In the meantime, the issue of “vertical sprawl” is a tough one. New York represents both sides of the coin. I had the pleasure of staying on the upper East Side a few weeks ago in a 31st floor apartment. The views were amazing. However, the idea of walking up the stairs with a bag of groceries when the power goes down is frightening. After exploring this neighborhood for a day, the Park, the Met, etc., we ventured over to Brooklyn to visit some friends. The change in scale, from canyon like streets flanked by towers to brownstones and mid-rise walkups, was surprisingly pleasant, and, in a way, more alive. I always love visiting New York for the energy that the street life gives off. But, after further reflection, whenever we stay in the City we always manage to find our way to these more human scaled neighborhoods. The character of these lower types of builds and the resulting streets are perhaps a more natural environment for our species. And for some reason, always have the best bars in them.

I often think about London when the issue of “vertical sprawl” is discussed. Was London better off before the towers started going up? Will these new structures continue to be loved by the coming generations? Will they evolve into praised landmarks as other skyline defining structures? Do they really increase density in a positive way?

What are the real benefits of extreme hight? Does good common sense make these types of towers feasible? I fear that because we can build that high is not the best reason to build that high. One final thought, before I go off on tangent, is that as building types these tower structures rely exclusively on technology to exist: the elevator, the central air conditioning plant and other large scale systems. As technology changes, how well will these buildings adapt? The seven story walkups in Paris are still functional. The palazzo of Rome are still functional. Will some of these towers be function in another hundred years? -Russ