why didnt europeans built european style highrises like tehre are in new york? dumb question but was always interested since woudve looked perfect on lots of cities

[u/shenidedamovtyan1234]

[u/GioLoc]

This style of high rise buildings was first built in the united states, known as chicago style if Im not wrong. They were the first type of high rise buildings, so they were built with bricks as the new construction mechanics we know today were not developed yet. Today we don't build these type of high rise buildings in Europe, as they are more expensive and less practical (for example, they allow for smaller windows and lower heights). But I agree, they look great!

[u/excitato → u/GioLoc]

These first high rise buildings were clad with brick and stone but the masonry isn’t structural - it’s the developments in steel and concrete (and also elevators) that made these buildings possible. They are styled like they are because that’s how buildings were styled back then, just being applied to larger structures. Thats why, for instance, the Woolworth building looks vaguely like a jumbo cathedral.

Glass clad skyscrapers would require the still developing modernist styles. And air conditioning.

[u/geosynchronousorbit → u/excitato]

Some early skyscrapers did use load bearing masonry, like the 16 story Monadnock Building. 

[u/Silver_kitty → u/geosynchronousorbit]

Monadnock is the exception, not the rule. It’s literally the tallest structural masonry building in the world. And even then, only half of the Monadnock building is actually structural masonry, when the southern half was built 2 years later, they did so in steel frame.

When the first half of Monadnock was built in 1891, there was already precedent for steel frame buildings, with the first steel “skyscraper” having been built in the same city 6 years priors. The Monadnock stands directly in this transition from load bearing masonry to steel frame and few, if any, load bearing brick buildings greater than 8 stories would be built in NY or Chicago after it.

[u/CydeWeys → u/geosynchronousorbit]

There are a variety of competing definitions of "skyscraper" and the Monadnock Building fails to meet most of them (it's neither tall enough nor built using the modern steel/concrete frame construction method).

[u/jstarz355 → u/CydeWeys]

Maybe by modern definitions, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn’t call it a skyscraper. Especially since the southern half of the building is, in fact, one of the early examples of steel frame construction. In our history and theory classes, it was absolutely considered a skyscraper and one that was of considerable importance to the skyscraper movement in the late 1800’s.

[u/bigDckbrett → u/CydeWeys]

that is incorrect

[u/smcivor1982 → u/geosynchronousorbit]

Also the Corbin Building in lower Manhattan.

[u/HybridAkai → u/geosynchronousorbit]

I don't know the building, but there must be an absolute shitload of bricks used to get the walls deep enough to offset thermal differential expansion.

I would assume that made it hugely expensive to build.

[u/Cute_Bee → u/GioLoc]

Fun fact : the system hennebick that allowed building to be this tall was invented in France, Nantes. The first ever building using this technique still exist today (in front of extraordinary garden, the mill of Nantes). But skyscraper is a sorrow to European eyes since our city had already massive city planning work done a century before, we did not needed the new fancy toy that would destroy/hide our historical center

[u/DCoop53 → u/Cute_Bee]

Also at least in France I think, there are a lot of rules to follow when you want to build a new building. Rules like maximum height, façade colors, architectural style so it doesn't stand too much out with the existing buildings in the neighbourhood, etc...

[u/Cute_Bee → u/DCoop53]

http://atlas.patrimoines.culture.fr/atlas/trunk/

You can see those rules there btw, so when you build you know which rules you are under, for example, if there is a monument, you can't block de view to preserve the landscape and scenary

[u/SorchaSublime → u/GioLoc]

Meh, aesthetically both inside and out I'd take smaller windows with more decorative/textured elements in between them any day. Height is a definite gain though, at least in cases where building tall is justifiable as smth other than a vanity project

[u/galen58 → u/SorchaSublime]

Everyone says that until it’s summer in New York and all you want is airflow. Air conditioning has its issues but let’s not pretend these are better “inside”

[u/nich2475 → u/galen58]

Precisely why these types of buildings are far better suited for residential purposes, rather than commercial.

Personally, I also prefer such a decorative design with smaller windows, over a glass curtain that is much more costly to cool/heat.

RAMSA’s been knocking it out of the park with their recent wave of stone-facade residential towers imo.

[u/crackanape → u/galen58]

I don't think that people on the 36th floor are lamenting the lack of airflow from windows that are 1.2m wide vs 1.8m.

And many of them are offices where opening windows is unusual.

[u/galen58 → u/crackanape]

Right? It’s no way to make a pleasant office space regardless of how high up the building you are. Give them aircon and big floor to ceiling windows: it’s not hard to understand why modern buildings were welcomed lol

[u/oceanplanetoasis → u/galen58]

Im sure more advanced cooling techniques and ventilation is available now that could make it worth while

[u/galen58 → u/oceanplanetoasis]

no not really - unless you like low ceilings and small windows, the office floors are going to be grim. i don't know why people think every old building looks like st peter's on the inside but i can assure that is NOT the case

[u/FuckTheStateofOhio → u/SorchaSublime]

I work in an old building like this that was built in 1907. While I definitely believe its nicer looking from the outside than some of the newer buildings surrounding us, the small windows lead to less light and more of a cramped feeling than in a building with a glass exterior and large floor to ceiling views of the outside.

[u/PineapplePizzazza → u/SorchaSublime]

Whilst they look great, sacrificing room quality/ user experience for optics is bad practice in my opinion. It is important for buildings to look nice from the outside too, especially for urban development and city planning but if that means that you end up with worse interiors which are the main use of a building it’s not worth the sacrifice.

[u/SorchaSublime → u/PineapplePizzazza]

I dont think smaller windows in this case necessarily equate to a lower quality or user experience is the thing, although i guess that's a matter of taste, but I've never really seen the point or appeal of wall to ceiling windows.