
Why skyscraper architects always return to Art Deco - gscott
https://propertylistings.ft.com/propertynews/new-york-united-states/6271-why-skyscraper-architects-always-return-to-art-deco-.html
======
timerol
Note that zoning in NYC requires the step backs that you see. It allows the
full building footprint to X height (based maybe on the width of the street),
and then is based on an angle formula, where for every additional Y feet
requires a further setback of Z feet, resulting in the stepped-top towers that
exist all over Manhattan. Like all zoning, it claims a cute origin story
(allowing sunlight to reach the street), but also had the motivation of
keeping rents high by limiting additional construction.

From [https://old.skyscraper.org/zoning/](https://old.skyscraper.org/zoning/),
on the reason for the support of zoning in Manhattan:

"There were two major causes for this shift, both rooted in the drive to
stabilize real estate values. The first was the concern about overbuilding in
lower Manhattan, both in the increased scale of such mammoth new structures as
the Equitable Building at 120 Broadway and in the rate of vacant office space.
The second was the lobbying of the Fifth Avenue Association, a powerful group
of merchants, hotel operators, and business interests that was organized in
1907 to fight the spread of loft buildings into the fashionable retail
district north of Thirty-fourth Street."

~~~
eloff
Do you have a source for the claim that it was intentionally to keep rents
high? That's contrary to the goals of most city planners, and would require
corrupt influences.

While it's not impossible, it is a conspiracy theory, and requires evidence.

~~~
43t344efsg
>That's contrary to the goals of most city planners.

Odd claim given the outcome of their policies.

~~~
smallnamespace
Yes, because city planners, like software engineers, always design their
systems to an exact spec with no unintended consequences.

------
polygotdomain
This seams to me to be a "wet streets cause rain" story. To start, I'd say a
large percentage of skyscrapers are not Art Deco, and proposing that
architects "always" return to that style seems like an overstatement at best.

More importantly though, there's a lot more limitiations in sky scraper design
because your working with a long skinny form, which will for regulatory and
structural reasons likely have some tapering towards the top. That design
languages fits in very well with the long linear forms in Art Deco.

It seems to me that the author is reading into that quite a bit, and
interpreting designs as being art deco when in fact that's not likely the
case. The Petronas Towers, which are referenced at the end of the article were
not designed to be art deco, but are an overlay of squares and other islamic
motifs [1], with setbacks being necessary for structural reasons.

The author also seems to basing this based on a lot of sky scrapers from New
York City, which contains more Art Deco than most cities do. You could argue
that modern sky scrapers in NY pull more of that influence in because of
context, than being something that Architects "always" come back to.

1 - [https://www.archute.com/petronas-towers-worlds-tallest-
twin-...](https://www.archute.com/petronas-towers-worlds-tallest-twin-towers-
cesar-pelli/)

~~~
throwaway5750
I was going to say the same thing - the question seems to have a New York City
bias to it. A lot of NYC buildings were built during a period where Art Deco
was popular, and some newer buildings have been built to "fit in" to their
environment, which has meant adopting the Art Deco style.

But is it true that, say, architects in Chinese cities always return to Art
Deco? After glancing at photos in image search, it doesn't look like it -
Chinese cities are largely modern glass skyscrapers.

------
im3w1l
I think a big thing that makes for nice architecture is making it look
organic. And life has a fractal look to it. That is, there are features to
admire at all scales.

Often you will see show-off skyscrapers have a big bold shape, but then
completely neglect the other scales.

~~~
te_chris
I've been thinking about this a lot in terms of urban housing. Maybe it's just
too expensive now, but modern houses just look like cheap painted boxes inside
and out. There's no attention to small details, no flourishes or
embellishment. It's depressing, especially compared to mass built housing from
pre WWII.

All over the world it seems to be ther older neighbourhoods and houses that
are most sought after. I used to think this was snobbiness, just the benefit
of time (larger, more full trees etc), but the more I look, the actual built
environment of these buildings is a lot more pleasent as well, especially if
you consider them against what would be an equivalent new build.

~~~
frosted-flakes
As far as exteriors go, at least in North America, a lot of houses have a
garage with a giant overhead door out front and centre, with the actual house
set back behind the garage. This means there are very few windows that face
the street, the entire structure feels unbalanced and awkward, it
unnecessarily complicates the roofline, and they're just plain ugly.

There's an easy solution to this: integrate the garage _inside_ the house, not
as a box bolted on to the front, and make the overhead door smaller. There's
no reason for the door to be 15 feet wide and 10 feet high if you only need to
fit a single car through it—an 8 foot square door is plenty. This has a _huge_
effect on the end result.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> if you only need to fit a single car through it

A lot of garages in the United States are 2 car garages where the cars are
parked side by side. So you need a wide garage door to get the cars in and
out.

~~~
function_seven
True, but I rarely see people park 2 cars in their "2-car garages". Even
rarer, 3 cars in a 3-car garage.

Usually the extra space is used as a workshop or for storage. I would love to
have a 2- or 3-car garage with just an 8-ft door off to one side. The rest of
the elevation could be either a nice big window, or a large porch.

Yeah, I suppose this arrangement would hurt resale value. But it would look
nicer.

I like how my neighborhood handles it. The garages are set back behind the
houses, with the driveways running alongside the houses. When you look at it
from the street, the house is front-and-center, rather than the car storage
box. Also a big fan of alleys with the garage facing that way.

~~~
catalogia
> _Usually the extra space is used as a workshop_

When used as a workspace, those massive garage doors come in very handy. They
make it easy to get a lot of airflow through the garage and move large
equipment or the product of your project in and out without having to squeeze
past whatever car is also parked there. They may not look nice, but those
large doors are very practical.

~~~
function_seven
I'm definitely not knocking the practicality of a huge door. They sure are
handy. Just much nicer when they're tucked back behind the main building of
the house. Or facing sideways if you have the lot width to accommodate.

------
cjf4
To me, Art Deco stands out in modern skylines in part because it is
distinctive. I don't think the glass covered skyscrapers that are sprouting up
in every growing city are as ugly as their detractors say, but they do all
look the same.

Of course, more distinctive architecture can also get repetitive (the
referenced tiering in NY or Haussmann buildings in Paris), but at least they
are distinctive to that place.

------
laurex
When I lived in NYC, I was regularly amazed at the level of detail buildings
built 1890-1940 had and how completely disposable most modern architecture
seemed relatively. On the West Coast, very few buildings have any of this
sense of gravity and permanence, with a few major works being exceptions (the
library in Seattle; the library in Vancouver, BC; and even some very modern
but more elaborate designs (e.g. by Frank Gehry) come to mind). I can't
imagine the cost of building something like the Chrysler Building today
compared to One Vanderbilt, Hudson Yards, or so many other big buildings in
the US- even if their shape has a nod to Deco. Mostly they seem to reflect the
idea that a lot of glass makes up for their general lack of distinction.

------
tfinniga
I'd heard people say that the architecture of a city is usually frozen in the
time when it had the most money.

If you look at the skyscrapers and other buildings from Zaha Hadid, they're
not Art Deco. UAE and other countries which are currently building out
significantly aren't sticking just to Art Deco. London is interesting in that
they've had money pouring in for a long time, and have an eclectic mix of
large buildings.

------
jackcosgrove
I think what really sets Art Deco apart, and what makes it closer to what came
before than what came after, are the decorative embellishments. These are what
make the buildings engaging at the street level.

Can an architect here comment on the cost of such embellishments, such as
terra cotta molding or mosaic friezes? Is it prohibitive, is it simply a "nice
to have" that's never had for property developers, or is there a stylistic
bias against embellishment?

~~~
ohnope
It’s a number of factors. School programs are biased against embellishment so
there isn’t really a craft in the profession around those kind of stylistic
detail, especially at graduate level. BIM software also plays a role. The
trade is forever streamlining itself technically, and construction systems
with their CAD part catalogs thin out selection. Depending on the development
goals, throwback details may not fit with how they plan to market the
building.

And pretty much all of the above contribute to added costs of perusing
embellishment on the core and shell. Lack of design techniques, construction
know how, and off the shelf options will drive prices up. Developers would
prefer to spend money on interior build out because it sells sq footage.

------
unethical_ban
I never knew what Art Deco was, or its etymology. It is one of those things I
have always heard, but never known. I think it was a style of card faces in
Solitaire back on Windows 95.

Interesting to learn also, that the steeple-like design of skyscrapers has the
functional purpose, with questionable efficacy, of allowing sunlight to hit
pavement.

~~~
theandrewbailey
Art Deco encompasses more domains than skyscrapers and architecture.
Sculpture, painting, and industrial design can also be Art Deco.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_deco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_deco)

------
webwielder2
Every blocky architectural style looks like Art Deco if you squint hard
enough. I've heard it said that Art Deco isn't even a style unto itself; it's
more of a feeling evoked by other styles.

------
trhway
6-7 stories is practically a skyscraper here in SV, and thus art deco too
[https://merlonegeier.propertycapsule.com/property/output/ima...](https://merlonegeier.propertycapsule.com/property/output/image/photo/id:1570/width:1250/height:758/)

------
rsync
I believe the Wells Fargo center (formerly Norwest center) building in
Minneapolis is the most beautiful Art Deco skyscraper:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_Center_(Minneapoli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_Center_\(Minneapolis\))

------
nautilus12
Im a bit disappointed. I thought it was going to say there is some element of
structural engineering that lends itself towards the art deco style the same
way people say there is a biological reason for humanoids in star wars

------
rbanffy
It's obviously a rhetorical question, but I think I can answer. It's caused a
of three things: taste, desire to innovate, and courage to try something new.

------
neonate
[https://archive.vn/Ipgb7](https://archive.vn/Ipgb7)

