Joseph Maugeri, IDC 4001H

First, let’s take a look at the island of Manhattan.

There are skyscrapers, luxurious apartment buildings, tenement buildings, restaurants etc. But obviously Manhattan wasn’t always like this, there used to be townhouses and buildings no more than 5 stories high. Why the change? Well I’m sure all of us know the answer to that; more people and better building technologies led to the supply and demand of larger buildings that need to house more people. Some might argue that there was simply a need for big buildings and so we built them. Some might argue that these architectural feats don’t carry much, if any, symbolism with them.

I disagree.

When I look at the Manhattan skyline, I see forward progress. I never really understood why until just now. The big mess of large buildings tightly packed together is actually very beautiful. During the day the buildings sit high, sometimes into the clouds. They seem impossibly large and I picture millions of Americans sitting in offices and hustling and bustling around. It feels massive, chaotic, and strong. Juxtapose this image with the Parisian skyline

Small, older buildings that mostly don’t rise past 10 stories and a single Eiffel Tower that sits at 1,063 feet (which really isn’t that big) and is clearly the most prominent figure in the city. Now when I look at Paris, I see a mostly quaint city with people strolling around at night and enjoying themselves. Having been there, I know that is not entirely the case but I feel it is obviously calmer than Manhattan.

Now I am not saying that either of these is better, I just feel that each of them are different. But how can I feel that they are different simply by thinking about each of their skylines?

I feel that the buildings are symbols, whether it was a conscious/calculated decision or not. I picture the Empire State Building and I think of a relatively plain, square building that houses offices and is kind of boring architecturally. Yes it’s very tall but I feel that’s really it, whether that’s an ignorant thought or not is up to you. But when I think of Notre Dame Cathedral, I think of a building I could stare at for hours, with the statues on the front that tell a story that would take hours to explain. Then inside is one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen. But that was the point of the building; it was supposed to be beautiful. In my opinion the Empire State building is more impressively large than truly beautiful.

I happen to mostly agree with Sudjic, that buildings have meaning more than their initial purposes of sheltering humans from the environment. Specifically in his analysis of 9/11 and the fact that the Towers were targeted specifically for their massive size and symbol of global power. They were ‘an iconic power or architecture’ and he goes onto say how the terrorists wanted to ‘destabilize the power through a forceful measure of erasure.’ He also talks about how the rebuild efforts also symbolize the power for America to bounce back and be unharmed from the attacks e.g. having the height of the new building be 1776 ft. Architecture and symbolism go mostly hand in hand, I feel. Whether it is on purpose or a side product is another discussion though.

Plus I just wanted to add this article because I think it is interesting to see how people feel about Paris adding skyscrapers.

http://www.dw.de/will-paris-plan-to-build-12-new-skyscrapers-ruin-the-city/a-16960617