I have to completely disagree with the idea that skyscrapers were simply born out of necessity due to the confines of the metropolitan landscape. Paris is a perfect example of a city that actively rejects verticality, they even have a large population than Manhattan but you will only find one skyscraper on the Parisian skyline. Condensed vertical living is the direct result of a cultural mindset which architects are no more removed from than anyone else in the population. The reading suggests that "What is more, this machine (the grid-elevator-skyscraper combination) came into being without a single architect’s intention." and while the actual invention of an elevator may not have come from an architects making, the resulting combination of the two is so obviously an architects vision. There doesn't need to be a formal written manifesto on a design philosophy for it to have existed and it seems incredibly oversimplified to suggest that skyscrapers were the direct result of mechanizing milk, swimming, love, etc. when the design thinking at the time was all about organization and imposing new ideals.
I agree on your opinion of disagreement on skyscrapers being born due to the necessity of landscape, however, the difference between Paris - or basically any other country in the world - and America is that I believe we Americans are lazy. To further explain, like Paris, it is extremely walkable and people are accustomed to it. Coming to America, people are interested in what is convenient to them and what will be the fastest way to get to what they need. Because of this notion it led to the excuse of landscape.
ReplyDelete