Why no tall buildings in Britain?

High buildings are - as a rule - for countries with no or little heritage. Its good for a culture-less country like the US or those whose cities are wholly inadequate for modern adoption, like the Chinese.* Of course we could have built skyscrapers in Europe, but what would have been the point? Or cities are already largely built, and the skyscraper would just ruin the city-character. It wouldn't be an improvement but a degeneration to a lower level of civilization.

I know you're trying to be offensive here, but still. Saying that a country such as the US is cultureless is just buffoonish. Saying that tall buildings are a representation of a lack of culture is silly, since rather it is an aspect of a different culture. Just as an American may fail to see how British people respect a history that, to us, seems unethical and shameful, you may not understand ours. Why do the tops of Russian buildings resemble onions? It's their culture. Why do Americans and other developing nations try to build super tall buildings? Don't think of it as a giant phallic symbol, think of it like a big middle finger to the rest of the world.
 
I know you're trying to be offensive here, but still. Saying that a country such as the US is cultureless is just buffoonish. Saying that tall buildings are a representation of a lack of culture is silly, since rather it is an aspect of a different culture. Just as an American may fail to see how British people respect a history that, to us, seems unethical and shameful, you may not understand ours. Why do the tops of Russian buildings resemble onions? It's their culture. Why do Americans and other developing nations try to build super tall buildings? Don't think of it as a giant phallic symbol, think of it like a big middle finger to the rest of the world.

Or--it could be because there are high land values in some areas but people still want to build there, and building a skyscraper is cheaper than building something flat with equal floor areas. ;)

And then you don't in Britain etc. because there are too many old buildings that people have some affection for you would have to tear down, and therefore it isn't any cheaper at all.

Just a thought.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
High buildings are - as a rule - for countries with no or little heritage. Its good for a culture-less country like the US or those whose cities are wholly inadequate for modern adoption, like the Chinese.* Of course we could have built skyscrapers in Europe, but what would have been the point? Or cities are already largely built, and the skyscraper would just ruin the city-character. It wouldn't be an improvement but a degeneration to a lower level of civilization.

*The architectural massacres going on in China right now is a pity, but understandable, since the cost of modernizing existent housing is at the moment way to large, considering the level of economic development and the rapid pace of urbanization.

That's such a ludicrous subject to troll over, but whatever. You're kicked for a week.
 

Tovarich

Banned
....which is why now you see 1 Canada Square, The Gherkin, and a whole raft of proposed new giant phalluses in the works.

Ah, the crowning achievement of my life!
I was a jobbing labourer back when it was going up.

Trouble is, site work is so bloody boring that we all had to do a bit of puff & wizz throughout the day, just to keep going.
The entire building was only meant to be 3-floors high, but we forgot to stop.

I suspect the Gherkin is shaped as it is because the crew on that job got mad munchies.
 
The British take to the skies above their empire in a different way:

SeaHarrier.jpg


I mean why build your own buildings when you can just blow up everyone else's?:p

However maybe you could have a British tower the tallest. It would just be in the the province of Ontario, in TO. Say the unmentionable sea mammal works (Operation Sealion to those newbs who don't know what I speak of) and the UK is evacuated in 194-something, the Royal Family is in residence in Ottawa. It has the effect of making the entire nation feel oh-so-close to the Royal Family so that after the war (and the UK is liberated) when the CN Tower is built it's actually named after the Queen. And yeah, not exactly the thing that most would identify with the Queen, a large pointy stick, but she likes it. The "Canadian National" Tower, built by a railroad company and it becomes the CN Tower in construction, officially becoming "CN Queen Tower" when it becomes the tallest structure. Instead of being sold by the Canadian National Railway company when it gets privatized in 1995, the Tower can be sold to the UK for cheap, and the Canadian government recognizes that the Queens Tower in TO, being the tallest structure in the world, should be ceded to the UK; The land around it gets the same status as the Embassy, Britain has the land, blah blah blah, the Queen visits but due to security doesn't go up.

CN_Tower_from_bottom.JPG


But you can hardly blame her for not wanting to go up there. I'm from TO in OTL, and I don't even want to go up there.
Nice Sea Harrier FA.2 pic.
 
High buildings are - as a rule - for countries with no or little heritage. Its good for a culture-less country like the US .

:D I love this! Yes, Americans, let's all revel in our complete and total lack of culture! Let's all give out a good redneck yell and shoot our guns in the air in celebration of Hollywood movies, Walmart, and Hershey chocolate! Live the stereotype!
 
I can't offer a firm reason as to why Britain seems to have eschewed skyscrapers at least until relatively recently. There are soil issues which really do hamper how tall/heavy buildings can be, particularly in the south-east.

I also imagine that post WW2 planning has something to do with it; rather than concentrating people in a small area, it's best to spread out over a wider landscape in case Soviet bombers pay a visit thus damage would be minimised.

There are issues that many Brits have with accommodations; many Brits have an aversion to apartment living and want both a house and a private garden rather than sharing communal space which gets very territorial.

As I recall, when "tall" buildings began to come into vogue at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, most British cities had been resculpted following the Industrial Revolution thus there was no appetite to change them again. There was an architectural trend to follow where the Greeks and Romans had gone with huge white, temple like edifaces rather than the towering buildings popping up in New York and Chicago.

A quick flick through the usual sources says that Queen Victoria complained about the height of new London buildings which turned into an unofficial rule until planning law was changed in the 1950s. In London there is a law laid down by Henry VIII which states that the view between Greenwich Palace and St Pauls Cathedral must be unobstructed which cuts a large swathe across the city.
 
It could also be because London, the prime candidate for a UK skyscraper (being the centre of finance and commerce 'n' all), is mostly on silty, riverbed sedimentary rock, whereas most of New York, from what I recall (very vague memory, this, correct me if I'm wrong) is built on a humongous lump of granite or harder rock, and therefore it's far more feasible to anchor 100+ storey buildings. Plus, you know, building ordinances, St. Paul's Cathedral, and all that.

Skyscrapers have nothing to do with a lack of culture whatsoever - excess capital seems to be the thing that drives their construction. Hence, loads of new builds in burgeoning China, and formerly the Emirates - just look at the humongous Burj al-Khalifa in Dubai, which was commissioned and mostly finished before the bubble burst. Oh, and the Empire State Building... construction began just before another bubble burst (in 1929...).

On reflection, it seems that the phallic analogies might have other unfortunate implications which I'll leave for others to draw!

The US may shy away from major skyscrapers in the future, given the events of 9/11, and the searing effect that seeing those towers collapse had on America. It's been eight and a half years and I still remember the news reports as if they had been broadcast yesterday... perhaps in the American subconscious, there's a tickling feeling of "what if 9/11 happens again?" in the minds of people who consider building new 500m tall office blocks.

Oh yes, and 30 St Mary Axe does resemble something young women use for... personal activities. Shiny, modern-looking... but from any angle, it still looks like a shiny blue... you know.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
:D I love this! Yes, Americans, let's all revel in our complete and total lack of culture! Let's all give out a good redneck yell and shoot our guns in the air in celebration of Hollywood movies, Walmart, and Hershey chocolate! Live the stereotype!

Uh...

You say all that like its a bad thing.

:p
 
I'm not sure if its correct, but one reason I heard of London vs New York is the ground. NY is granite, London is clay. While nowadays this isnt an issue, when they were building the early skyscrapers the clay foundation was a big problem.

Remember the first skysraper was built in Chicago on a drained swamp so the granite thing is just a happy accident. London actually has quite a few tower blocks which Prince Charles complains about. The reason why Manhatten has so many is the proximity of Wall Street combined with Manhatten being a small island.

As far as culture goes everything from Rock&Roll to R&B Jazz, Blues, Blue Jeans to chips(crisps to our UK friends:))comes from America so:p
 
Top