Why do Scandinavian cities lack skyscrapers?

Why do Scandinavian cities lack skyscrapers?

i want to kick your fat stupid arse

We don't want ugly skyscrapers here.

90% of the world lacks skyscrapers, they are ugly and ruin the landscape, you are the odd ones amerifreedoms.

We are too stupid to build them. That's propably what you are asking for?

Scyscrapers are built for either
1) need to cram as much housing and office space as possible in small area due to its worth/large population compared to land area
2) pointless symbol for power

Hey, they're pretty popular in Asia too. Guess they both need to compensate for something.

you are not allowed to build buildings taller than the church spire

cloud is so low.
its different to us

Oslo is located on an uneven clay ground or something like that. So there's a limit to how tall buildings can safely be built.

My city has one building that's kind of a skyscraper and holy fucking hell is it an eyesore

better question, why do Scandinavian cities insist on building horrific Brutalist architecture to cover up their beautiful 18th and 19th century buildings?

A better question would be: why is Scandinavian architecture so bland?

Too many earthquakes

in sweden you are not able to legally build a skyscraper in certain cities.
i hate all modern design like pic rel

all our 'skyscrapers' are located in örestad

how is it bland?

Because it's not 3rd world

That shit burned down, rip in piss. The new one is pretty okay, it's this unorthodox rust/chrome blobby cylinder, google kth new architecture building or something.

t. Used to visit with my mom when she studied to become an architect

Not enough space to build them. Scandinavia is already on the edge of the map.

They wouldn't fit skyscrapers there.

Fell for modernist functionalism meme. It's honestly soul destroying.

ok but the practice is still going on, I was in Stockholm in September and this shit is depressing. They build new buildings that emulate our 45 year old crumbling shitboxes that we can't get rid of

Yes, it's awful. The building you posted is just iconic for being the school of architecture, so at least we got rid of that horrible symbol.

no kikes to pump up the land prices

>how is it bland?

Your modern buildings seem build to be strictly practical, they look "clean" and boring. Minimalism is okay sometimes, but it's overdone in Scandinavia.

Ah i thought you talked about older architecture. I agree with you on the modern one

brutalist architecture is actually pretty rare in sweden. your pic is one of the few examples of it.

there's also Kaknästornet and pic related, but apart from those, I haven't seen much brutalism here.

>inb4 if it's ugly, it's brutalism

in most european cities in general there are no skyscrapers because they are old and there are laws about preserving the historical skyline, you cannot build tall modern buildings too close to historical landmarks.
thats why for example in Poland we have skyscrapers only in Warsaw, it was completly leveled by Germans in WW II so most buildings are new and laws about preserving historical buildings do not apply.

extreme poverty

>those buildings
>clean
Wow what a shithole

each scandinavian countries has the population of like 1000 so no point of having them to begin with

We Swedes do this because we are a bad country and can not afford skyscrapers I think. Some Swedes are jealous of you're success USA

Brutalism is particularly a British thing, they went nuts with it in the 1960s.

My little town has some but I hate every single one, skyscrapers are just an awful concept

pretty sure you could build them, but you'd have to bribe every crybaby that wants attention for contrarian drama
Because you have to apply for a permit to build tall things that annoy everyone in the area, and "relevant" people have to approve of it being in their face all day every day.

Its not necessary, we need more cheap housing not towers.

It was really prominent here. We even have a calling for the phenomenon. "Turku disease" as our old capital Turku got hit so heavily by it like 30-40% of very historically beautiful buildings were replaced by headache inducing brutalist or modernist turds.

This was done because the city had a problem with rapid increase in population so it was cheaper to replace old buildings with more compact but still more spacey commieblocks or something along those lines.

only way around this is if you call it a grand mosque and build it smack in the middle of Helsinki skyline.
then it's racist to object to it, unless you're the other version of muslim that threatens to bomb it.

perhaps "brutalist" is not the right word but I did see a bunch of new or new-ish ugly dark brown square buildings that resemble our commie blocks only they were smaller and not covered in graffiti. I was told that there's a bit of a housing issue in Stockholm so maybe they're trying to build new shit fast

Because NYC sits on top of some very strong bedrock that can handle the weight of a skyscraper.

In most of European cities you cannot build taller structures than the local cathedral in order to preserve the historical skyline

Why would anyone need them in the first place?
Even a massivly dense populated cunt like Germany just has one city with a few skyscrapers.

everybody is rushing to build skyscrapers here before the city council bans them and designates special zones for them

the modern residental buildings have been built in many different "waves".

the first one was in the 50-60's. these buildings were modernist, but they still had high quality and offered a high living standard. these neighbourhoods are still good places to live.

then we had a wave in the late 60's to the 70's, known as "miljonprogrammet". these buildings were a lot cheaper and uglier. today many of these neighbourhoods have turned into ghettos. these buildings are the very definition of commieblocks.

the building wave we're currently experiencing has abandoned modernism entirely: it's 100% postmodern, both in terms of planning and in terms of architecture. today they don't build neighbourhoods from scratch anymore. instead they densify older neighbourhoods (ruining them, imo).

pic related a typical 50-60's neighbourhood. imo it's excellent. I live in one of these neighbourhoods myself, and I love it. keep in mind that the newly planted trees still hadn't grown big in this pic, so it's a lot greener today.

REAL skyscrapers coming through!

>it was completly leveled by Germans in WW II

???

...

it's a socialist thing, search "brutalism" in Wikipedia to get the answer

Same here it looks so out of place

Upvote. Political correctness had truly gone MAD!!!!

Socialist urban planning

To contrast the way of the future every combines density with the typical amenities within walking distance

I guess the takeaway from this thread is that Nords don't build many skyscrapers because when they do, it's a fucking shitheap.

Also because no one builds sexy scyscrapers anymore.

That's cool. It kind of looks like it's on fire when you look at the thumbnail

Try again ;)

Indeed

Kill me

they want the yimby vote

For a start your city needs to be relevant enough to need a skyscraper.

Those cities are build for people who walk around on two feet.

Not for drones and meme pictures.

all buildings with more than 4 floors should be burned down

...