tirsdag den 24. maj 2011

Copenhagen + towers?

There has long been a healthy debate on whether to build tall buildings in downtown Copenhagen. And with high-rise buildings refer mainly hosted the Copenhagen City Hall, ie. houses over 100 meters. Supporters of the skyscraper project, talking to Copenhagen can "fire" in this way and that the city will have a strong international profile. Opponents point out that it would mar the city, and his other architecture. Before I get into the discussion, I would simply raise the question, is there a need for more apartments in Copenhagen? So far as I could read to me, things are quite sluggish sales of all the many newly built properties in Ørestaden (which currently is one of the saddest and stagnated image can be obtained by modern architecture.)
I will briefly outline the history of Copenhagen up. The city arose around the village of Port as Bishop Absalon from 1167 did consolidate, and in 1416 was Erik of Pomerania to Denmark's capital Copenhagen. Later, the Christian 4.s regime in 1479, was expanded urban area and a number of monumental buildings were erected. City context, however extensive damage during major fires, respectively. 1728 and 1795, these fires accounted for the destruction of most of the old medieval town, also came in significant damage by fire bomb the British bombardment in 1807.
If we then compare with the cities where tall buildings and skyscrapers dominate, then we throw a look at America. Here skyscrapers shot up in style around the 30s with a pioneer and front man in the person of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969), who was a professor in Chicago in 1938-52. The U.S. had actually seen no lack of space, but they built in height to impress and demonstrate his abilities to the world, so it was a way to mark themselves, and gather his people on a common idea about the brave new world and its technical ability. Denmark has had the same idea, however many hundreds of years earlier and through various architectural phases. But throughout this period, I think that Copenhagen has selected and profiled itself as an image of typical European Classicist town planning and architecture. Denmark did not brew for a few huge skyscrapers. If, in the same breath, look at the cities where only a few skyscrapers stand, they should easily be transformed into scaremongering. One should not cast many glances at neighboring town of Malmo to see what I mean. A city with a relatively low profile, and so a single very narrow skyscraper: malplacering best drawer. There must be rich in Copenhagen room for interesting and challenging architecture - in this area we should better "brand" ourselves, but to build a single tower would be inappropriate and disproportionate. Now I hope I have given the impression that I am a big fan of skyscrapers, they can be incredibly aesthetic, dramatic and elegant, but they are just at home in bunches. The metropolitan center offers. Not in a classical city, which instead may assert itself with modern, unconventional architecture, at reasonable altitudes.

Here is the description of the two examples reproduced on the page (and can be downloaded in one large size). One is proof of good integrated architecture, and another there, in my view, is an example of the opposite. Let's start with the bad example. Here are Norman Foster "Gerkin" in central London. Skyscraper is incredibly beautiful and innovative in many ways, for example, with a special regard for the environment. But as it looks here from one of London's smaller streets, not far away, it can be seen clearly how wrong it looks. London is an incredible city, but with a tiny center of skyscrapers, so the London skyline, like Copenhagen, relatively flat. That the building can be seen wherever you are, make that one must constantly take a position on it. And why are the kinds buplanlægning not rocket science. It's a bit like to plant a bed in the garden. You start in front of small plants as building it gradually up to greater and greater heights, as you can see it in some cities, such as New York, which surely is one of the skyscraper home towns.
The second example I would not say so much about, but simply let the images speak for themselves. Here is architecture in the heavy league, it's Frank Gehry strange forms, and abstract dekonstruktivisme is at stake - namely the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao. An architecture which do not check in just by height, but does so in a much more refined way.