/urban/ + /architecture/

Discuss urban developement, design, planning, urbanization, growth and future of cities, urban life style etc. All discussions about architecture, it's impact on daily life, trends(both historical and contemporary), new projects and anything related to architecture in general, are welcomed here aswell.


Post pics of cities, urban areas, buildings, physical structures, infrastructure also construction sites and renders. Comment and rate.

Other urls found in this thread:

no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

/balt/

HOW DO WESTERNERS EVEN COMPETE

...

>mfw not living in Deutschland

...

...

...

The Singer Tower

The GE building

...

The Ansonia Hotel

not bad

That's BIG.

The Kheel Tower

Hamburg

MURRICA

>mfw it's actually happening

>Sweden is slowly growing larger while Norway is stuck in the past
WRYYY

...

Barcode in itself is pretty much done now, and there's only one high-rise left to be built in the area as a whole, seen at the edge here.

Starts construction later this year, but after that's done, nothing for God knows how long.

low density and population doesn't justify building skyscrapers

Maybe they should take in more immigrants? :D

yes thats the solution

>be germany
>have low pop growth rate
>see the UK and France potentially can outgrow them
>take in gorillion refugees in order to maintain the domination over Europe

Unfortunately Oslo isn't low on population density.

Overall the city has a density of 1,400/km2, but taking into account that 2⁄3 of the city is just forest, parks and lakes (which is all protected land btw), the real density would equal 5221,6/km2.

It's constantly growing, and trapped by its nature with nowhere to expand.

>Unfortunately Oslo isn't low on population density
but it's still a relatively small city and a small economy

building a lot of highrises there simply isn't sustainable

It's the country's capital and economic powerhouse with an urban area of almost 1 million.

Taking this into account with the density factor, I think it would be very sustainable. Problem is that you're only legally allowed to build up to 42m in the city, and anything above takes making a deal with the devil to get approved.

Sao Paulo

>It's the country's capital and economic powerhouse with an urban area of almost 1 million.
almost no "almost 1 million" city has any significant skyscrapers desu

...

...

the blandest megalopolis on earth?

Prince charles' new village: poundbury

bringing british back into britain

some qt english town

Rotterdam has a marginally larger urban, and you see how that looks. City itself is even smaller than Oslo. In population within city boundaries, Frankfurt, Lyon, and Manchester are all comparable to Oslo, and yet are of larger scale despite not even being the capitals of their respective countries (which is a title that makes a city all the more important).

Then you have European capital cities that are smaller than Oslo, such as Vilnius and Tallinn, which have small, but proper clusters. Riga too has overall quite a few towers. Helsinki is currently building towers.

And this is just in Europe alone. Bringing in comparable cities outside such as Seattle or Quebec is just painful.

Yes but I'm still a boo for it for some reason. I guess I just like the grit.

t bh all the architecture past art deco and until neo-futurism is trash tier

...

neo traditionalism is so hot right now

...

Actually, even Vancouver is smaller.

JUST

nequarter in sweden

...

new quarter*

...

more poundbury

>Rotterdam has a marginally larger urban, and you see how that looks.
Rotterdam has a pop density of 2900/km2 and it's a largest port in Europe
>Frankfurt
2900/km2 pop density and 2mln+ urban population also a financial centre of continental Europe
>Lyon
does it even have skyscrapers lol
>Manchester
pretty much non skyline aswell
>Vilnius
literally 0 skyscrapers proper
>Tallinn
??
>Riga
???
>Seattle
pop density 3000+/km2 urban population of 3mln+ also fucking Boeing, Microsoft and Amazon among the others
>Quebec
what is this

>sao paulo boo
but well I'm a Dubaiboo and rank it as 1-3 best skyline in the world when the others rank it trash
density 5000+/km2 urban population 2mln+

SP doesn't even make the top ten for skylines but I still like the concrete jungle vibe it gives off. As for Dubai I've always been more of a Doha fan. Dubai is nice though.

I don't want to be rude but are these pics for ants?

>SP doesn't even make the top ten for skylines
it doesn't even make the top twenty, it doesn't make anywhere

but yeah it's a real concrete jungle

Sorry m8. if you do an imagensearch i think there are higher res somewhere.

Here, have a palace instead

looks kind of "russian" like these palaces in st petersburg

whoa that city is urban hell. It has abaolutely no pilot plan, you just get random high rises every fucking where. same with all brazilian cities, except rio's historic center, i guess .Were it not historical, qould be destroyed and taken over by dumbass high rises very fast.

South American cities don't ever have any defining buildings that make a skyline. Santiago might have a chance if they keep building buildings like torre Santiago. Hopefully SP and Buenos Aires will actually build more of a cluster of tall modern buildings. BA I think is actually trying.

holy shit Brazil is a hellhole isn't it

>Rotterdam has a pop density of 2900/km2
vs 5222/km2. But it being the largest port in Europe is fair game.

>2900/km2 pop density
See above.

>pretty much non skyline aswell
No, but it still has 4 towers over 100 meters, one over 150.

>literally 0 skyscrapers proper
They have a tower of 129m, and a decent build-up of smaller ones around.

>??
Tallinn has 3 towers over 100m, and a small cluster around those.

>???
Riga has 3 towers over 100m, and a few under construction.

>pop density 3000+/km2 urban population of 3mln+
Still lower density than Oslo, though of course important.

>what is this
Well, it has something of a skyline. Much more than Oslo ever had.

I still hold my stance that a regionally important city, capital and largest city of a major oil economy, with a pop. density of over 5000 and nowhere to expand, should be allowed more than two towers of over 100m. Never mind the huge gap from that to third tallest building, which is 67m.

...

...

What counts as a significant skyscraper? 150+ m?

>tfw Amsterdam got cucked by Schiphol and can't build anything higher than 80 m now

Luckily there are still some 100+ m projects in development

What do you actually define as a skyline, if that there isn't? It's a fuck-ton of tall buildings creating a definite urban horizon. Never mind it being far from pretty, but why is it not a proper skyline?

>That's Japan town
I g-guess it's somewhat clean by hue standards

>vs 5222/km2
hahahaha nope Oslo is 1400/km2

anynway isn't Barcode better than all these shits like Vilnus, Riga or Tallinn

yes. Don't worry though, it's not simple lack of planning.

If it is like my city, sp's problem is simple corruption. building's height will never be restricted because labd developers will never allow it.

There is a guy here who develops euro style apartments, but even he is giving up to towers because they're just so much more profitable.

Pic related is two mins feom my house. It's full muh heritage but it's better than shit towers

alao sorry for potato quality, have a french statue and aome mansard roofs

>What counts as a significant skyscraper? 150+ m?
150m is a skyscraper proper but people in Europe call skyscrapers all the highrises lol
any city technically has a "skyline"

but usually when you talk about skylines(like we are doing here) you mean skyscrapers making up for a easily distinguishable silhouette

pic rel is le "proper" skyline

...

there isn't ONE residential high rise that has the right to exist

...

and where do you put all these people?

>hahahaha nope Oslo is 1400/km2
Jesus Christ m8, do you even read my posts.

no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo
>Oslo er kjent for sin topografiske særegenhet, og sin berggrunn. Byen preges av nærhet til skog og mark, og av et rikt plante- og dyreliv. 2⁄3 av kommunens areal utgjores av skog og vannområder utenfor selve bybebyggelsen, noe som gir en reell befolkningstetthet på 5221,6 innbyggere pr. km2.

Just paste that into Google translate. And look at my pic from 16 years ago while you're at it, from a time when Oslo's urban area was 763,957 vs the current 942,084.

>anynway isn't Barcode better than all these shits
It's a small wall, that while it sure looks nice, doesn't give a proper skyline impact.

dude you can go and cherrypick the dense are like this in every single fucking city

Warsaw has a density of 6k+ if I cherrypick the central districts

lots of mid rises

and where do you fit these midrises for 10 million people?

Thing with Warsaw is that the city boundaries aren't 66% uninhabited natural fauna. What there is of Oslo that makes the city, where people live, where all the buildings are, that's what's key. That's what's important. That's what makes the real difference. It can't expand, and that dense city, not the forest around it, is scheduled to grow to 850,000 by 2030.

66% of the city is uninhabited?

how's that even possible?

also Warsaw has a fuckton of forests, but not 66%

Seoul residential areas look like shit. Jap cities do it far better.

well they do though a lot of japanese buildings look bland aswell

Kek, have you ever actually been to Seoul? That city consists of 90% so called "Villas", 3~4 story tiny apartment buildings.

Pic very much related.

Because the municipality borders (which is what Wikipedia uses to do a simple calculation) =/= actual city, which is what I've been presenting so far

Basically, Oslo just has a lot of unused clay. Clay that can't be used, because it's protected. This city is cockblocked by its surrounding nature.

fine, some low talls are allowed. but only for japan ok?

not really 90% though

that was Korea
like look pic rel

>Copenhagen has a density of 6.8k/km2

wtf don't tell me scandinavian cities are actually dense

new project in Budapest

location today

By 2020

Also note this is pretty big deal relatively, in most parts of the city theres a 45m height limit, in some outern districts 65m, while 80-120m towers are planned here

modernism/10

also v4 when

Gangnam and Seocho aren't really representative of the rest of the city. And even those are filled with villas. Take a look at the city on google maps and you'll see what I mean.

Not trying to bash the city, I loved it there, but it really isn't comparable to Hong Kong or Singapore and the likes of them in any way.

Well, Copenhagen is flat, barren and in the tiniest country. It's not hard to achieve with those criteria.

is it really 90% "villas"? isn't there like a fuckton of commies too?

HOW DO WESTERNERS EVEN

COMPETE

...

>tfw no stupid eurocentrists itt to trigger with le feng shui

needs more greenery desu

I remember the times when it was posted everytim in /urban/

ded?

I pulled the 90% out of my ass, so I wouldn't know. I'm pretty sure it's the majority though.