque) of Hagia Sophia, the Gothic cathedrals, Brunelleschi's Dome and Giotto's bell tower on the Cathedral of Florence, St. Peters in Rome, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Eiffel Tower, etc... were all constructed with a thought toward reaching toward the skies. Scale and Height have historically been employed to communicate power, wealth, and daring. The Cathedral of Florence was intended to convey the sense of new wealth and power of Renaissance Florence. St. Peter's intended to make clear the wealth and power of the Roman Catholic Church and suggest that it was the rightful heir to the Roman Empire. Chicago and New York engaged in a competition of skyscrapers with the intention of establishing the reputation of these given cities as the Great American city. The New York skyline conveyed like nothing else the new wealth, power, and dynamism of the United States in the early 20th century. The Asian rush to build on a grandiose scale, and the huge towers of United Arab Emirates conveys the new found wealth and self-confidence of these nations.

Your fear of tall buildings sounds like something worthy of the story of the Tower of Babel.

As others have suggested... "Modern" architecture is in no way limited to tall buildings. Some of the greatest works of Modern and Contemporary architecture are far more "intimate" in scale: