London and Paris: Skyscraper cities?

What are the chances from 1900 onwards that the cities of London and Paris will have their skylines dominated by Manhattan-esque towers, prior to 1990? Would it take more extensive war damage, or different politicians and leaders?
 

Tovarich

Banned
Dunno about Paris, but I think the reason London never went that way is because it's on clay/mud and couldn't provide a solid foundation (until relatively recently), whereas New York - home of the 'skyscraper' - is on granite.
 
Dunno about Paris, but I think the reason London never went that way is because it's on clay/mud and couldn't provide a solid foundation (until relatively recently), whereas New York - home of the 'skyscraper' - is on granite.

I wonder though, is this the case with the whole of London, or if there's some parts of the metropolitan area more sturdy than others?
 

Thande

Donor
London does have a few skyscrapers, it's just that there's public opposition. Paris nearly had the Tour Sans Fins (Tower Without End) which would have been the second tallest building in the world.

If either city was more badly damaged in the War (Paris burnt by retreating Germans as Hitler wanted, London hit by last-ditch Nazi nuclear weapon?) then there would have been more of an appetite for it. Though in the Fifties and Sixties they'd end up being ugly brutalist skyscrapers.
 
IIRC La Defense in Paris is a cluster of skyscrapers, or if not tall enough, then perhaps it could be with a few minor planning changes,
 
Dunno about Paris, but I think the reason London never went that way is because it's on clay/mud and couldn't provide a solid foundation (until relatively recently), whereas New York - home of the 'skyscraper' - is on granite.

The case of Paris has to do with all the solid rock beneath the city being mined out during the Middle Ages, or something like that. Basically, large parts of the city can't support heavy skyscrapers.
 
Paris does have a big skyscraper district in La Defense, which gives the city's skyline a very eerie "we're in the future" feel:

Hxrt5.jpg
 
Dunno about Paris, but I think the reason London never went that way is because it's on clay/mud and couldn't provide a solid foundation (until relatively recently), whereas New York - home of the 'skyscraper' - is on granite.

Even better. New York has good ol' Manhattan Schist, which is superior to granite.

I think another problem is the street layout of London and Paris. Using early 20th century technology, a skyscraper is easiest built with a square/rectangle base. To do the same in London or Paris, one would need to do a lot more damage to surrounding buildings than would be needed in New York (due to the far more complex layout of the streets).
 
The case of Paris has to do with all the solid rock beneath the city being mined out during the Middle Ages, or something like that. Basically, large parts of the city can't support heavy skyscrapers.

Ya know, I read something similar about that, but of all the places, in World War Z. Looks like he did do his research properly :p
 
Basically, I reckon you can have more skyscrapers over in the Docklands area when they're redoing that bit (such as Canary Warf), but there are too many protected views in the center to be skyscraper heavy (there's something like 48 of St. Pauls, which has created some interesting designs for top/bottom heavy wedge-shaped structures and a concave facade in one case).
 
London does have a few skyscrapers, it's just that there's public opposition.

Actually he's half right - London's foundations couldn't take the heavy concrete and stone skyscrapers of the pre 70s time period, the modern steel and aluminium ones are fine though.

The only really sturdy bits of London occur once you get out into the hills miles away from the city centre.
 
Even without considering damage done to neighboring buildings, trying to buy up all the irregular plots required to make the base of a skyscraper in these old cities would be difficult in itself.

Maybe if it became a matter of civic pride to produce the tallest skyscraper, we could see a few more. But unlike the industrialists of America, old money in Europe seemed to like estates more than skyscrapers, so we'd have to change that.

Have the Blitz even more effective, if London were flattened like Germany's cities, the rebuild could see relatively more skyscrapers.
 
Actually he's half right - London's foundations couldn't take the heavy concrete and stone skyscrapers of the pre 70s time period, the modern steel and aluminium ones are fine though.

The only really sturdy bits of London occur once you get out into the hills miles away from the city centre.

Essentially this, New York is built on granite, London on clay, which makes throwing up a syscraper a massive effort in terms of foundations. Still, we seem to get more every year now.
 
Piling for 100m+ which is what you would need for a really large concrete tower on London clay or worse silt is very expensive it would also play merry hell with the London Underground, the London Ring Main and its tributaries, the big interceptor sewers the big gas lines. The smaller sub-surface lines would be less of a problem. Modern buildings as someone has already mentioned are less of a problem but even there big ones would be difficult to pile.

Paris is also on the flood plane of a river and the situation is very similar.
 
Dunno about Paris, but I think the reason London never went that way is because it's on clay/mud and couldn't provide a solid foundation (until relatively recently), whereas New York - home of the 'skyscraper' - is on granite.

Chicago's the home, not New York, even if it came to fruition in the latter city. The former is in a geologically unfavorable position too, I should think, what with being a marsh before they raised the city. Lots of big skyscrapers there, though. Basically, what you'd have to do would be to come up with some compelling reason for London or Paris to build skyscrapers--and the only way to do that that I can see is to burn them down and start over.
 
Chicago's the home, not New York, even if it came to fruition in the latter city. The former is in a geologically unfavorable position too, I should think, what with being a marsh before they raised the city. Lots of big skyscrapers there, though. Basically, what you'd have to do would be to come up with some compelling reason for London or Paris to build skyscrapers--and the only way to do that that I can see is to burn them down and start over.

Hmm. Supposing Paris took a bit of a hammering in a WW1 scenario where the CP got considerably closer, what's the possibility of more tall buildings appearing in the post-war years? I recall one architect at some point during the 20th century who wanted to remodel the city in such a way at one point, but I can't remember the name or details...

Paris does have a big skyscraper district in La Defense, which gives the city's skyline a very eerie "we're in the future" feel:

Yes, but there's still plenty of flat skyline there...
 
Chicago's the home, not New York, even if it came to fruition in the latter city. The former is in a geologically unfavorable position too, I should think, what with being a marsh before they raised the city. Lots of big skyscrapers there, though. Basically, what you'd have to do would be to come up with some compelling reason for London or Paris to build skyscrapers--and the only way to do that that I can see is to burn them down and start over.

Chicago has stronger foundations than London at least, the clay and slit is only about half the depth and is more rocky and Londons mud, and beneath that its good solid dolomite and limestone rather than chalk.
 
Top