Super-tall, super-skinny, super-expensive: the 'pencil towers' of New York | Hacker News Reader

Super-tall, super-skinny, super-expensive: the 'pencil towers' of New York

theguardian.com

31 pointsluke2m8 comments

what's odd about this article is the conflation of more transparency/input into air rights and design, and the super-rich building opulent skinny towers in an opaque "cap-and-trade" on air rights.

'yes' to more transparency, but 'no' to slowing down development via "community reviews" and more zoning/code restrictions, even if it only benefits the wealthy for now. slowing down development doesn't provide any more affordable housing. that requires other policy changes, and more importantly, political will.

This article is strangely interested in quoting the talking points of a single NIMBY. It's Manhattan, for goodness sakes! Can't we have even one city in the US where building tall is allowed?

I hate waiting for, and the time taken in, the elevator. I would have to not like people or going outdoors to live in one of those.

Or... what I always thought would be a cool mode of transport: zipline tubes in the city connecting buildings. Then I only have to zip down part way across to a shop, and up a bit to get back.

I personally think these skyscrapers look great aesthetically but they apparently are plagued with design and maintenance problems. See https://youtu.be/RWX9JmihWpE for a short video describing some of the issues. Between this, the sinking/tilting millennium tower in SF, and the collapse in Miami, I do wonder if these types of shared tall condo buildings are going to disappear.

The building in Surfside collapsed because it was a money laundering scheme. It had half the rebar in the columns than was called for in the design documents; and it's somewhat an open secret that buildings built around that time in Dade mixed sand into the concrete to lower construction costs while keeping the numbers on the books inflated.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

Champlain Towers South was only 12 storeys so not particularly tall. Local geology matters a lot. The Millennium Tower sits on unstable land and the foundation didn't go deep enough into the bedrock. Overall though skyscrapers have been remarkably safe and stable; construction will continue most everywhere that has high land prices.

I do wonder how different skylines would be if the Citigroup Center flaw had not been discovered in 1978. The Wikipedia article makes the claim that the chain reaction from a collapse could have killed as many as 200,000 people. But even 10% as many dead still likely would have been enough to cast a doubt over the safety and viability of skyscrapers from that point on.

> will continue most everywhere that has high land prices.

There must be a feedback cycle and tipping point whereby once land prices, zoning and demographics create skyscrapers land price will only go up because suddenly land had a much lower impact than it did when it only housed modest buildings. Skyscrapers will then get taller to compensate. And the cycle continues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com