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.
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.
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.
Wait, isn't Manhattan sinking from all the weight, even with its sturdy foundation?
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.
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:
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.
In a word - no.