Why skyscraper architects always return to Art Deco | Hacker News Reader

Why skyscraper architects always return to Art Deco

propertylistings.ft.com

111 pointsgscott69 comments

Note that zoning in NYC requires the step backs that you see. It allows the full building footprint to X height (based maybe on the width of the street), and then is based on an angle formula, where for every additional Y feet requires a further setback of Z feet, resulting in the stepped-top towers that exist all over Manhattan. Like all zoning, it claims a cute origin story (allowing sunlight to reach the street), but also had the motivation of keeping rents high by limiting additional construction.

From https://old.skyscraper.org/zoning/, on the reason for the support of zoning in Manhattan:

"There were two major causes for this shift, both rooted in the drive to stabilize real estate values. The first was the concern about overbuilding in lower Manhattan, both in the increased scale of such mammoth new structures as the Equitable Building at 120 Broadway and in the rate of vacant office space. The second was the lobbying of the Fifth Avenue Association, a powerful group of merchants, hotel operators, and business interests that was organized in 1907 to fight the spread of loft buildings into the fashionable retail district north of Thirty-fourth Street."

Do you have a source for the claim that it was intentionally to keep rents high? That's contrary to the goals of most city planners, and would require corrupt influences.

While it's not impossible, it is a conspiracy theory, and requires evidence.

Tammany Hall.

“Tammany Hall” is basically the answer to “why” for just about anything that happened in NYC prior to the 1960s :-)

Prior to LaGuardia, sure, but they lost a lot of power in the Fusion days before they were gone

>That's contrary to the goals of most city planners.

Odd claim given the outcome of their policies.

Yes, because city planners, like software engineers, always design their systems to an exact spec with no unintended consequences.

> [keeping rents high would be] contrary to the goals of most city planners

Today, maybe. The game was quite different 100+ years ago. We are talking about a pre-FDR, robber-baron era.

Here is Pine street, which shows how tall the equitable building, with its neighbour. Remember these are >110 years old, were built when electricity was still in its early years.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7083537,-74.0112452,3a,75y,1...

The author notes this, but the bit he misses is that earlier NYC skyscrapers had the same setbacks for the same reasons and even earlier ones for internal light and aesthetic reasons, despite their design detailing being far more influenced by classical and gothic architecture.

On a similar note, it's a bit of a stretch to call Petronas Towers Art Deco based on the very mild setbacks, sharp lines and pointy top, because the far more obvious design element is the Islamic-influenced cross section which would look very out of place in NYC. [the architect Cesar Pelli obviously loved Art Deco enough to have designed some more obviously Art Deco inspired towers, but he also built plenty of curvy pointy walls of glass, including the Salesforce Tower which other commenters have suggested as comparatively bland]

that should read required. This is generally not a rule anymore, which is why Midtown is more than happy to host numerous slab office blocks.

The NYC zoning law you're referencing was replaced in the 60s with a different zoning law which emphasized plazas. Current NYC skyscrapers are more affected by laws around air rights and void spaces.

Given the amount of time and thought that architects put into light I really don't think it's a 'cute origin story'

I find 432 park avenue to be directly against setbacks.

It is a fascinating building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue

it is 93' x 93' x 1396' tall, which is 15:1

in comparison a cigarette on end would be 10:1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/NYCbyPin...

I believe they could only do it by buying up rights from neighboring properties.

This seams to me to be a "wet streets cause rain" story. To start, I'd say a large percentage of skyscrapers are not Art Deco, and proposing that architects "always" return to that style seems like an overstatement at best.

More importantly though, there's a lot more limitiations in sky scraper design because your working with a long skinny form, which will for regulatory and structural reasons likely have some tapering towards the top. That design languages fits in very well with the long linear forms in Art Deco.

It seems to me that the author is reading into that quite a bit, and interpreting designs as being art deco when in fact that's not likely the case. The Petronas Towers, which are referenced at the end of the article were not designed to be art deco, but are an overlay of squares and other islamic motifs [1], with setbacks being necessary for structural reasons.

The author also seems to basing this based on a lot of sky scrapers from New York City, which contains more Art Deco than most cities do. You could argue that modern sky scrapers in NY pull more of that influence in because of context, than being something that Architects "always" come back to.

1 - https://www.archute.com/petronas-towers-worlds-tallest-twin-...

I was going to say the same thing - the question seems to have a New York City bias to it. A lot of NYC buildings were built during a period where Art Deco was popular, and some newer buildings have been built to "fit in" to their environment, which has meant adopting the Art Deco style.

But is it true that, say, architects in Chinese cities always return to Art Deco? After glancing at photos in image search, it doesn't look like it - Chinese cities are largely modern glass skyscrapers.

I think a big thing that makes for nice architecture is making it look organic. And life has a fractal look to it. That is, there are features to admire at all scales.

Often you will see show-off skyscrapers have a big bold shape, but then completely neglect the other scales.

Never thought of it that way, but you’re totally right! So obvious now...

The Salesforce Tower in SF is a great example of this. Big, tall, and bold with a pleasing curve.

But look more closely and it’s just utterly bland and boring. There is no detail. Just infinite repetition of the same window shape with a light shade.

And then an awkwardly inserted lobby that looks like you chopped out half of the bottom 3 floors and replaced them with a glass pane. Like an afterthought.

I'd argue Salesforce Tower has texture when you up close. That's a lot more than the average glass skyscraper has.

For those who have not seen it https://www.google.com/maps/@37.790073,-122.3972697,3a,75y,1...

I like the fact you can get a good feel for this building by looking at its reflection in the building next door. It's also very odd to me to see overhead power lines in this image. I would have assumed a downtown area like this would have powerlines underground.

Those overhead lines are for electric buses

That would explain why no tracks were in the street.

I've been thinking about this a lot in terms of urban housing. Maybe it's just too expensive now, but modern houses just look like cheap painted boxes inside and out. There's no attention to small details, no flourishes or embellishment. It's depressing, especially compared to mass built housing from pre WWII.

All over the world it seems to be ther older neighbourhoods and houses that are most sought after. I used to think this was snobbiness, just the benefit of time (larger, more full trees etc), but the more I look, the actual built environment of these buildings is a lot more pleasent as well, especially if you consider them against what would be an equivalent new build.

As far as exteriors go, at least in North America, a lot of houses have a garage with a giant overhead door out front and centre, with the actual house set back behind the garage. This means there are very few windows that face the street, the entire structure feels unbalanced and awkward, it unnecessarily complicates the roofline, and they're just plain ugly.

There's an easy solution to this: integrate the garage inside the house, not as a box bolted on to the front, and make the overhead door smaller. There's no reason for the door to be 15 feet wide and 10 feet high if you only need to fit a single car through it—an 8 foot square door is plenty. This has a huge effect on the end result.

> if you only need to fit a single car through it

A lot of garages in the United States are 2 car garages where the cars are parked side by side. So you need a wide garage door to get the cars in and out.

True, but I rarely see people park 2 cars in their "2-car garages". Even rarer, 3 cars in a 3-car garage.

Usually the extra space is used as a workshop or for storage. I would love to have a 2- or 3-car garage with just an 8-ft door off to one side. The rest of the elevation could be either a nice big window, or a large porch.

Yeah, I suppose this arrangement would hurt resale value. But it would look nicer.

I like how my neighborhood handles it. The garages are set back behind the houses, with the driveways running alongside the houses. When you look at it from the street, the house is front-and-center, rather than the car storage box. Also a big fan of alleys with the garage facing that way.

> Usually the extra space is used as a workshop

When used as a workspace, those massive garage doors come in very handy. They make it easy to get a lot of airflow through the garage and move large equipment or the product of your project in and out without having to squeeze past whatever car is also parked there. They may not look nice, but those large doors are very practical.

On the other hand, they also take up precious wall space that needs to stay clear at all times. It's not a big deal to move a car out of the way a few times a year. In any case, a double man door looks a lot nicer and is just as functional.

I'm definitely not knocking the practicality of a huge door. They sure are handy. Just much nicer when they're tucked back behind the main building of the house. Or facing sideways if you have the lot width to accommodate.

Many places in North America (including where I live) have a rule that cars can only be parked on a driveway, and a driveway can only be as wide as the garage. Combine with expensive frontage and you get houses whose fronts are almost entirely garage.

In a perfect world the cars should be simply "stored away" and the garage area used as a workshop or additional living area, like:

https://www.idealpark.com/Products/Car-Lifts/

https://www.idealpark.it/Prodotti/Parklifts/Parklift-462/

(this kind of stuff is relatively rare even here in Europe, and used only in "luxury" houses or condos in the city center as it is definitely expensive)

A lot of the older homes in St. Pete (FL) have detached garages with inlaw suites. Looks better imo.

Back alley parking.

Labor prices relative to material prices are higher than they have been in all of human history (at least in Europe and North America). That's why everything that can't be economically shipped is designed for quick and efficient assembly by the lowest skilled labor possible. Interior and exterior architectural fanciness and whatnot still exists in new construction, just only in the mansions and beachfront cottages of the wealthy because nobody else can justify the cost of labor.

A lot of buildings you can look at and see person-centuries of skilled labor that wouldn't be imaginable today. Not just medieval cathedrals either.

Example: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-details-of-delaware-and-hu...

I'm sometimes amazed at the little architectural details found in places like old public school buildings, railway stations, and even power plants, docks, and water distribution infrastructure. A lot of these are utilitarian facilities not designed to show off wealth like manor houses... It must have just been a time where skilled labor was cheap enough to spend on such things.

To be fair, the railroad that built the castle I linked to was definitely showing off its wealth. I don't know what they were thinking, but it seems to have been right around the first world war.

I like the Gothic style.

The prettiest church I've ever seen: https://s.hdnux.com/photos/65/31/06/13996432/3/850x0.jpg

So very yes, so much modern construction is these ultra-brutalist boxes that, if they have any thought given to visual interest, is entirely at the scale of what's visible from several blocks away. And most of that is "we painted this big boring box in three different colors".

Deco buildings - as well as older stuff like the Classical Revivalist stuff that's so many public buildings in the place I live in now - have thought given to aesthetic variety at a scale only visible from the sidewalk. Allegorical sculptures? Decorative reliefs? Faces peering out here and there? Noveau-flavored ironwork? Yes please.

Brutalism is a distinct architectural style, and is not the same thing as modernism, or the international style, or whatever you call those horrendous boxes with mismatched facades.

> or whatever you call those horrendous boxes with mismatched facades

"Minimum fucks given" style?

The “I’m not talented enough to design detail” aesthetic. As we frequently see in modern flat software design.

I think of it as "age amplification style": those minimalistic shapes look maximally shiny when new and maximally gross when not. More ornamental styles change appearance as well as they are, but they are far more successful at earning patina as a quality.

> or whatever you call those horrendous boxes with mismatched facades

It's called the "most affordable design compliant with the city's design requirements". It's always the planning department. Architects don't want to build ugly buildings, but it's the only thing that's legal.

Many cities mandate at least 4 different facade materials and that the massing be broken up. So we end up with a mishmash of materials and colors and an undulating blocky facade.

> Architects don't want to build ugly buildings, but it's the only thing that's legal.

The Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle would beg to differ.

Right. Architects don't want to build boring ugly buildings :).

The funniest scene of the Fountainhead film is about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIIx4Zq2Lc

Rationally, the design of the building was chosen for its cost-efficiency. In an ideal world, we should have both aesthetics and cost-efficiency.

In places where skyscrapers are economically viable (aka very dense areas with high land values), I'd have a strong preference for cost-efficiency over aesthetics to lower the cost of operating a business/living in the area.

Albeit the aesthetics should have a non-zero priority.

I sure am a lot happier now that I live in a place with a lot of human-scaled architecture. But that’s an emotional thing that “rational” people typically want to avoid measuring or considering.

Yes, floral inspiration is very strong in Art Deco. Also, being heavily inspired by all sorts of peoples of the world like Mesoamerican art for example, it has this sense of encompassing many cultures and gives me a dose of romanticism and wanderlust in one go.

To me, Art Deco stands out in modern skylines in part because it is distinctive. I don't think the glass covered skyscrapers that are sprouting up in every growing city are as ugly as their detractors say, but they do all look the same.

Of course, more distinctive architecture can also get repetitive (the referenced tiering in NY or Haussmann buildings in Paris), but at least they are distinctive to that place.

When I lived in NYC, I was regularly amazed at the level of detail buildings built 1890-1940 had and how completely disposable most modern architecture seemed relatively. On the West Coast, very few buildings have any of this sense of gravity and permanence, with a few major works being exceptions (the library in Seattle; the library in Vancouver, BC; and even some very modern but more elaborate designs (e.g. by Frank Gehry) come to mind). I can't imagine the cost of building something like the Chrysler Building today compared to One Vanderbilt, Hudson Yards, or so many other big buildings in the US- even if their shape has a nod to Deco. Mostly they seem to reflect the idea that a lot of glass makes up for their general lack of distinction.

I'd heard people say that the architecture of a city is usually frozen in the time when it had the most money.

If you look at the skyscrapers and other buildings from Zaha Hadid, they're not Art Deco. UAE and other countries which are currently building out significantly aren't sticking just to Art Deco. London is interesting in that they've had money pouring in for a long time, and have an eclectic mix of large buildings.

I think what really sets Art Deco apart, and what makes it closer to what came before than what came after, are the decorative embellishments. These are what make the buildings engaging at the street level.

Can an architect here comment on the cost of such embellishments, such as terra cotta molding or mosaic friezes? Is it prohibitive, is it simply a "nice to have" that's never had for property developers, or is there a stylistic bias against embellishment?

It’s a number of factors. School programs are biased against embellishment so there isn’t really a craft in the profession around those kind of stylistic detail, especially at graduate level. BIM software also plays a role. The trade is forever streamlining itself technically, and construction systems with their CAD part catalogs thin out selection. Depending on the development goals, throwback details may not fit with how they plan to market the building.

And pretty much all of the above contribute to added costs of perusing embellishment on the core and shell. Lack of design techniques, construction know how, and off the shelf options will drive prices up. Developers would prefer to spend money on interior build out because it sells sq footage.

I never knew what Art Deco was, or its etymology. It is one of those things I have always heard, but never known. I think it was a style of card faces in Solitaire back on Windows 95.

Interesting to learn also, that the steeple-like design of skyscrapers has the functional purpose, with questionable efficacy, of allowing sunlight to hit pavement.

Art Deco encompasses more domains than skyscrapers and architecture. Sculpture, painting, and industrial design can also be Art Deco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_deco

I was looking to define the graphics that came out of a GIF program I built and decided that the graphics were Art Deco, same as a lot of graphics on the internet. But it didn’t have the same sharp illustrative quality. The gif’s look much more organic and less organized but they often have robust colors. I decided that the gif more resembles the fauvism style.

“[…] dwarves are art deco; elves are art noveau.”

https://www.tor.com/2016/06/14/architectural-styles-of-middl...

It's also generally because slimming at the top helps deal with structural things like wind, and also reduces the need for all the elevator shafts to reach to the top, increasing space available on lower floors.

If you're a gamer and you haven't played Bioshock, then do it and admire the art deco and the music from a long gone era.

Every blocky architectural style looks like Art Deco if you squint hard enough. I've heard it said that Art Deco isn't even a style unto itself; it's more of a feeling evoked by other styles.

6-7 stories is practically a skyscraper here in SV, and thus art deco too https://merlonegeier.propertycapsule.com/property/output/ima...

I believe the Wells Fargo center (formerly Norwest center) building in Minneapolis is the most beautiful Art Deco skyscraper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_Center_(Minneapoli...

Im a bit disappointed. I thought it was going to say there is some element of structural engineering that lends itself towards the art deco style the same way people say there is a biological reason for humanoids in star wars

It's obviously a rhetorical question, but I think I can answer. It's caused a of three things: taste, desire to innovate, and courage to try something new.

https://archive.vn/Ipgb7

Reply on news.ycombinator.com