video - How to Make an Attractive City

[obituary resider]

This video probably belongs in the pub, but I thought I would put it here re: the current discussion about a desire for a 'new tallest'. The whole video is quite good, but the specific bit about tall buildings starts at about 8 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c

[Nathan]

This video probably belongs in the pub, but I thought I would put it here re: the current discussion about a desire for a 'new tallest'. The whole video is quite good, but the specific bit about tall buildings starts at about 8 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c

Great video and good insight (as usual from Alain de Botton, although I'm sure some will disagree). I certainly agree about overall density being preferable to anonymous towers, and that our most prominent buildings reflect what our cities feel important (although I disagree about that being a height only thing. Some shorter buildings may carry more weight than taller ones).

[slenderman]

In some ways I agree with you Nathan. A prime example of a low-rise building in Adelaide which reflects what we see as important is the SAHMRI. I wouldn't trade that for a 100m building, no arguments there. Ideally I'd like to see Adelaide both increase in density AND grow taller.

I disagree with a fair bit that that video says. Perhaps if our whole CBD was filled with 5-6 storey density between the terraces I'd agree (wouldn't that be unique?). But ultimately this isn't the case and never will be. But I can see the rationale of keeping heights low, as you can have a conversation with someone 3-4 storeys up, which goes well with the "cities for people" notion which I agree with.

But I'm not sure that five storey uniformity is necessarily a good idea. For sure, it works in some areas like Nyhavn in Copenhagen, but the Java-eiland example doesn't do it for me. I don't see much interesting variety there. I think areas such as Nyhavn or the Czech Republic example work more because of they are historic rather than exclusively due to their uniformity (although it plays a part). IMO Java-eiland looks manufactured. The video also doesn't take into account the concept that we might get sick of too many five storey buildings, regardless of different colours or materials. Height breaks up the monotony.

Therefore, I can't agree with the overall attitude to high-rise. Seems to me that the video is saying height and "mystery" can't co-exist. Buildings with setbacks from the street (such as five storey podiums) can give us the best of both worlds. This building is an example of that, being set back from Pulteney by the historic mansions, and is behind the low-rise shopfronts of Rundle Mall. Rundle Place is another example (even if the podium is slightly unattractive).

Besides, some of my favourite heritage buildings in Adelaide are over five storeys (such as T&G, Bank SA, CML and the old AMP and Bank of NSW buildings).

I also get the feeling that the video tries to enforce its own opinion as the correct one, saying "beauty is not subjective", which is where it began to lose me. I disagree. My dad for example loves the Commonwealth Law Courts building while I don't really care for it. But I'm happy for some divisive buildings to exist (not universally hideous ones like the Telstra Exchange) because they encourage interesting discussion and debate.

Also disagree with the idea of too much regulation. Looking back at old threads from 2012, most people were celebrating at the deregulation of height limits, because it meant that developers could produce more ambitious proposals without fear of them being rejected. I think this has occurred to some extent with examples like Vue and this one. Is there truly freedom if heights are restricted to five storeys?

But yeah, I think this discussion belongs in the Pub.

[monotonehell]

It's your basic design principles; contrast and order. No real mysteries here. Life is important , car oriented cities (like Greater Adelaide) are the antithesis of life. I think the five level limit suggestion will ruffle a few feathers here, but they are generally right when speaking about places people live.

I was a bit perplexed when they were talking about uniformity that they showed a picture of Kowloon Walled City, which is pretty much the opposite of uniformity.

[Mountaineer]

That five story limit seemed quite low, I see Christchurch is installing a 7-storey limit (for obvious reasons). It might suit that city, but I can't see how that wouldn't create large urban sprawl in the bigger cities- Sydney, New York, Chicago, Toronto etc.

It was interesting to see how they proposed building above that for "things we love". I don't really
Understand what they mean..in Adelaide would be see 135m towers erected for Farmers Union Iced Coffee or Mark Riccutio?